User talk:Sphilbrick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April editathons at Women in Red[edit]

January 2020 at Women in Red[edit]

January 2020, Volume 6, Issue 1, Numbers 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153


Happy Holidays from all of us at Women in Red, and thank you for your support in 2019. We look forward to working with you in 2020!

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

Copyright violations on Chartered Institutes for the Management of Sport and Physical Activity[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Chartered_Institute_for_the_Management_of_Sport_and_Physical_Activity

Thank you for flagging the copyright violation. I agree with the removal. However, there was other content that was removed that did not come from the website you flagged. This included infobox additions, a new section, and other text in the introduction not related to the vision/mission paragraphs.

I have reintroduced these elements onto the page. I will leave mission/vision absent.

COI on my profile. Happy to add elsewhere if needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Reece_at_CIMSPA

While it may not seem like the right thing to do, it is convention, when identifying a copyright issue, to do a rollback, which sometimes picks up other copyright issues and sometimes picks up inrelated,a nd non-problematic issues. You are always welcome to restore the non-copyright issue edits.

••••🎄Merry Christmas🎄••••[edit]

"May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ..Merry Christmas.. and a ..Happy New Year.., whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you ..warm greetings.. for Christmas and New Year 2021."

Happy editing,
User:245CMR

Copyright issue: Nikolay Zefirov[edit]

Hello!

I'm writing with a question with Draft:Nikolay Zefirov page.

My fault, the page may have contained some of the sentences from the Arxivoc article. But it was a rough Draft, so I didn't have enough time to fix it. I just included a snippet of text so I don't forget to mention it in future parts. And now I don't have the original text (it took me a whole day of work on a school project, I ended up losing about 2k/4k characters) to fix it :(

Also, I have no ability to undo your everting to the latest version :((

can you undo your revertion, please? I will fixed it asap!


thanks a lot!

Best wishes,

Xenia ~~~~ Barashkovaxe (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.
I am aware, because I seen it happen often, that new editors are under the impression that it's okay to incorporate copyrighted text into a draft as long as they plan to clean it up at some time. That is absolutely not permitted. While it is never a good idea to start with copyrighted text, if you must, you must do it off-line. Sorry but I'm unable to restore copyrighted text for you. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the text here, but it was 245 words which I think qualifies is more than "a snippet of text" S Philbrick(Talk) 18:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reference text, I already have it. Unfortunatelly, I have no copy of my own text.
That about words - the half of the text is list of awards and honors. I cannot force them to be renamed..
As well, it's not a good practice to delete the whole text immediately without any preliminary notifications.
Xenia Barashkovaxe (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's standard practice, has been for literally decades.
I continue to be surprised at how many people compose large edits in the edit window. I occasionally will compose and edit in the edit window but almost never if it's longer than a sentence. That's what external editors are for. Then if there's a hiccup, which is not uncommon, the text is not lost. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Ossett RUFC copyvio issues[edit]

Hey, I've reverted the re-addition of copyvio problems on Draft:Ossett RUFC, flagging for you because you removed it previously. Thanks, microbiologyMarcus (petri dishgrowths) 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the ensuing explanation and conversation, for your attention, at User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus § Draft:Ossett RUFC - Rejection. microbiologyMarcus (petri dishgrowths) 15:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

added 0xDeadbeef
readded Tamzin
removed Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

added Pppery
removed

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
  • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
  • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
  • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
  • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
  • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
  • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the decision to revert my recent edit to the page. The primary source of text is not your cited link in https://www.sait.it/.

The primary source is a WGSBN Bulletin issued by IAU, the link is [1], which is cited as reference at the rightmost column of the table. Contents by IAU are under CC BY 4.0 DEED according to [2], which can be shared with attribution.

Myomyomyomyon (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I reverted. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue citations at Antonela Roccuzzo[edit]

Hi, thanks for clearing up the copyright vio at Antonela Roccuzzo. However, the revdel removed a large number of references that were used in the article between when the copyvio was added and the current revision. Can you restore just the list of references to the article's talk page so that they can be reincorporated and the article can be rewritten? Suriname0 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, maybe this request should go to User:SamX; please let me know. Suriname0 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a reasonable request, but I can't restore the references myself because I'm not an admin and am therefore unable to view the deleted revisions. Asking Sphilbrick is the right way to go about this. SamX [talk · contribs] 18:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Samx is right.
I temporarily restore the visibility of the intervening edits. I'm never happy about hiding so many edits but haven't found a suitable workaround yet. If you could give me a ping when you've done whatever you need to do, I can reinstate the revision deletion. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, User:Sphilbrick. Done! It was fewer refs than I remembered, but I exported them to the talk page and added a Sources Exist template. Suriname0 (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reverting your nomination of Draft:Quintus Prolog for speedy deletion; as mentioned at the talk page, not only is the source freely licensed, the copying was indicated by an attribution template at the bottom of the article text ever since the first revision. Felix QW (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note on process — I hope you can appreciate that our copyright detection tool looks for similarities between text in an edit and text existing elsewhere. While it would be nice if the algorithms had the ability to identify the copyright status of the matching text, that doesn't appear to be possible, so checking for false positives must be done manually by the individual reviewing the report.
Speaking only for myself, one of the things I do is examine the reported text to see if it appears to be licensed. In this case the source identified is this location, which doesn't appear to have any indication that it is acceptably licensed. I'm not arguing the text isn't acceptably license it seems likely that someone made the decision to provide an acceptable license at some later point in time and understandably didn't take steps to modify any existing copies existing anywhere else.
I do appreciate that you left a note at the bottom of the page and I'm sorry I didn't see it but I don't think it qualifies as attribution. In addition to checking the source, I typically look at the Wikipedia article content, not with a fine tooth comb but close enough to confirm overlap, and also to look for a reference section which might indicate a license.
There wasn't one at the time I made my nomination, and while the current version does have a reference section, it doesn't have any references identifying the acceptable licensing of the material. For an example of what I'm talking about please look at 19th-century_newspapers_that_supported_the_Prohibition_Party. When I look at the reference section I don't look closely at all contents but I look for the symbol as shown here (a copyright symbol with a slash through it) which identifies that Some of the material in the article came from elsewhere but that use is permitted. This type of attribution occurs in many hundreds of articles and provides a heads up to a reviewer that this is a false positive. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that the example I gave includes a template designed for public domain text which isn't the case in your example. {{Dual}} is probably a better template to use. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I very much appreciate you taking the time for such a detailed response! Alas, {{dual}} is precisely the template I used to generate the text at the footer of the page, so unfortunately it doesn't seem to get any more visible than that. While on this page I only used the source initially and then had to rephrase it to make it encyclopaedic anyway, in other cases this survey article actually contains good, encyclopaedic text that should stay into the article main space version. So it is just a bit silly that it keeps getting overlooked. Felix QW (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is quite ironic that you used that template to generate the text. I am not a lawyer so I'm not able to tell you whether placing that text in an article which is not in the reference section qualifies as providing attribution. My guess is that you are on solid legal ground, but I am trying to tell you why it gets overlooked. I do occasionally talk to other editors who work in the copyright area but I've never sat down and walked through all aspects of the process. I'm telling you that I am not going to search through the text of an article with a fine tooth comb to search for something that might support the use. I do check references, and I won't be surprised if other editors also check references, but you suggest this is a common problem and I'm suggesting that it will continue to be a problem if it is your practice to drop the text somewhere in the article but not as part of a reference. Please keep in mind that there is only a dozen or so editors trying to deal with hundreds of notifications every week — it's like drinking from a fire hose and we don't have the bandwidth to check things as carefully as you might like. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read more closely, the note at the bottom of the page makes reference to both the creative common's license and GFDL. That's why I suggested the "dual" template.
Looking at the page you identified here, I'm not seeing reference to GFDL. If I missed it and it's there then "dual" as a template makes sense, if not consider {{CCBYSASource}} S Philbrick(Talk) 18:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, CC-BY is an attribution license that allows reuse under any more restrictive license, including GFDL. Only if it is under a CC-BY-SA license, itself a share-alike license, then it is restricted to further distribution under the same or a compatible license. Felix QW (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm aware that CC – BY is broader (painfully aware as jumped up and bit me once years ago), In your assertion that CC-BY might imply GFDL may well be true but doesn't the site you linked specifically say:
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is used to distribute the re-used or adapted article and the original article is properly cited.
S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lamborghini Huracán revdel[edit]

Sorry, I think I missed up the revision range when flagging that one, it's actually the edits from 212.142.113.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) rather than User:Eghtegr - they're presumably the same person, though. 212.142.113.129 pasted in the actual text from other websites, User:Eghtegr only pasted in images. Belbury (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just now picked up the range starting with the edits by 212.142.113.129. It does reuire flagging all interveining edits so I think we are fine now. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing[edit]

It appears that you are right. You can go ahead and remove the template. Scorpions1325 (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of my other two outstanding RD1 requests? Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at them. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 59[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

  • Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
  • Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2023[edit]

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Spirituality & Psychotherapy[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Spirituality & Psychotherapy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sports Tennis[edit]

Thank you for reaching out to be regarding deleting that paragraph about Sky getting the rights to the ATP and WTA series.

I was really struggling to try to avoid a copy and paste of Sky Sports' press release and I did manage to change some of the wording but I accept the reasons why you ultimately felt it necessary to delete the information. This information does need to be included so if you can send me the copy of the text I used and put it into my sandbox I can modify it further over the next month prior to returning this information to Wikipedia ahead of Sky taking over these rights. Rillington (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I temporarily restored the visibility of the text so you can access your edit. After you have done so, I can reset the revision deletion. Thanks for understanding. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that. I've now re-written the paragraph and I hope that there are no issues with this version. Rillington (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information in the public domain[edit]

Hello Sphilbrick,

The information on this page: Draft:Chief Justice Mark V. Green is from [3]https://www.mass.gov/info-details/chief-justice-mark-v-green. The content I published is in the public domain and is free of copyright issues. Please see the following sources:

[4]https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgov-terms-of-use [5]https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/massachusetts/

Thank you. 204.130.104.10 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Unfortunately, this appears to be more complicated than you suggest. Before getting into the specific issues, I will make a general comment, which reflects my general understanding of copyright rules. I won't speak for others working in this area but I hope we are on the same page. Material on pages created by the federal government is almost always public domain. There are some exceptions but as a general rule, if it's on a federal government website it can be treated as public domain. Some editors have mistakenly jump to the conclusion that government documents are always public domain. (This is a general comment, I'm not addressing this at you personally.) It is not uncommon to have to revert material that comes from a state government website. Most of the material on state government websites is not public domain. There are some specific exceptions, for example text of legislation, but in general one has to be very careful when using material from a state website.
In this specific case, you are using material from a state of Massachusetts website. I believe the source is the following site:
chief-justice-mark-v-green
You identified a Harvard site commenting on the status of copyright for Massachusetts government records. While that page starts out very encouragingly:

The Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth has said that "Records created by Massachusetts government are not copyrighted and are available for public use."

It does go on to state

The scope of this statement is not completely clear.

I'm not doing going to investigate this page any further but concentrate on the other site you identified which covers the specific rules for Mass.gov.
Before going into this further I will note that the page with the material you used as at the bottom of the page:

© 2023 Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

This is not unique to this site but is very frustrating to those of us working on copyright issues. Over 99.9% of the time, if you see an unequivocal copyright statement at the bottom of the page with no caveats, you can assume that the material is subject to full copyright. In a tiny percentage of cases such as this one, there will be another page somewhere, sometimes easy to find, sometimes not so easy, that basically says our unequivocal declaration of copyright was just kidding, the situation is somewhat different. (As an aside, Wikipedia could provide a service they could use some of their stash of cash to send out useful information indicating that it would be better to have clearer statements of copyright on pages.)
The terms of use page you linked is helpful but still challenging to read.
It starts out fairly definitive:

All of the material posted on the Commonwealth's websites and available to the public without use of an authenticating and authorizing mechanism (such as a "PIN" or password) is public record.

That sounds crystal-clear. They use the term "public record" rather than "public domain", but I think for copyright purposes those terms are interchangeable, and a reader could be forgiven for reaching this sentence and thinking that anything on mass.gov is free to use.
However, the very next sentence starts out with a qualification "most of the public record posted on Commonwealth websites…" They then go on to talk about material that can only be used under "fair use". They also mention social media pages with comments, which is available under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. That's not the same as public domain, but can be used in Wikipedia with attribution. However I'm not going to focus too much on these issues as there is a more important qualification:

Please note that the Massachusetts Judicial Branch has its own Terms of Use and Site Policies that apply to its pages on Mass.gov.

I'm presuming that a page about the Chief Justice falls under this qualification although I'm not completely sure.
Unfortunately, I'm running out of steam and we aren't quite done.
While it seems logical that a page about the Chief Justice would fall under the Massachusetts judicial branch rules, I don't know that for certain. Moreover, I haven't search for the page outlining their own set of rules.
I think the next steps are that you should investigate whether the page about the Chief Justice falls under the general Mass.gov rules or the exception for specific judicial branch rules. If the latter, we will want to look at that page, if the former will want to look and be sure that the content does qualify as public domain.
Sorry for the complications but the complications are created by Massachusetts not me. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:30, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also going to ping @Tails Wx: who intially tagged the page. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) From what i can tell the important sentence on the Mass.gov Terms of Use is: most of the content on Mass.gov, the Commonwealth forbids any copying or use other than "fair use" under the Copyright Act.
This means that most content on mass.gov is Non-free content, which means that Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use#Text is the guideline that applies. Especially the part that says: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. ... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited. I don't know how the draft looked like but i hope this helps @Sphilbrick. Nobody (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Sphilbrick. I'm going to comply with 1AmNobody24 here. If I can recall (I can't remember correctly what the draft looked like, as that draft I tagged for G12 was deleted over a month ago), the draft did not use the non-free content in an acceptable condition, and I also remember there was also a high similarity percentage according to Earwig's Copyvio detector that I used prior to G12-tagging, which, is an unacceptable use of non-free content as well. Tails Wx 16:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Revertion due to Copyright[edit]

Hi Mr or Mrs Sphillbrick,

I do apologise for using copyrighted material (as I had saved it off a Salvage Corps/Fire Patrol only Facebook group a week ago and did not know if it was copyrighted. (Yet the sources that I had used had the images (which I should have credited anywhom so that's a fault by me))

I have only come here if you could kindly revert the changes as the new additions on the page for Glasgow Salvage Corps were no easy feat. It took me quite some time researching them (as Glasgow Salvage corps is not as popular as Liverpool or London)

It would be most helpful if you reverted it, and I could remove the copyrighted image so people don't miss out on an (I'd like to call it) awesome part of English/Scottish Fire History. Not much is known about them as they were not as common as your normal Fire Service in the UK.

Apologies for the hassle though, but if you can revert it I will get it removed ASAP (or if you remove it). :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talkcontribs) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will address this shortly. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I temporarily turned off the revision deletion so you can access your edits S Philbrick(Talk) 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FireBrigadeFanaticNO1: sending ping S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, You have saved me time with having to redo the entire thing again. Ill make sure to keep it out (or email the sources when i find them again) once I finish copying it over. FireBrigadeFanaticNO1 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
  • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
  • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2024[edit]

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


Online events:

Announcement

  • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
    of the #1day1woman initiative!

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, Sphilbrick. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Imaginarium Studios, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdovey Lifeboat Station[edit]

You deleted all my updates. There was nothing of any Copyright value. All updates were from publicly available sources. And more to the point, most of my update was reformatting.

So I'd be obliged if you would reinstate my updates please. Or at least discuss. MartinOjsyork (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page (FYI you did not Ping me when you responded to me so I didn't know about your post until you came to my talk page) S Philbrick(Talk) 18:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 60[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

  • Three new partners
  • Google Scholar integration
  • How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yelo TV?[edit]

I am curious about this edit, which added as a reference what now appears to be a paywalled site. I ask because we are preparing to disambiguate the term "Yelo", but also because it is unclear how this reference applies to the content of the preceding sentence. I thought you might have some insight into that. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wish I could help. I see that yet it is my only edit to that article. On occasion, I have undertaken to improve references to articles but they are typically articles in which I have personal interest, and this doesn't that criteria. I do see that it is pay walled I wonder if it was pay walled at the time. I tried accessing it and failed. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red February 2024[edit]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298


Online events:

Announcement

  • Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event.

Tip of the month:

  • AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

CheckUser changes

removed Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

removed

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

  • Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

  • Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
  • Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Machicomoco State Park[edit]

Please let me access content that you deleted for this article. I never intended to publish the article with that content, it was for me to build my draft off of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Machicomoco_State_Park

15:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC) Froglife94 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Material was removed because it was a copyright violation of text found at the Virginia State Park article. Please be aware that the use of copyrighted material is not appropriate even in drafts. I provided a link to the source material. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red March 2024[edit]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 61[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

  • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
  • 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]