User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 108

Burton rollback

explain your rationale and maybe it can be worked out

As I noted in my edit summary: Copyright issue re http://www.thearma.org/essays/BritLegacy.htm#.Xd0mHehKhNA

@Alcmaeonid: S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

why was Bendel Hydes deleted...?

my page for Bendel Hydes was recently deleted and I have no idea why. I typed/sourced the entire thing, put references and everything.. The "text that was deemed copyright infringement" was sourced from the National Gallery's synopsis on his career at his retrospective. https://www.nationalgallery.org.ky/whats-on/exhibitions/bendel-hydes-a-retrospective/ Maybe if you clicked on the references you would've seen it.

Wikipedia is mental. Put all this effort into a page, get all your references and someone just deletes it because they feel like its been copied word for word from another website. but its gone now right? so i have to type it all up again? perfect.

have a great day. if you can undo the deletion please do as it wasnt forged from another website.

Oldyoungman (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldyoungman, I'm puzzled that you say you have no idea why it was deleted. I provided a detailed discussion of the general rationale on your talk page:

• User_talk:Oldyoungman

If you try to go to the deleted page you should also see the specific message:

Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.artkabinett.com/kabpedia/bendel-hydes

If you think the copyright notice is mistaken, or if you want to discuss whether the article you wrote was not a substantial paraphrase of that site, we can discuss but I urge you to read WP:AGF before responding. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I think that the copyright notice is extremely mistaken. If you go to http://www.artkabinett.com/kabpedia/bendel-hydes , you will see that the information itself on that page was taken from https://www.nationalgallery.org.ky/whats-on/exhibitions/bendel-hydes-a-retrospective/ . The National Gallery has given me consent to write Bendel's wikipedia page, as I am from the Cayman Islands and work with gallery often.

(1) ArtKabinett doesnt have SSL enabled, how could they possible care about copyright when the dont even protect users information? (2) The ArtKabinett article was posted by a man named "antonio arch". I can 100% ensure that he did not write that information himself, as I WORK with the actual human who wrote the synopsis.

So, AGF and undo the deletion because I have no reason to plagarise anything, I am simply trying to preserve the legacy of the founding father of Caymanian Art.

Thanks.

Oldyoungman (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldyoungman, I did check out the national gallery page.

I look for, but did not find any evidence that the material on that page is licensed in a way can be used in Wikipedia.

The copyright holder is willing to donate the content, the process can be found on this page:

Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials

Caution: even if the proper permission is provided, that does not guarantee that the content is suitable for use in a Wikipedia article. If we were talking about text about the national gallery itself, it would almost certainly not be suitable. This is information about an individual who presumably is not a national gallery employee, so it may be okay but it is highly desirable to use content written by reliable sources independent of the subject. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will look into all of this information. Thanks. If anything I will plan an updated version of the page with less copyright infringment. No need to undo the deletion, I will start from scratch to make sure I get it right. Apologies for any inconvience.

Oldyoungman (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldyoungman, No problem, thanks for understanding. I suspect our coverage of Cayman artists is not extensive, so your contributions are appreciated. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bangalore Baptist Hospital

Please explain the deletion, a simple comment to correct the sentences would have been fine, please let me know where the page is and I will fix the problem is mentioned but I will not like to invest fresh effort again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharat1 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bharat1, I left a note on your talk page explaining the proposal to delete the page as well as identifying a link to the material that it appears to infringe. It appears to be a common assumption among new editors that it is okay to use copyrighted material in an early version of an article as long as you plan to "correct the sentences". That's not the case. If you add copyrighted material to an existing article, the edit will be reverted. If you start an article consisting mostly of copyrighted material the article will be deleted. That's what happened. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bharat1, This report shows that it was not a minor issue, easily corrected but a substantial copying of copyrighted material. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Light Square

You have just undone a lot of work I've done on Light Square. Please note my attribution to this article (originating from the same source you've mentioned - an updated version, I think) which is published under a CC licence which I believe allows me to use it as I have. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, I didn't miss the attribution.

However, while it is a CC license it is:

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia License.

The noncommercial part makes it not acceptable. Sorry. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realise that. I only noticed the CC note on the source after I'd already started editing, and at that point decided to copy some of the text I put under Social history, but most of the rest would not have infringed copyright. You've also undone other changes by me unrelated to that source, which I can't even look at in order to reinstate, which is a bit frustrating. Could you not have just messaged me with a warning first? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Having started to reassemble the lead, I realise that you have reverted changes which included other sources I used too, as well as improving existing citations. Some of the content in those sources may or may not have also been contained in the Adelaidia article, but not being able to see them means that I have to painstakingly source and re-format those parts. I understand your motives, but think that you have been a bit heavy-handed with this revert. Taking out the Social history would have been enough - I could then have reviewed the rest. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink, You are not the first to see a CC template and assume that the text can be used.

I understand your preference that the edit by the reviewer should specifically target the offending text and not touch any other text. This is difficult for several reasons. He would take much, much longer to do, and it is highly likely that removing some text and leave other text would produce an awkward flow. For this and related reasons, the general practice, when encountering a sequence of edits by a single editor which contain copyright problems, is to undo them all. you may not be aware that there are a small number of years, probably less than a dozen, who address the literally hundreds of reports each week. We can barely keep up.

I have sent you an email with a copy of the article after your additions. I hope this helps you tease out acceptable edits. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that, Sphilbrick. That is helpful - I'll pick it up again when I have time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Requests

Since you are willing to handle revdel requests, I was wondering, does this constitute a personal attack? Also of note I wouldn't bring this up, but this user has done this before. Also, if so should it be deleted? Bneu2013 (talk) 10:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Bneu2013,  Done S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Also not to pull you into this, but this user has made harassing statements to me before like this, as well as to many other users. The dispute that led to this rant arose over him using arguments that appear to resemble wp:IDONTLIKEIT and wp:USELESS to remove content from articles, instead of citing article guidelines or resolutions determined via consensus that prohibit the content that was removed. I'm considering getting a third party to look at this, but I don't have time for it now. Just letting you know in case. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Separate opinion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_opinion)

I note you concern about copyright in connection with ‘The ECHR in 50 Questions’. A question: does the concept of ‘fair usage’ apply when writing a Wikipedia article? If I had written the following, would it have been acceptable, and, if not, why not?

The ECHR in 50 Questions, a document prepared by the Public Relations Unit of the European Court of Human Rights, states ‘Judges may wish to draft an opinion concerning a case in which they have sat and their opinions will be appended to the judgment. In general they explain why they voted with the majority (concurring opinion) or, on the contrary, why they did not agree with the majority of judges (dissenting opinion)’

(I guess you must now delete this question, for copyright reasons!)

I’ve got a problem now. You have removed visibility of my edit, so I can’t re-edit it to deal with the copyright issue. I didn’t keep a copy locally, and I can’t remember what I’d written. So I think we are left with an article having ‘multiple issues’. Topo122 (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Topo122, See Wikipedia:Quotations

In short, Wikipedia permits the use of short quotations in certain circumstances. Your usage exceeded those guidelines.

It appears that you do not have email enabled. If you enable email, I can send you a copy of the version of the article with your edit. See preferences to enable your email.

Regarding editing in general, you can do what you want, but I always keep a local copy for anything longer than a sentence. For example, I'm composing this in an external editor, and will copy and paste it to Wikipedia when it's ready. On rare occasions, I actually compose something in an edit box and it almost always jumps up to bite me. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Joe Locke artist page rollback?

Please explain why our edits to Joe Locke that took a good hour to complete and were removing some unnecessarily long sections and substantially shortened and updated + corrected dates and content, have been reverted. We did not keep a backup of the edits and would appreciate an explanation since no unsubstantiated content was added, there cannot be a copyright issue. We are working on behalf of and with the artist. Any issues with the endits, we'd kindly ask you to address them so they can be resolved. We too great care referencing in the correct way. You have no reverted back to content that is either partially irrelevant of simply wrong. nadworks (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2019 (GMT) natz 15:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nadworks, If you would like a copy of the material after your edit, let me know and I will email it to you.

I am perplexed by your statement, " no unsubstantiated content was added, there cannot be a copyright issue". That sounds like a misunderstanding of copyright policy. I reverted the edit and completed a revision deletion because the edit was substantially similar to material at this site, which clearly carries a copyright notice. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Nadworks, If another party (originarts.com) copied some material onto their site with permission from you, I would normally expect they would acknowledge that on their website. Perhaps they did and I missed it but this is merely an aside as it's not relevant to the overall issue.

It is not the case that "a third party out-trumps the content provided by the person". Our copyright detection tool looks for substantially similar material somewhere else on the web and reports where it finds it. It is not uncommon that it reports finding it in several locations, and I suspect there are instances where the material is available in many locations and our tool only reports a few. Which one is the original and which are copies is rarely relevant (it would be relevant if the original source of the material is freely licensed, while other sites copying from that place assert full copyright. They shouldn't but they do.)

In this particular case the material in the edit was found at the originarts.com, and may also be at this site as well, but the Joe Locke biography page clearly states that it is subject to full copyright. It is quite common that someone will write in and say, "well, the page may be subject to copyright but we are the owners of the copyright so we have the right to use it". That's sort of true but more complicated than you might imagine. The first problem is that we don't have any evidence that you the editor, are associated with Joe Locke. You very well may be but we cannot simply take your word for it. A second issue is that the biography page asserts a copyright held by multiple organizations. Even if you were to prove you are Joe Locke, that doesn't necessarily mean you have the authority to provide a free license. A third issue is sometimes the copyright holder is also the editor, but doesn't fully grasp that including that text in Wikipedia means it is subsequently free to everyone (as long as they abide by the license agreement which requires attribution). I have dealt with multiple situations where the copyright holder decided against licensing the material after realizing what it meant.

The process for confirming the identity of the copyright holder and providing a free license is outlined at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. That said, I would advised against it. Jumping through the hoops necessary to provide a free license means it can be used in a Wikipedia article, but it is our experience that text written by someone with a conflict of interest is very rarely appropriate as is for use in Wikipedia.

Finally, it appears you are associated with the subject of the article, which means you should read and then abide by the requirements in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Thank you for the detailed explanation, Sphilbrick. Much appreciated.

I'm familiar with the COI rule on Wikipedia and it makes sense. In our particular case, I'd like to ask for your advice nevertheless: As a performing artist, Mr Locke relies on a correct and well-written representation on Wikipedia, simply because it's too often used as sole reference for promoters, venues and media purely because of its search prominence. We'd prefer promoters to refer to the official biography on joelocke.com or even originarts.com and other sources which use the approved version. But I'm sure you're aware that's not always the case. It, therefore, opens up the situation where Wiki users or other artists can edit the biog implying i.e. their own involvement and importance in Mr Locke's work (though possibly not incorrect as such, but unreasonably weighted) in order to over-inflate their own standing. This would not be in the interest of a balanced and biased representation within the Wiki platform. How would that be dealt with?

If you're suggesting the only (or most feasible) solution to be re-writing the biography in a way that it won't get picked up by copyright crawlers and still be correctly representing the subject, then so be it. It is indeed an odd scenario, though.

In any case I would appreciate you sending us the version that was deleted for further editing / correcting in order to fit the requirements. Right now the content is - as I stated - containing too much outdated and incorrect details, which we must correct.

Thanks for your help. natz 10:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Stephen! I saw this and took a look at it because of the corporate-sounding username. Unfortunately the copyvio at Joe Locke goes right back to 2005, so that's now at WP:CP. I've indeffed the editor for the username and the promotional WP:UPE. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Horizonlove (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

There should be a WP:ROUGE barnstar we could hand out to admins who handle this kind of thing with good grace. Consider it awarded, anyway. Guy (help!) 17:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi. Now that you are back, I was wondering if you could now give my email regarding OTRS your attention. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, will look into it tomorrow S Philbrick(Talk) 03:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Gentle nudge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Sorry, busy weekend. I'll try to get to it today. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, still haven't and in NY for rest of week, might get to it, but RL is very busy. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder now if there is any reason why you can't or won't look into this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Yes, there is a reason, or rather, the confluence of two events. I've been very busy the last few weeks. In addition, I took a few weeks off from Wikipedia which includes OTRS. I was seriously contemplating stepping away completely. I was away from OTRS long enough that my status as an administrator was in jeopardy and I felt I needed to repair that. I did reach out last week, and I was informed that your status was changed due to inactivity, and the next step would be to apply through the usual channels. me know if you do that, because I don't monitor that page regularly and I would like to support. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Except that the 'inactivity' removal occurred when I was right in the middle of handling a delicate BLP case which apparently later turned out to be one of OTRS largest cases. That's why I had hoped that the OTRS right could be procedurally restored. Oh, well, nothing like being told that we volunteers are worthless people. I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, Email sent S Philbrick(Talk) 16:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I miss OTRS. I used to while away many happy hours clearing the huge backlogs :-) Guy (help!) 17:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG, It's quite a range of emotions. Some people, typically unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, and having a firm belief they know how it should work, can get quite irate, and that experience is very unsatisfying. Luckily, the other extreme also occurs. Someone writes in very concerned about some issue, and you are able to resolve it successfully and they are so thankful.

Why the past tense? We are definitely struggling with the backlog now, and could use some help. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hi Sphilbrick. Thanks for further clarifying things, but I think it might be a good idea for you to move your comment to just below the archived one since (technically) the discussion was archived before you made it. The time stamps of Jayron32's close and your post don't mesh and while this is probably not such a big deal, it could possibly make the other party involved think that it would be OK for them to do the same thing if they want to respond to your comment or any of the other comments made in the discussion. If you do move your post and they do then decide to post a response/rebuttal, they'll be able to do so below your comment. If they, on the other hand, add it to the closed discussion, it would be kinda hard to caution them about doing so without doing the same to you. Not trying to be jerk or anything about this, but the discussion about this did get a bit contentious on every page, not just the ANI, where it took place; so, the other party involved might not be totally satisfied with the way things turned out and still feel they have something more to say on the matter. They can do that of course, but it should be separate at least in appearances from the closed ANI discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, good point. I composed my comments while it was still open, and when I went to copy and paste I saw that it had been archived but I didn't want to waste my efforts. However, your point is well taken that if I get to comment post archive why shouldn't anyone else, so I will move it below S Philbrick(Talk) 23:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Oddly, you're the one person who shouldn't have noticed:) I just noticed I botched the ping. I'm not sure whether fixing it will make it work but it's a nonissue because you will now know. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The same thing has happened to me before. I'm in the middle of adding a post when there's an edit conflict or something caused by someone or a bot archiving/closing the discussion thread before I finish. Sometimes at the Teahouse, the thread is even blanked/nuked (justifiably for sure) while I'm working on a response. It would be nice if there was workaround to this kind of thing, but i'm not sure if that's technically possible. Anyway, I think that most experienced editors would be able to figure out what happened here and not make too much of it; however, someone who might be not familiar with this type of thing might find it confusing or someone already predisposed to assuming the worst about things like this might just try and make it out as an intentional attempt to break the rules. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to add about the ping. I didn't get it of course, but I sometimes go back and check discussions I've participated in to see if anything new was posted since my last visit. That's when I noticed your post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Why

Maybe try deleting the copyright info instead of the WHOLE PAGE??? Someone spends hours learning WIki and editing it only to have you DELETE all my work. Way to encourage the community.

Maybe start by telling me who you are and what article you are discussing.S Philbrick(Talk) 18:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well S. MarnetteD|Talk 22:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Kolbrin Article

{Hello. You stated that you are deleting my new article, 'Kolbrin' because I cut and paste much info ....However, I want to continue with the article...I'll rewrite to best of my ability. Thanks for your observations and suggestions.}Teacher1990 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Teacher1990Teacher1990 (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Teacher1990, A common error by new editors is to copy and paste some material, and then rewrite it. However, Wikipedia doesn't just disallow copyright violations in the current version of an article, it doesn't permit them in any version. While I don't think starting with copyrighted material and rewriting it in place is a good practice, if you must do it, it must be done off-line. Make sure the first edit in Wikipedia does not reflect copyright violations. Good luck. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

McIntosh, GA

This message is in reference to:

19:14, 17 December 2019‎ Sphilbrick talk contribs‎ 26,440 bytes -1,850‎ Reverted good faith edits by RussellOliverPhoto: Copyright issue re http://mcintoshcountyga.com/index.php/government/county-financials/205-mcintosh-comp-plan-draft-v-18-reduced/file (TW) thank Tag: Undo

There is no copyright issue. I am the author of the McIntosh Comprehensive Plan 2018. Please, undo your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RussellOliverPhoto (talk • contribs) 12:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RussellOliverPhoto, It is quite understandable that you would presume that you, the author of some text, and the original copyright holder, would have the right to use it as you see fit. However, it may surprise you to learn that my revert was not in error. Let me explain. the copyright holder of the text has the ability to use it as they see fit, but that raises two questions. How do we know that you are the copyright holder? We don't impose any requirements when you registered your username, so we have no idea who you are. The second issue is that the original author of tax starts with the copyright, but in many cases, especially in cases of work for hire, the copyright is transferred to another organization. It may be that you retain the copyright in this particular case but that would make it a very rare example. It is difficult to imagine that a governmental body would commission someone to write some text and not insist on taking ownership of the copyright. while it may have happened, it's rare enough that we would insist upon a written statement from the government confirming that they did not assert copyright. The second issue is identifying that you the editor are the author of the work. That's not done within Wikipedia itself. We have a process when someone chooses to donate copyrighted material so that it can be used in Wikipedia. That process is outlined here:

Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. Once the permission statement is processed by an OTRS agent, I can revert the removal on copyright grounds, although of course, the material still has to meet our standards for neutrality. I am in OTRS agent and can help with that step if necessary (there is quite a severe backlog, but I can probably expedite it.) Let me know. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Austin De Burca

Please restore the page Austin De Burca to this look - User:Uldis_s/Austin_De_Burca. I've deleted all copied content.--Uldis s (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Uldis s, ??? Why can't you? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Your latest revert on Chitraguptvanshi kayastha citing copyright issues is void.

The source that you provided is post dated to the wikipedia version of Kayastha page dated 01 sept 2009, that I sourced the information from and mentioned the same in the comment in the previous edit just before your revert. The copyright infringement is void by virtue of dated of my source and that quoted by you. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=311315703 Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikhil Srivastava, Sorry, I missed your edit summary, which is odd, because I always read them, well, almost always. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikhil Srivastava, FTR, the best practices for an edit summary are outlined here: Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, but I still should have noted that you tried to identify the source. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

No issues. Could happen to the best of us. Hope you are satisfied and would restore the edits preferably citing that it was not a copyright infringement. Avoids damaging my credibility that way. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikhil Srivastava, already done. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I dont see it. Are you sure? Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikhil Srivastava, I did, but another editor undid my edit. Please take it up with them, but I'll get involved if necessary. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Intervention required. The User:Utcursch is edit warring on Chitraguptvanshi Kayastha and Kayastha page and using your revert as an excuse. He is sweep reverting to much earlier versions. Nikhil Srivastava (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nikhil Srivastava, Sorry, I don't see it that way. I'm going to include a ping to @Utcursch:, although subsequent discussion belongs on the article talk page. The sequence of events as I see it:

1. CopyPatrol flagged an issue in Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha
2. I reverted the material, missing the nonstandard edit summary. That was my mistake — while it wouldn't have happened if the standard edit summary have been used, it is still my error.
3. I undid my revert, but that doesn't mean I think the material is fine, it simply means that my rationale for reversion was flawed
4. Utcursch restored my reversion, but not because the editor felt it was in fact a copyright violation — they reverted with an edit summary " this is unsourced / poorly-sourced content with bogus references"
5. While the next comment is speculation, it appears the editor looked further at the article and found other material that was problematic so reverted it, and suggested opening a discussion on the talk page
6. I think it's reasonable to assume that the editor noted that the material came from Kayasth, so went to that article to see if the inclusion in that article met our guidelines. It did not, so it was reverted

You mentioned you thought the editor was doing the reversion based upon my initial reversion, but I don't see any evidence of that. I trust the editor will chime in if my assumptions are wrong. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that Nikhil Srivastava's additions are unsourced, poorly-sourced, or irrelevant. I'll continue this discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Utcursch reported by User:Nikhil Srivastava (Result: ), and on the article's talk page. utcursch | talk 21:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Jade road

I rewrited the preface. Gathering information to expand. Would be pleased to see you remove the speedy deletion tag. Best regards سیمون دانکرک (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

سیمون دانکرک, someone else removed the speedy, I took care of the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration and for informing meسیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)