User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 128
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Need your expertise
Hi, SPhilbrick! That other situation I emailed you about never materialized (the BLP subject never got back to me ... that should teach me to waste my time trying to be a helpful Pollyanna).
I have another (unrelated) tricky situation where you might be able to provide your expertise.
Asbruckman has requested at the Help desk something akin to revdel'ing the history of Lindsay Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to scrub her birthdate from history.
- First, I'm not sure that the requirements relating to birthdates for WP:BLP apply here (and Smartse doesn't seem to think so either), but the birthdate is now reduced to the year only just as a courtesy (rather than policy) matter (I'm not sure the matter would stand up to policy, but what do I know ... just a medical editor, not my expertise).
- Second, scrubbing the birthdate from history would involve revdeling a huge number of revisions, while the birthdate is still available elsewhere, so I suspect WP:REVDEL is unlikely.
The matter was first raised on user talk by SighSci (see User talk:SighSci#August 2022); according to sources used at Cassava Sciences, there have been death threats lodged in this scandal (but at the attorney Thomas who filed the FDA citizen's petition), so I'm unsure if the concerns are warranted, but I am nonetheless sympathetic to the concern, so I thought I'd close the loop by asking an oversighter. What say ye? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I'm metaphorically drowning. I'm president of an organization which is celebrating its 50th anniversary on Saturday, and that's just one of several real-life issues which all decided to descend at the same time. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks SPhilbrick: I understand :) Risker might you have a look at this sensitive issue ? Considering my own history with the dangers of the internet (ahem), I feel it important that we at least entertain this request and provide an answer to Asbruckman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS, Risker, it's a messy situation (both IRL and on Wikipedia). IRL, we have incentive for "both sides" to unbalance the article (the short sellers and the company, Cassava); on Wikipedia, we have indications that the company was directly editing to slant the article, as was another COI editor with a large stock holding. This quote from a Science article (that pertains almost entirely to Sylvain Lesné) gives some context to some of what we've seen from other COI editors (not SighSci):
But it is a heated issue, so I do want to be sure we've correctly addressed any BLP concerns. Sorry to take over your talk page, SPhilbrick, but this issue is now at three different noticeboards, and three user talk pages, and I'd rather not spread it to any more talk pages. Hope you don't mind me moving in :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Now Cassava is a story of their own, and I have frankly been steering clear of it, despite some requests. To me, it’s an excellent example of a biotech stock with a passionate (and often flat-out irrational) fan club. In such cases, if you say bad things about a beloved stock then plenty of helpful strangers will point out that you are an idiot, a shill, an evil agent of the moneyed interests, and much, much more. There’s a detailed sidebar in the Science article on Cassava and on simufilam, which I recommend to anyone who wants to catch up on that aspect. That compound is supposed to restore the function of the protein Filamin A, which is supposed to be beneficial in Alzheimer's, and my own opinion is that neither the published work on this compound nor the conduct of the company inspires my trust. There’s an ongoing investigation into the work at CUNY, and perhaps I’ll return to the subject once it concludes.
- Update for Risker and anyone else ... I'm done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- PS, Risker, it's a messy situation (both IRL and on Wikipedia). IRL, we have incentive for "both sides" to unbalance the article (the short sellers and the company, Cassava); on Wikipedia, we have indications that the company was directly editing to slant the article, as was another COI editor with a large stock holding. This quote from a Science article (that pertains almost entirely to Sylvain Lesné) gives some context to some of what we've seen from other COI editors (not SighSci):
- Thanks SPhilbrick: I understand :) Risker might you have a look at this sensitive issue ? Considering my own history with the dangers of the internet (ahem), I feel it important that we at least entertain this request and provide an answer to Asbruckman. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- So. Apologies for being late to the party. Here's a summary of what's been happening lately. User:SighSci is indefinitely blocked due to an "insurmountable conflict of interest". That's not going to change. The other user mentioned in the COI noticeboard thread pertaining to the topic has been blocked from the main page of Cassava Sciences, and hasn't edited in a couple of weeks, so I suspect he's gone now. If he shows up at the talk page again, let me know; a site block is the next step here, given his constant COI and tendentious editing. SandyGeorgia, thanks for your diligence here. Oh, and the issue about DOB is...well, there are several online reliable sources that provide the full DOB of the athlete/scientist, as could be expected for anyone who has competed at the Olympic level in the last 50 years; in fairness, it's less likely that someone searching for information about this person post athletic career would pull up those sites without doing a deep dive, since there's just so much online about her current career. Leaving the year of birth is fine (it's sourced to a RS that ironically contains her full DOB, but the Olympics site just uses her YOB); it's not a huge deal, and there are good [security/anti-impersonation] reasons for people to ask that it be removed from Wikipedia, which is usually their #1 google hit. Sphilbrook, sorry for taking over your talk page; just wanted to follow up on everything. Risker (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Risker but I think what they were asking, without knowing the terminology, is that it be revdel'd (remove it from the articlehistory). Is that within policy? Because it would be a huge number of revisions to delete. That's why I turned to the experts. We have courtesy, and rightfully I believe, reduced it to only the year, but it seems to me that Asbruckman was asking for a revdel, and that's adminly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes. The answer is, no, it doesn't qualify for revdelete, since the information is easily available on multiple RS sites. (I found half a dozen on a quick check, and I wasn't really trying.) In this kind of situation, limiting to YOB is done on a courtesy/request basis, but deletion is not appropriate. The theory behind deletion would be that the originally-included DOB was not able to be adequately sourced to a sufficiently reputable source; that doesn't apply to this case at all. There's also the issue of the Streisand effect; anything that's been in the article that long has already been replicated on dozens of mirror sites, not to mention the regular archives of Wikipedia, and it wouldn't be coming out of any of those places, either. So removal is okay but deletion/revision-deletion is not appropriate. Risker (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Risker; that is the answer I was seeking for Asbruckman's query at the Help Desk. I feared it was a tricky area, which was why I turned to the experts. Thx again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Ah yes. The answer is, no, it doesn't qualify for revdelete, since the information is easily available on multiple RS sites. (I found half a dozen on a quick check, and I wasn't really trying.) In this kind of situation, limiting to YOB is done on a courtesy/request basis, but deletion is not appropriate. The theory behind deletion would be that the originally-included DOB was not able to be adequately sourced to a sufficiently reputable source; that doesn't apply to this case at all. There's also the issue of the Streisand effect; anything that's been in the article that long has already been replicated on dozens of mirror sites, not to mention the regular archives of Wikipedia, and it wouldn't be coming out of any of those places, either. So removal is okay but deletion/revision-deletion is not appropriate. Risker (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red October 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Books & Bytes – Issue 52
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022
- New instant-access collections:
- SpringerLink and Springer Nature
- Project MUSE
- Taylor & Francis
- ASHA
- Loeb
- Feedback requested on this newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, consensus was found that if the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a checkuser or an oversighter for action (as applicable, per ArbCom's recent updated guidance) instead of the administrator making the block.
- Following an RfC, consensus has been found that, in the context of politics and science, the reliability of FoxNews.com is unclear and that additional considerations apply to its use.
- Community comment on the revised Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines is requested until 8 October.
Technical news
- The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.
Arbitration
- Remedy 8.1 of the Muhammad images case will be rescinded 1 November following a motion.
- A modification to the deletion RfC remedy in the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been made to reaffirm the independence of the RfC and allow the moderators to split the RfC in two.
- The second phase of the 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review closes 3 October.
Miscellaneous
- An administrator's account was recently compromised. Administrators are encouraged to check that their passwords are secure, and reminded that ArbCom reserves the right to not restore adminship in cases of poor account security. You can also use two-factor authentication (2FA) to provide an extra level of security.
- Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections open 2 October and close 8 October.
- You are invited to comment on candidates in the 2022 CUOS appointments process.
- An RfC is open to discuss whether to make Vector 2022 the default skin on desktop.
- Tech tip: You can do a fuzzy search of all deleted page titles at Special:Undelete.
Thank you, and good-bye
I just discovered your note of intervention on the Pierrot talk page and wanted to thank you. You've been very kind to me through all my travails here at Wiki, and I'll remember you always with fondness and gratitude. I'll be out of touch from now on: I'm taking down my user pages and pulling up stakes. I have nothing more to contribute. Please stay well and keep up the very good work. You have all my best wishes for the future. Beebuk 12:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, this sounds like a big deal.
- Are you willing to share more? S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Re: Copy within
I'm pretty sure I am the one who had added the same paragraph in that other article. Since I would be the party to enforce the copyright law here, and I don't believe a single paragraph of text is worthy of copyright protection in the eyes of any judge I might bring this up with, I think we're safe :) Thanks for the note still. I make sure I use {{copied}} on talk pages when I do this with other people's text of any appreciable length. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I believe that have been copyright cases involving material is short as a single paragraph, but my guess is that those cases may have involves deep pockets and maybe extenuating circumstances so I agree it's not likely that is a problem but I'm trying to help make sure that if anyone ever accuses Wikipedia of inappropriately using copyrighted material that we will be squeaky clean. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I went spelunking in history to verify my claim, and found the edit where I had added the copied paragraph, so we should be good this time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 10:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I went spelunking in history to verify my claim, and found the edit where I had added the copied paragraph, so we should be good this time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
kings island adventure port
WTF I had a citation and you deleted everything Now undo that because I had it cited 2600:1009:B16D:52FE:C8D5:EB84:8FB0:E6D7 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Some new editors are under the mistaken impression that citing material makes it okay to use. Citations are critical, but of the material used is subject to copyright, adding a citation does not cure the copyright problem. Except for very limited use of material explicitly in quotes or block quotes, copyrighted material cannot be directly used or even paraphrased. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion contested: Draft:Detective Who
Hello Sphilbrick. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Draft:Detective Who, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not valid criteria. G3 is more appropriate. Thank you. BangJan1999 14:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know what it is but neither vandalism no hoax seem obvious to me. I continue to be amazed that someone can make a copy of an existing article, make a couple little changes and we don't have a speedy option covering it. The page needs to go. Do you disagree? S Philbrick(Talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red November 2022
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Administrators' newsletter – November 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
- An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
- The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
- The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
- AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
Miscellaneous
- The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
- You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
- Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like
{{rangeblock|create=yes}}or{{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.
Copyright issue at The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning
Hi, S Philbrick,
I anticipated a revert because the source is questionable, but didn't expect a "copyright issue". Within my two, maybe three paragraphs, the only passages I'm aware were verbatim were short direct quotes attributed to the filmmakers. The source article—the only production notes I could find online—credits "New Line Cinema" for its content, but I can't corroborate this, and on those grounds I understand a removal. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- I try to be careful to watch for quotes, because quoted material can trigger a report. However this report is not triggered by any material you put in quotes.
- I'm not sure of the best way to show you the problem without violating copyright myself but I count 26 consecutive words of yours that are exactly the same as the source. Interestingly, nine consecutive words came from a quote but it wasn't expressed as a quote in your edit.
- I realize that some editors compose their edit in the edit box as opposed to composing it in an off-line editor and copying and pasting, so you may not have access to what you edited, but if you can see your edit, you should be able to easily find the two sentence fragments making up the 26 consecutive words. It starts with "from 180 to 90 degrees" S Philbrick(Talk) 00:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, my edits are entirely on mobile but I had a backup in cache and see what you're saying. I'll try to be more careful. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- OK thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, my edits are entirely on mobile but I had a backup in cache and see what you're saying. I'll try to be more careful. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- FYI, I'm leaving my computer for the evening. If there's more to discuss, I will check in the morning. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio cleanup
The 92. IP is also an LTA that infests many pharmaceutical and related chemical pages. DMacks (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up S Philbrick(Talk) 11:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 53
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022
- New collections:
- Edward Elgar
- E-Yearbook
- Corriere della Serra
- Wikilala
- Collections moved to Library Bundle:
- Ancestry
- New feature: Outage notification
- Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Economy of Moldova rollback.
Hello,
I don't understand, if I attributed the source why was the content removed? I added this topic in the page's Talk section.
Thank you. Dhyana b (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
- Replied on
yourthe article talk page S Philbrick(Talk) 01:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
California Southern University
Looks like another IP has added more copyvio content to the article after you reverted one. The tool shows 75% copyvio likely. Corky 10:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Got it S Philbrick(Talk) 11:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, nice to talk to you, it feels like it has been years. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed! I was “retired” from here for almost a year and decided to return a few months ago. I’m not editing as much, but still contribute. Hope all is well with you! Corky 14:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- Glad to see both of you still "on the case." I also noticed those IP edits. Orlady (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Great to hear from you! S Philbrick(Talk) 21:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Glad to see both of you still "on the case." I also noticed those IP edits. Orlady (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed! I was “retired” from here for almost a year and decided to return a few months ago. I’m not editing as much, but still contribute. Hope all is well with you! Corky 14:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, nice to talk to you, it feels like it has been years. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Soil horizon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_horizon
Hi Sphilbrick, please have a look at page ii of the WRB Manual (https://www3.ls.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bds/boku/downloads/wrb/WRB_fourth_edition_2022-09-19.pdf): "This publication may be freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes, correct citation required." So, everybody is allowed to copy, if cited correctly, therefore no violation of copyright. And these are just definitions - if you rephrase them, you will make a mistake. So, please, reestablish my work. Cheers Eleutheropodic (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is not an uncommon issue. Many editors presume that because Wikipedia accepts no advertising, that text with licenses allowing reproduction for noncommercial purposes is acceptable. However that's not correct. While Wikipedia accepts no advertising, the goal is to create an encyclopedia that can be reused by anyone including commercial interests, so use of that text is a violation of its license. Sorry. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have two questions: First question: If it were written "This publication may be freely reproduced, correct citation required", could it then be copied into Wikipedia? Or what is the normal wording that declares public domain? Second question: You also deleted my changes from 19 October. This was only the update from the third to the fourth edition of WRB. Can I reestablish that? Eleutheropodic (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm heading to the airport in minutes, and your good questions will take some time to answer. I'm worried I will forget, so ping me if I don't respond by tomorrow. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- The ideal situation, if someone wants to license their text as other than full copyright is to use one of the Creative_Commons_licenses.
- The reason is that if someone uses their own wording, it means that volunteers, typically not copyright experts, must determine how to interpret the wording. Using an accepted CC license means that the wording has been vetted. That said, when I read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright I see "You may use, copy, or distribute this work, as long as you give credit to the original author." as an option so I think the wording you suggested might be OK. However, please note that an attribution license is NOT public domain (See the link for a discussion of public domain.) Finally, it is accepted practice, when encountering a copyright issue, to use the rollback tool which may undo acceptable text; feel free to re-add that text. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will approach IUSS asking to change the license in the next update. Then, I will add their definitions again. In the meantime, I updated soil horizon to WRB 4th edition. Eleutheropodic (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- The IUSS released an update. It is written there: "This is an open access document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." I think, one can now use it. Eleutheropodic (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nice work S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- The IUSS released an update. It is written there: "This is an open access document under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." I think, one can now use it. Eleutheropodic (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will approach IUSS asking to change the license in the next update. Then, I will add their definitions again. In the meantime, I updated soil horizon to WRB 4th edition. Eleutheropodic (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
- I have two questions: First question: If it were written "This publication may be freely reproduced, correct citation required", could it then be copied into Wikipedia? Or what is the normal wording that declares public domain? Second question: You also deleted my changes from 19 October. This was only the update from the third to the fourth edition of WRB. Can I reestablish that? Eleutheropodic (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I understand why you reverted my edit about the series's plot. But I don't know why you reverted my other edits. I think I didn't break any rules in those edits. Please let me know the reason.(talk) 11:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- You may well be right. It is common practice, when addressing a copyright issue, to use the rollback tool to undo the edit. The rollback tool undoes all consecutive edits by the same editor. While it's possible, as may be the situation in your case, that some of the other edits a perfectly fine, it is also common the consecutive edits by a single editor are interrelated, so the safest action is to undo all edits. You are perfectly welcome to restore any of the edits not involving copyright issues. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Women in Red in December 2022
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging