Open main menu


Speedy Deletion on Greg Guirard's WikipageEdit

Hello Sphilbrick. Thanks for your tips on creating an article ensuring it won´t be deleted. I recently discovered Greg Guirard's work and was shocked that he didn´t have a wikipage, therefore I am determined to fill that gap. I have re-created it from schatch and would be very thankful if you could have a look at it: Greg Guirard Thank you very much.Caravasar(Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

April editathons at Women in RedEdit

Removing Cooper's donuts infoEdit

I object to the removal. I mean I gave a reference and it's information that's lacking. What's wing with letting the public see the truth??? Photolarry (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I work hard to try to give correct information. It's unfair to remove this further documentation Photolarry (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Photolarry, Referencing isn't sufficient; in general, you have to write your own words. The material that was added was a pure copy and paste. Let me know if you think the source wasn't copyrighted. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That was the whole point....I did copy and paste because I wanted the referenced quote to be word for word. I thought that was better. Now you say that is not? That I should alter the wording? Because I can change a few of the words if that will get you to leave the content in tact for historical purposes. This is not documented much. I was merely trying to expand information on this incident. Photolarry (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)photolarry I have entered one sentence with a slight change to quote of the first line and then a reference link. Is that better?? Photolarry (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)photolarry


Hi, i've noticed that you deleted my edits on Electronic fingerprint recognition. I think you should delete the corresponding edits on Fingerprint, as the content you deleted was copy-pasted from that article. Pancho507 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Pancho507, If you copy that material from an existing Wikipedia article, that's acceptable, but it must be done in a particular way as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia. Is that what happened? S Philbrick(Talk) 11:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

very cool tableEdit

I really appreciate you putting all that time and effort into that. I wouldn't even know how to begin - but I was curious. I thank you. — Ched :  ?  — 18:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Let me thank you also here for it. Zezen (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Cal State LA articleEdit

SPhilbrick, I see you removed content from the Cal State LA article earlier today. I've been following the IP-hopping editor revising the article for the last couple days, and have growing concerns that much of the content he/she is adding is plagiarized from the university website and/or catalog. I haven't had time to check carefully yet, but the new section on the university badge was clearly lifted from Public Affairs' webpage. At the moment, I just wanted to give you a heads up about this since you've already acted on the article, but it may need semi-protection log enough to clear out the copyvios if my suspicions prove out. ----Dr.Margi 20:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Drmargi, Thanks for the heads up. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

  Administrator changes

  28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

  Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

  Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Bhangarh FortEdit

I think you accidentally reinstated the original COPYVIOs. So I rolled it back to a previous version before these were added by User:Mac19875426. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

LuckyLouie, very possible, I'm trying to edit while watching my grandson, and may have missed something. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Well you caught the copyvios that I didn’t previously notice, so you’re doing OK despite distractions;) -LuckyLouie (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Illuminae Edit revisionEdit

Hi! I'm new to the whole Wikipedia editing and my plot summary section was reverted. I compared what I had added to other book wiki pages and they also had a section of the publisher's summary written verbatim so I was under the assumption that it was allowed. Is it because I titled the section incorrectly? Like should it have been "synopsis" instead. Or did I cite the wrong website? RiceKristy (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

RiceKristy, The short answer is that including a publisher's summary is generally not allowed. There is an exception for material appropriately licensed (but this is extremely rare in the case of a publisher — in theory it could happen, but I don't recall any such case), or in the case of material that's public domain for other reasons (published prior to 1924, or between 1925 in 1978 under certain circumstances).
That said, I'm not at all surprised by your observation that you have seen other examples of this happening. There are literally tens of thousands of editors adding information in fewer than a dozen people actively watching for copyright issues so I won't be surprised if something slipped through the cracks. Our processes are improving so I wouldn't be surprised by such an instance happening a few years ago while less likely to happen in the last couple years. If you want to point out any such instances, I'll be happy to take a look at them. In general, we want material to be written in the editors own words. That includes books summaries and movie plot summaries. The existence of such summaries written by publishers and places like IMDb make it very easy for someone to copy and paste the material but we are officially opposed to that practice. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Got it, thanks so much for clarifying! RiceKristy (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Economic history of IndiaEdit

The page that you have provided is itself copied from here,the official website of the Indian Ordnance Factories I have copyedited the content. It would be very kind of you if you could restore my edit. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the original source. That source does not appear to be appropriately licensed for use in Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you "copyedited" the content. I guess you mean you made some minor change, rather than 100% copy-paste, but that makes it close paraphrasing, which is still a copyright violation. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me, I meant paraphrasing / rephrasing. The content has dates and names which would be impossible to alter. Plus, it doesn't even look close to the original. I will be very grateful to you if you could help me edit it. Thanks!
Just edited the article, added references too. kindly have a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
We aren't on the same page. It was so close to the original that I had to look very closely to find some changed words. No one expects you to change date or names, but you should put the source aside and write in your own words. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I completely agree with you. In the effort to avoid copy violation, I think I have messed up the content so I did not edit it further. Perhaps you can help me with that whenever you are free, instead of removing the content altogether. English is not my first language and I do tend to make errors here and there. Your help will be highly appreciated. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
If you register an account, you'll get a ping whenever I respond to you so you won't have to keep checking to see if I've posted
I don't think we are communicating well. I looked at your two recent edits in the first sentence of your edit is word for word identical to the source. Can you explain in your own words what you are trying to do? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019Edit

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Cecil B. DeMilleEdit

Hello, I am the editor who has been working on Cecil B. DeMille. Why did you revert my edit with this url as the edit summary I'm not sure how but many hours of my work were reverted, with most of them being individual prose changes and reorganization of passages and sections for more logical flow that I have been making across many edits. BI can no longer revert the change because I made a minor formatting edit before I noticed this issue. Do you have any idea what happened? I am a little upset that I have to redo hours of work manually. The prior edit I had made that you reverted was the minor addition of quotation marks to avoid plagiarism. I don't understand how half of the article was changed. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Skyes(BYU), I reverted your edits because of the copyright violation of material identified as matching the link provided.
If it is your contention that it was not a copyright violation and I was mistaken please explain why and I can undo it if your explanation is satisfactory.
Please be aware that adding quotation marks to avoid plagiarism is not remotely acceptable. I have often had editors explained that they referenced the material as if that resolved a copyright issue.
It is the case that very short quotations if marked as quotations and properly referenced are acceptable but that didn't seem to be the case here. In general, material added should be in your own words. There are exceptions for material that's properly licensed (although that alone does not make it automatically okay) and exceptions for short quotations if they are appropriate as quotations. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Skyes(BYU), I want you to understand that I do appreciate that you put a lot of work into those edits and I hate having to undo so much work but I also can't abide letting copyright issues go. There may be a simple solution. I can restore all of the edits (or you can), and you can fix the copyright issue. Let me know when you are done, and then I can do a revision deletion of the copyrighted material. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey, this is Skyes(BYU). I don’t work on the weekends, but I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the copyright error by rewording the sentence to represent what the author was saying without using quotes or close paraphrasing. I had originally had the sentence the way it was, because I felt that Scott Eyman used the best words to describe DeMille’s style and I wanted to maintain that description because I felt that it was the best way for the reader to understand. I figured having the reference at the end of the sentence and including “According to Scott Eyman” at the beginning was adequate for copyright, but I guess I learn something new every day.
Skyes(BYU), Thanks for your response. Again, I'm sorry that I ended up creating so much work for you.
It is possible that including "according to Scott Eyman" followed by a direct quote in quotation marks would be okay. I confess I did not check closely. I can relook at it if you want but it sounds like you've resolved the situation. Let me add a couple more comments because I think my first response to you was a bit harsh.
I look at hundreds of possible copyright issues every week. It is clear to me that our school system is failing our students based on how often someone simply copies and paste the material and think that's appropriate. A few minutes ago, I just reverted and edit where the editor apparently knew they couldn't just copy and paste but they thought that adding attribution was enough. There are other situations where someone seems to know they can't simply paste and act as if it's their own wording but they think that simply adding quotation marks before and after the passage solves the problem. I probably overreacted to your explanation that you intended to do that. I'm in total agreement that use of a quote is often appropriate, either because there is a delightful turn of phrase that ought to be reproduced, or perhaps the statement itself is a famous bit of history and ought to be shown directly rather than paraphrased. While the judicious use of a short quote constitutes good editing, slapping quotation marks before and after a long passage is lazy editing. It's a general practice within Wikipedia that we permit shorter quotes than are often permitted in other publications, partly to make sure we steer clear of any potential copyright violations.
I don't want to leave the impression that use of quotations is bad — it can be very appropriate and very effective when used appropriately, but I also see it abused. I have to be careful not to have a knee-jerk reaction, but 9 times out of 10, when someone paste the passage in put quotes around it, the better editing approach would be a rewrite in the editor's own words. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, I totally understand. I realize there are a lot of copyright issues and uninformed editors on Wikipedia. It's probably better to be overly scrutinizing than anything, considering that the majority of possible copyright issues you come across are completely valid. No hard feelings. I appreciate your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I normally do not make edits on my pages when I’m off work. I already redid most of the undone work so I wanted to make this was fixed now so I didn’t have to redo it again. So no need to redo any work or revert any edits. It’s all good. Thanks for you attention to the article. This is an article I really care about and I want it to be at its best for the reader. -Skyes(BYU)

Edit to Hematopoetic systemEdit

Apologies, your reversion of HS is in because in my haste I didn't attribute my move of the content from Haematopoetic system. My content is copied with attribution in the history from Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with content which appears to predate the February blog post you have flagged in the edit summary.

If you identify further copyvio information in my article please reconcile the timing of which came first. If Wikipedia is indeed copied from the blog, I am happy to look into it and fix both articles but please don't revert my entire work on the second article as the topic is independently notable and it is much easier to start a brief overview with existing Wikipedia content than from scratch. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Tom (LT), Do you need something restored? The title in the section is a red think but doesn't seem to be recently deleted so I'm not quite sure where it is.
Our copy patrol software works wonderfully in most cases but there is one exception that could use a fix that hasn't yet occurred. If someone copies material from one Wikipedia article to another, it is quite common that the original material also has been copied by someone at another site. The software checks for close comparison to other sites but not to Wikipedia so it doesn't detect that the material might remove result from a move or copy within Wikipedia. In most cases this is a nonissue because the Wikipedia rules are that you should note this in your edit summary and I always check the edit summary. However, if you failed to note it in the edit summary, it won't get detected in May get reverted as a potential copyright issue.
Please see Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia For our best practices in these situations. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out and for your explanation + link. Have corrected one typo and created a redirect at the other. All the best on your wikivoyages, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your status on climate change task forceEdit

In May, another user asked you about your status at climate change task force. Is it OK if I move you to "inactive"? You can move yourself back at any time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, yes S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

{{done)) If you get interested/available again, see you there! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


Please come handle to reports at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism before they get stale. (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not my bailiwick S Philbrick(Talk) 21:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Burghley Park Cricket Club pageEdit

Please can you explain why you have deleted my page, when the text that was apparently causing the copyright infringement belongs to our cricket club, and not the website that you cited?

As a cricket club we have a written history of our past, and this was submitted to the Wikipedia page I was creating. It also appears on other websites, but the copy does not belong to them and is not being stolen from another source.

JCBiggs (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

JCBiggs, When CopyPatrol (our copyright detector tool) identifies some text is being very similar to some text at another site, it identifies that other site and occasionally identifies alternative sites but doesn't necessarily identify the original source when one site copies from another. The situation you describe, namely that some text you added manages a site that may have copied from the official source, is fairly common. However, that means it is still a copyright violation and left the original source has freely licensed the text. You didn't really speak to this issue — can you tell me whether the cricket club, presumably the copyright holder of the original text, has freely licensed the text? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
JCBiggs, If the original text is freely licensed, and you've noted this on the article (I can help you if you don't have to do this), I'll be happy to revert the removal. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, Yes the text is freely licensed, as the author has no objections to its public use. Please can you advise how to note this and reverse the deletion of the page? Thanks. JCBiggs (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

JCBiggs, These two:
  • "freely licensed,"
  • "author has no objections to its public use"
are not the same thing. The first is required, while the second is insufficient.
I looked at the draft to see if you had and a link to the actual site but I didn't find it.
Is this the right place ?
Please point me to the license statement associated with the text.
It is not enough for the copyright holder to tell you personally that you can reuse the material we need to have either a formal permission statement on file or clear licensing statement on the source of the text. I know this sounds a little bureaucratic but we want to make sure we respect copyrights. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m really confused by this. Just because the text is used on another website, despite the fact it was written by our club, you’re not allowing us to use it without a license?

No, not at all.

If I requested it be deleted from the other site, so it no longer appears on the web at another source, surely this would then be ok?

Absolutely not.

The text wasn’t written by or is owned by the other source, so I can’t work out why we have to do all this? JCBiggs (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being on another site.

Further to this, I have now added the text to our website under a Creative Commons license.

That's what we need, if I can confirm it.

I am struggling to attach a link, but you can easily find it if you revisit our website via your above attached link. JCBiggs (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

JCBiggs, I restored the draft. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.

JCBiggs (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Even if JCBiggs did not do it, S Philbrick should have provided this link: Draft:Burghley Park Cricket Club. Without it anybody doing Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Burghley Park Cricket Club would never know about the above discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    RHaworth, Sorry, I'm not following. Where should I have posted that link and why? S Philbrick(Talk) 21:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For goodness sake! surely my message was clear enough. I think that Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Burghley Park Cricket Club should report this talk page. How should that be achieved? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    RHaworth, There are many editors posting on this talk page about issues involve a copyright revert. I did a very quick and casual count, and see 18 such reports, only 2 of which manged to link to the article in question. It has always been a source of frustration, that I have to do some research to figure out what the hell they are talking about, which wouldn't be necessary if they linked to the article in question. But I remind myself that these are almost invariably new editors, who do not know that it is polite and standard to include a link to an article when you come to discuss that article. I don't think I've ever chastised them for failing to follow protocol, because they don't yet know that protocol.
    However, my response to them does not always include a link to the article, because while I don't know which article they are talking about, they typically do. It seems to me that you are suggesting it is my responsibility to tell them what article they are discussing, not for their benefit, because they obviously know, but for the benefit of some third party you haven't yet identified, and for a purpose you haven't yet identified.
    That's astounding. But I'm intrigued to learn who and why.
    On the chance you are going to explain why it should be done, I just modified the message at the top of my talk page to encourage editors to include such a link. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cannot you just accept that I insist on wikilinks and you do not. For whose benefit? Me! is sufficient.
Here is an example. In 2018 December I received a message here about a certain article.. Making a Special:WhatLinksHere/Draft:Kirk Deviere enquiry told me that I had already been asked about this matter in August and I was able to word my reply in December appropriately. If the link in August had been coded as or omitted entirely it would not have been recorded in the data base. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
RHaworth, Do you have any idea how rude you sound? I find this exchange astounding for two reasons. One is that while we haven't interacted directly very much, we have tons of indirect interactions. I try to handle several hundred copyright incidents each month, many of which result in a G12 and you are one of the most prolific admins handling articles tagged as a G12. I thank you for your diligent work in an area that is probably often underappreciated. On occasion, I have considered having a direct conversation because I count on the four eyes principal — namely, that if I take something as a G 12 but overlook something, by tagging it rather than deleting it outright at least one other administrator is looking at it and might catch something if I miss it. It may be important to know if you see it differently. However, the point is that you see hundreds of my tags each month, so I'm not some random administrator, we work in similar circles, so I'm perplexed that you are taking such an adversarial attitude.
The second reason is that this community is going through one of its biggest upheavals in history. While the facts are still muddy, it is possible that an administrator has received a very substantial ban, not because they misused their tools, but because their communications style was suboptimal. I happen to think that administrators have to set a good example when it comes to collegial interaction with others.
That leaves me puzzled at the way you are going about this. Instead of politely bringing to my attention that it would personally help you if I made a point linking to an article when discussing an article with another editor, you came to my talk page, didn't even directly address me but told someone else I was deficient for failing to include a link. I was taken aback because I did not understand that this was a requirement (because it's not) and politely asked what you are talking about. Your responses continue to be combative, although civil and I just don't quite get what I've done to offend you.
You've now admitted that you want me to change my processes solely to benefit you. I can sympathize with that desire — I often want things changed around here in ways that would benefit me, but I can't imagine thinking the best way to make that happen is to be rude, abrasive and barely communicative.
I'm having a challenging week. My brother is in the hospital and getting them to tell me what's going on is like pulling teeth. Perhaps you are having a tough week as well — I hope this is the usual way you communicate. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion on Medical Counselling Committee pageEdit

Hey, Vatsal here. I notice you deleted the PG admissions section on the above mentioned page. Could you let me know why? VatsalJain1710 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

VatsalJain1710, I explained in the edit summary:
(Cv stands for copyright violation) S Philbrick(Talk) 23:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Renewed intention to work on deleted page Draft:Maggie_DentEdit

Hi Sphilbrick, you deleted Draft:Maggie_Dent a while ago. I'm more organised now, intend to complete work on this page and before recreating a page similar to the one you deleted I thought it important to make contact first. Willambrose (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Willambrose, If you want the draft restored, just say the word. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, Thanks for your reply. I will start from scratch as I have prepared new material. I'm just following the guidelines of letting you know that I will be starting a new draft - since you were the moderator that previously deleted it. Cheers. Willambrose (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Francis KernanEdit

Why? Manannan67 (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Manannan67, I explained in my edit summary:
(CV means copyright violation) S Philbrick(Talk) 01:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Catholic Encyclopedia is in the Public Domain as the template both in the citation and the Reference section indicate. It's also in Wikisource. Please clarify.Manannan67 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Manannan67, This site:
contains this:
Copyright © 1996-2019 Catholic Answers
at the bottom.
Are they in error? S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It appears that site has done an abysmal job of identifying the relevant licensing. I still haven't found a clear indication anywhere on that site but I accept it. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Half the time "Catholic Answers" is a wikimirror. They apparently just copied the text from [1], (New Advent has a lengthy discussion why they chose material from an edition no later than 1913, because it is PD.) which is the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia. (please note the identical Author and text). They do not own any copyright on the "Catholic Encyclopedia" as should be evident by the fact that so much of it is copied to Wikisource. Their so-called copyright can only pertain to their own material, such as commentary and perhaps images. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Encyclopedia topics: "you are welcome to start by copying and pasting the text from the Catholic Encyclopedia which was first published from 1908 to 1913 and entered the public domain in 1993. Wikipedia has a number of templates for use with CE material -which were all in place. Please reverse the reversion. ty. Manannan67 (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Manannan67, You could have saved yourself some time, as I already reverted. Sorry, thought that was clear. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I took "I accept it" as relating to CA's bizarre claim. Manannan67 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Manannan67, My apologies for not being clear enough. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────: no problem. Manannan67 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

SBOL logo deletionEdit

Dear Sphilbrick, I noticed your reverted my changes on the sbol page by removing the official sbol logo due to apparent copyright issues (Violations of copyright policy: My question how can we get our sbol logo on to the page? Sbol is a standards community that we started about 10 years ago and we got the logo made as part of a competition maybe 5 years ago. I don’t think we actually put any license on the use of the logo itself. Do you need my emails to prove that the logo was created by way of a competition or so we just need to put a usage license on the log web page at I not sure what course of action to take so that we can use our logo. Rhodydog (talk) 01:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Rhodydog, In most cases, logos are not uploaded as free images, which requires getting permission from the copyright holder but as fair use images. The latter approach has some restrictions but they are not a problem for typical uses such as inclusion of a low resolution image in an info box.
If you can email me a file I can take care of uploading it.
I will note that it is standard to include the image in an info box and that article doesn't yet have one so it would be helpful if you could create the info box.
The alternative is to put a license on the webpage. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we’ll put a license on the web page and the we can try emailing the logo to you. I don’t think I know the intricacies of Wikipedia copyright well enough to doit myself. Rhodydog (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Rhodydog, If you put a license on the web page, then feel free to restore it yourself. I know how to fill out the fair use paperwork, but not needed if you freely license it. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Delta Alpha Pi (honor society)Edit

May I ask which section you think is problematic? The History, I thought I rephrased enough and the Symbols are definitely cut down. Membership is a copy, but in this case, I thought that as formal admission requirements, they represented something that could be copied without an issue. Let me know which is the problem so that I can rephrase if necessary.Naraht (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Naraht, The membership section of Delta Alpha Pi (honor society). You are an experienced editor and should know that you cannot simply copy, not even with attribution. At a minimum, include the copied material in a blockquote. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough...Naraht (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Rephrased.Naraht (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Naraht, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 at Women in RedEdit

August 2019, Volume 5, Issue 7, Numbers 107, 108, 126, 129, 130, 131

Check out what's happening in August at Women in Red...

Virtual events:

Editor feedback:

Social media:   Facebook /   Instagram /   Pinterest /   Twitter

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Rosiestep (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Train articles created by User:Jjbm2011Edit

Hi I been patrolling a large number of pages created by the above user. As there are no notability guidelines for trains I have based my reviewing on the fact that there are 2 or more sources. I tagged them as not having footnotes and sometimes no lead either. I saw that you left a message for this editor and I wondered if you could have a look and just let me know if you think I should tag them as maybe not meeting notability requirements. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Domdeparis, That didn't immediately ring a bell and now I see why. It was over three years ago when I dropped a note.
I see a number of subsequent entries identifying deleted drafts but I suspect those arise from the fact that onion ring and I moved a lot of the incomplete articles into draft space in the simply languished until six months went by.
There's a lot of energy and some attention to detail and it be nice to harness it. I suggested that they check in with the relevant wiki project but if that happened it didn't help.
In my opinion the ideal situation would be that someOther editor with interesting trains adopt this editor and help them out but I don't how to make that happen.
The most recent two articles they've worked on neither of which were started in draft space, have any references. I think we have to continue tagging and deleting contributions that don't meet our standards. I'll also note that the editor sent contributed to the talk page so if they cannot communicate there's not much we can do to help. It's too bad, because there is some potential there. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll continue to assume that the 2 sources cited confer notability and tag for problems. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Domdeparis, Sounds good. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Draft:Madara UchihaEdit

Sorry to hear that the material comes under copyright violation. But the source, from which I copied the information belongs to wikipedia. The source:

If you can, please check for reverse copy vio. Thanking youAbhiMukh97Speak 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

AbhiMukh97, I responded on your talk page. Please provide the attribution, it is still needed. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I emailed youEdit

A few days ago I emailed you about your deleting my photo of a historical marker and the text taken from that marker.,_Texas&action=history

This is an official State of Texas Historical marker. I have contacted the Texas office responsible for markers and they say there is no copyright violation for posting pictures of any Texas Historical marker and no copyright on the text in this case. As your reason for deletion you gave a reference to a disorganized text file [not intended as a criticism I just couldn't think of another way to characterize it] on a random website that posts pictures people have taken of historical markers. There are MANY such websites that post pictures of markers (including this one -- Wikipedia) but they cannot claim copyright on other people's pictures nor for the text itself as they simply copied it from the markers. foobar (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wiki name, Early in my Wikipedia career I was working on an article about some Revolutionary war event and I took and posted a photo of a historical marker. It was taken down which stunned me because I had assumed that taking such a photo would be permitted but it was explained to me that virtually all text is copyrighted and can only be posted if the copyright holder is provided explicit permission (with some important exceptions for federal works automatically in the public domain and works old enough to be in the public domain.)
I have no doubt that many people take pictures of such markers and post them, but we don't do that in Wikipedia unless we get explicit permission. I would love to hear officially from the Texas office responsible for markers explaining why it is not a problem because I would be much happier to have the marker up to take it down, but I need to see something in writing from someone who has the authority to make the statement. The statement probably has to be Something beyond "yes it's okay" such as a provision in Texas state law designating historical markers as free of copyright, but we'll cross that bridge when we see the statement.
Sorry if this comes across as being a bit of a pain but Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and a secondhand claim that Texas says it's okay isn't quite enough. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
<quote>I have no doubt that many people take pictures of such markers and post them, but we don't do that in Wikipedia unless we get explicit permission.</quote>
But Wikipedia does post pictures of Texas historical markers, many of them. Will a copy of their email replay satisfy this?foobar (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, It will be a start. I hope it points out a provision of Texas law, which may explain the others you mention. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I rather not "start" down a new trail. If you will accept a copy of the email I received from the department of the State of Texas responsible for Historical Markers as an end of this. I will be happy to provide it but not as part of a continuing dialog.
Wiki name, Just to be clear, I will be very happy if it turns out that Texas does treat the text on historical markers as being in the public domain or at least a satisfactorily free license. I wish all states would do so but as far as I know this isn't the case. I will be happy to be proven wrong. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
OK you win, here's a link to a screen capture of an email from the office responsible for Texas Historical markers. If you want an unredacted version you will have to give me an email address where you can be reached as I'm unwilling to post the persons name and email address nor mine on a public place on the web. foobar (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I sent you an email. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I replied foobar (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Now that you have all the evidence you asked for proving Texas Historical markers and their text is not copyrighted, seems like it's time to revert your reversion?foobar (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, Let's see if I can find your email, I don't recall it. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I got a notice on 7 August you sent me an email but I don't see the email. I just double checked my inbox and also checked in two other locations where I sometimes get emails other than my main inbox but don't see it in any of the three locations. I have hundreds of unread emails so I only looked on 7 August. Is that the right date? S Philbrick(Talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I tried again to access the the image you sent me and I had a little better luck but I have serious concerns. The person states "in addition there is no copyright on the text contained on the markers". while I understand that you would find that statement compelling, whenever I hear someone say there is no copyright, it turns out it said by someone who doesn't understand copyright.
I can't quite read the email address but it looks like it came from someone named Jim from a email address. At a bare minimum, we would need an email address associated with the Texas Historical Commission. This clearly is not and doesn't even include a last name.
This appears to be a list of contacts at THC and I don't see anyone named Jim. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I just sent an email to Lynnette Cen, who was identified as the office manager with responsibility for State Historical Markers.
While we are waiting for her to respond, you might want to take a glance at Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/Archive_13#Copyright_status:_historical_marker_text S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, Response will be Wednesday at earliest. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I am Jim. Look at the From address. It's from the person at Texas Historical Commission replying to me. As long as we are making no progress at the moment. I argue at a minimum you should replace my photograph of the marker. It is legal in the U.S. to photograph anything in or from a public place. Virtually all markers are on or can be photographed from a public place as their intent is to be seen.

The Wikipedia article on Photography and the law says:

"Public property


   It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property, within reasonable community standards.[44]"


   Photographing private property from within the public domain is not illegal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room. foobar (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A week ago you received a reply to your email to the Historical Marker person at the state of Texas confirming what she wrote me. It is way past time you reinstate my page. To review, the person responsible for these issues at the State of Texas confirmed the following to me in an email:
"The State of Texas claims no copyright on Texas Historical Markers or pictures of them taken by individuals nor the publication of these pictures.
In addition there is no copyright on the text contained on the markers.
Physical access to a small number of markers in order to photograph them is restricted, though the photos and their text are not restricted."
foobar (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, Yes, and I'm trying to determine next steps. It supports your position, but I want more input because it is not consistent with our usual requirements. I'll reach out to someone today.S Philbrick(Talk) 10:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
This is verging on the Twilight Zone. This began with your "hunch" there "might" be something wrong with posting a marker -- which is done in many places on Wikipedia. It has now been three week, and after getting the permissions you were asking for from the the State of Texas you're still searching for some kind of objection to support you're hunch. You have produced "no evidence" for you're hunch and I have produced real evidence to the contrary. Please bring an end to this foobar (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki name, I can't stop stop you from believing what you want to believe, but your summary doesn't bear close resemblance to the actual sequence of events. It didn't start with a "hunch". As I explained earlier, it started when a photo of a marker I uploaded was removed on the basis of copyright. in subsequent years, I've done a lot of work on copyright issues. While I don't pretend to be an expert, I've learned a lot about copyright issues.
I understand why you objected to the removal. You "thought" you had checked to make sure it was okay. I asked for confirmation and you initially sent me some file I couldn't access. After spending some time, I managed to read some informal email from someone who said you could do it but that person doesn't appear to be associated with the Texas Historical Commission.
On my own (because you seemed uninterested in ascertaining the facts), I did research on the Texas Historical Commission, and reached out to that person to ask for clarification of the copyright status. It took some time for that person to respond, and while the text of what they said sounded positive, I wasn't yet convinced.
I do more work in text issues than image issues, so I contemplated contacting Commons, who have more experience with image copyright issues, to see what they thought. However, I was busy and did not get to it for a couple days at which point you responded with an irrelevant citation from the law (I'm betting you don't even know why it is irrelevant). I decided that, rather than attempt to go through Commons, I would check with our resident copyright expert. I copied you on that post. Diannaa pointed out why the permission was deficient. You have shown no interest in discussing that with her.
You seem to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.
I spent a fair amount of time researching this, because I was genuinely interested in the possibility that It was acceptable to post such pictures, but I do this as a volunteer, and I'm now done. As always, if the facts change I will change my opinion, but based on the facts presented so far, there is no rationale for restoring the image you uploaded. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I have tried to keep this exchange civil. I apologize if you took my use of the word hunch poorly, but the marker you referred to in the beginning was not a Texas marker or you never said so. Also the person who removed your picture may have been in error. So you developed a belief/gut feeling from that marker that all markers in all states were or might be copyrighted. An assumption I still believe is wrong. Not only that but the person who removed your picture may have been mistaken. That assumption or extrapolation is what I was calling a hunch and you have still provided no evidence to support this assumption. I am not at all proficient at Wikipedia. Something took me to the person Diannaa's page, but I was never able to find it again. I had assumed you would recount them here. To correct one statement. Your statement that I made no attempt to learn about this is unfair. I was the first person to to contact the State about thie and made every attempt to send you the evidence. But it would not have done any good anyway because you got essentially the same information for them and have still decided it is not enough. The person on the email I sent you IS with the State of Texas. And is the From on the email. She is the person who wrote the reply you got when you emailed the Texas Historical Commission. Because I had contacted her about this she let me know you had written and the day she sent replied.
The discussion is here: User_talk:Diannaa#Copyright_issue_involving_Texas_Historical_Commission_markers--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Your statement that I made no attempt to learn about this is unfair.

I said no such thing.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you get that I'm on your side. I want the ability to take photos of historical markers and use them in articles. I want someone to show me that this can be done in some, many, or all states. I want each state to either pass a law putting this material into the public domain, (or provide proof that this is already the case) or give us with an acceptable license.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Editing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 24 (section)Edit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Editing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 24 (section). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. foobar (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Copyright on Mobility of Displaced SyriansEdit

This work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.

This is about the published "report" by Onder, Harun (6 February 2019). The Mobility of Displaced Syrians: An Economic and Social Analysis (PDF). World Bank. p. 3. Retrieved 3 August 2019. which on page 3 (Rights and Permissions) after stating the "general rule" for Word Bank publications (also repeated in their website here: has a copyright (automatic copyright verification would look for 'World Bank'), However specific to the report: "this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given." I believe my edits are "no commercial purpose," and "full attribution to the source" and "in part." Would you help me to clear the issue for this specific case? (For your reference Copyright issue re Thanks in advance BlueMadrigal (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

BlueMadrigal, This is a commonly misunderstood issue. While Wikipedia itself is noncommercial, the contents are intended to be freely available to others subject to the CC 3.0 license, which does permit commercial usage so we cannot incorporate material subject to a noncommercial restriction. I wish someone would reach out to the World Bank and persuade them to change their licensing as it is fairly common for people to try to use World Bank documents in Wikipedia articles. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
O.K. We can't quote 'in part' (reproduced) from the source. I 'quoted' and stated it is a quote from their final conclusions (already compacted and alteration would loose the meaning) and falls to category 'reproduced.' But I also created graphs (using wiki graph), tables (wiki table), and lists which summarized the content from the report. (a list on looting [2]) A factual statement (a number and a destination) "About 1/5 of all residential buildings in the 15 top populated cities suffered damage." [3]. How is using facts from the source relates to the CC 3.0 license. My understanding from your response is that we can't produce anything from this source. Isn't there anyway/method/form Wikipedia permits us use the "factual" information? BlueMadrigal (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
BlueMadrigal, While this: Wikipedia:Quotations is an essay so does not have the same force as a guideline or policy, I think it includes good advice. It is my observation that many new editors and simply put them in block quotes or quotation marks to avoid the effort of rewriting them. While short quotations are appropriate and as the essay points out in some rare cases preferable to rewriting, overuse of quotations especially long quotes is something to be avoided.
Pure facts are not subject to copyright. However while some list of pure factual, some are not. A list of the 50 states is a factual list and is not subject to copyright. A list of the top 50 films according to some publication is there considered opinion and is subject to copyright. I expect some wag to say it is a fact that such and such a publication picked the following 50 films as their top films but that's not acceptable.
A sentence can include facts but the way it is constructed reflects the effort of the writer and in most cases can be rewritten in one's own words. As an example, you could say "a survey of the 15 top populated cities revealed 20% of the residential buildings in those cities suffered damage". Same facts but not a literal copy and paste. Excerpting a brief portion of a report which acts as the overall summary, if properly quoted or included in a block quote should be fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news



  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

File:CCP Single ILI cover.JPGEdit

Hello. I re-categorized the image as free in only the US. Would you un-delete the previous versions of the image. Thanks. -- George Ho (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

George Ho, Sorry, I'm not following. Why do you have the authority to declare that an image owned by A & M records Inc. is free in the US? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Do you think the front cover is copyrightable in the US? Am I not allowed to change the copyright status? The background color is plain white. The text length is not long but very short. Also, there are no complex icons, like a horn that A&M regularly uses. I saw just two simple squares on the lower-right corner. I don't see anything that would make the image meet the US originality standards. Here's c:COM:TOO#United States for more details. Nevertheless, the image was published as part of single release in the UK and Europe, and the UK's originality standards for copyright protection is very low, i.e. about as high as the logo of the Edge (magazine). --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


Gotta love those good faith edits! [4] We have to laugh, don't we? Otherwise it would get just too depressing... -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, I found this through an OTRS report. I actually asked them if they had a published reliable source for the fact that he was not a potato. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Even better! 0;-D -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


I realise what happened on the interrogation article: the sentence(s) that came from the Telegraph article was pasted in by accident. Do you have the portion that wasn't from the Telegraph article, about interviews under caution? Anywikiuser (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Anywikiuser, Context please. Which article? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Interrogation. The paragraph under the "Interview under caution" heading of the second edit I made. It would be convenient to not have to write that out again. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Anywikiuser, I emailed it to you. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Black Book (company)Edit

I understand the the methodology section I added was copyrighted by Black Book Research. Although I might argue why a company would invoke copyright on language included in an article about itself that was also approved to appear on its website. I believe the information is pertinent to the article. I did my best to pull out the subjective language. What do I need to do to allow the information to pass inspection?

Also, you rolled back not only the methodology section, but all proceeding edits. The majority of those edits were not related to that section. Is there any way to access the content of those changes? The dates have been crossed out and are un-clickable.

Thanks. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Ubiquitouslarry, It is not the case of arguing that someone might invoke copyright— copyright is automatic even if the material doesn't include a copyright symbol.
It is common practice when encountering a copyright issue to do a rollback which includes all consecutive edits by the same editor. I temporarily reversed the revision deletion so that you can recover edits not covered by the copyright problem. Please let me know when you are done so I can reset the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Got ’em. Thanks. Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Mayo Association DublinEdit

Hi Sphilbrick, was just wondering if you could review my Mayo Association Dublin page [link here: Mayo_Association_Dublin]. I've re-introduced it to Wikipedia and changed it. Thanks a lot, Tomás Tomás Deb (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Tomás Deb, It looks better, but I'll add the important caveat that I don't review articles, so I'll leave a more formal review for others.S Philbrick(Talk) 16:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, TomásTomás Deb (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


What you have removed (Oberlin College) was not copied from anywhere, it was written by me from scratch, except what's in quotes. Please check it again. I did not even know of the page you accuse me of copying from. deisenbe (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I cited the source in my edit summary: Link. I double-checked, and it is far more than the short excerpt in quotes. The CopyPatrol tool identified an 87% matchS Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I undid the RevDel (temporarily) so you can see for yourself.S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot see the match. Please make it clearer. deisenbe (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Deisenbe: Part of your edit:

In 1834, in response to a series of slavery debates at Lane Theological Seminary, the trustees of the Cincinnati, Ohio, school voted to prohibit antislavery agitation among its students and faculty.

Copyrighted source:

In 1834, in response to a series of slavery debates at Lane Theological Seminary, the trustees of the Cincinnati, Ohio school voted to prohibit antislavery agitation among its students and faculty.

Looks identical to me. What say you?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Just in case the ping failed.

How can i translate an article ?Edit


You deleted my first article (History of science and technology in Argentina) because it didn’t respect some of Wikipedia's guidelines. I discovered that the article i wanted to translate from the hispanophone Wikipedia to the Anglophone’s one was translated in english but on an external website. The Wikipedia’s article in spanish is older than the translation on the other website. How can i translate the (featured) article in english without violating the copyright ? Aleksandr Sokolin (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Aleksandr Sokolin, Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate, including the need for an edit summary identifying the source. That edit summary helps in two ways, it provides the required attribution, and signifies to reviewers that it might be a false positive for a copyright issue match.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Sphilbrick".