User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 100

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 95

←

Archive 98

→

Copyright violation

Dear sir, I have recently created the page of Malla Raji Reddy. The article should not be speedy deleted at this stage because this page is under construction. I have already deleted those statement and information which violates copyright policy of wikipedia. Malla Raji Reddy is a notable enough politician of India. This page should be there. There are number of reliable references. Those information violating copyright policy has wiped away totally. I am very much respectful to the copyright policy of Wikipedia. You are hereby requested to see and review the article again. If there is any other difficulties I will make it correct positively, thanking you. Pinakpani (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinakpani, As noted, the article you created seems to have substantial overlap with this site. Can you explain why you do not think this is a copyright issue? S Philbrick (Talk) 18:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinakpani, I do see that you didn't simply copy and paste the source, you have lightly paraphrased some sections but in my opinion it still qualifies as a close paraphrase which is still a copyright policy violation S Philbrick (Talk) 18:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected those violative content very recent. Even added some reliable references like BBC news etc. I can seek help further from any sr. wikipedian like you. Thanks again. Pinakpani (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinakpani, For example, the source says:

"He carries a reward of Rs 15 lakh on his head"

and that exact phrase is still in the article. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This has a different reliable source from https://www.rediff.com/news/2007/dec/18naxal.htm not https://naxalresistance.wordpress.com/category/malla-raji-reddy/ However, I have corrected it. Pinakpani (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Danny Dietz

Hi, I saw that you had removed a lot of the information I added in and stated it under good faith edits, is it ok if I put the information back in and paraphrase, so I don't have to start from scratch. Also, can you tell me what parts were under copyright? so I can further paraphrase thanks!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta fiver (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Delta fiver, Here is a linkto a report that identifies material that was copied.

It is not the best approach to copy the material and and then paraphrase. While many editors are aware of the current versions of articles should not contain violations of copyright policy, it appears that some editors are unaware that this prohibition applies to all past versions. A better approach is to write the material in your own words in an external editor and then make the edit.

Please take a look at Paraphrasing of copyrighted material. Many editors are surprised to learn that you can literally change every single word and still be in violation of copyright. Using a single source and simply modifying some (or even all!) Of the words is not a great practice. It is better to have multiple sources, read them, then rewrite in your own words and refer back to the original to make sure you haven't misstated facts. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, greatly appreciated. Im unable to access the report that displays the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta fiver (talk • contribs) 14:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Delta fiver, Sorry, that report is delivered by a tool called copy patrol. Perhaps you need to be locked in to use it. Let me see if I can track down an alternative. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Delta fiver, Does this work? S Philbrick (Talk) 14:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that you could E-mail it to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta fiver (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Delta fiver, See if the link I just proved works. If not, we'll look into other options, but I didn't immediately see how to email it. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Delta fiver, There are times, and this may be an example, where paraphrasing is not the best approach and the exact text should be included. However it needs to be done properly, typically" for relatively short quotations, or in block quotes for longer quotations. And, of course properly cited.

Please read:

Wikipedia:Quotations

In particular note the section on overuse which talks about the problems of long quotations. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi the link works thank you, however, in this case, the citation of the medal and statue have been picked up as copyright, however, it was what was actually stated ,is there a way I can state it?. Thank you

Delta fiver has added back some sections. Can you help review to see if it is still copyvio paraphrasing? I still see some sentences copied from Travis Manion this time, but not whole paragraphs, but not sure about the other references. I also renamed to Draft:Danny P. Dietz as most articles are calling him Danny Dietz or Danny P. Dietz. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

My lengthening of the Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota history section

My lengthening of the Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota history section was removed because of a copyright violation, but what I added was from the Dakota County Historical Society, not what you sited as the source. The document you cited merely used the Dakota County Historical Society as a source as welI. I understand if you would like me to add the citation, but I would also like to know if there's maybe something else I may have violated on top of the perceived copyright violation? Thanks TaylorRiess (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

TaylorRiess, It is quite common that the exact same text appears in multiple places. When our copy patrol tool searches for matching text, it may not find the exact same source you used.

Can you provide a link to the Dakota County Historical Society source? I'll be very surprised if it has been freely licensed, but that would be required to use it as is (along with an appropriate citation, of course). S Philbrick (Talk) 12:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, here you are: http://www.dakotahistory.org/images/history/maps/Inver-Grove_History-Map.pdf and the actual website would be http://www.dakotahistory.org/images/history/maps TaylorRiess (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

TaylorRiess, Both of those links gave me 404 errors, but I was able to use the link to find this page on Inver Grove Heights: link. It is clearly marked as subject to full copyright. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why that didn't work. The PDF is independent of the website, merely compiled by it. https://www.dakotahistory.org/images/HistoryMaps/Inver-Grove-History-Map.pdf Also, sorry if I'm badgering, I'm just very new to this. TaylorRiess (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

TaylorRiess, Thanks for your concern, but you are not badgering. As you mentioned, you are new, attempting to make good faith contributions to Wikipedia but running into some roadblocks.

That link worked.

I note the absence of a specific copyright statement. Some people are under the impression that if a document does not have an explicit copyright statement, it is not subject to copyright. While that was true many years ago, it is not true in the US after the US signed the Berne Convention in 1989. Subsequent to that, copyright is automatic (with some rare exceptions such as works by certain federal government employees) and does not need to be specifically asserted. For material to be used, if it is not automatically public domain, or does not fall under some very narrow exceptions, it must be specifically licensed in a way that can be used in Wikipedia. The document you linked does not have such a license so it cannot be copied or even closely paraphrased. It can be used as a reference, but the material must be written in your own words, and not a close paraphrase of the source.

I'll be happy to go into more detail if any of this is not clear. S Philbrick (Talk) 01:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Sputnik Band

Dear Sphilbrick,

Could you please recheck my https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sputnik_(band) I've edited it nicely with all needed fields Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretly canada (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

How to make my "Draft" not to be draft anymore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretly canada (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Secretly canada, This is a great question to ask at the Teahouse. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions S Philbrick (Talk) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You revert for copyright issues

Dear Sphilbrick, Hi, could you please explain why there is a copyright issue with http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/biblio/publications/2018/financial-report_en.pdf on Budget of the European Union — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelass (talk • contribs) 07:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Abelass, From the report:

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018

Does that answer your question? S Philbrick (Talk) 11:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I updated the text adding the needed copyrights. Hope this is fine.

No, you cannot simply add a copyright notice to a Wikipedia article. If the source material is copyrighted, you can use it as a source, but you must write the material in your own words.--S Philbrick (Talk) 12:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Can you give me an example

RD1 unable to view URL

There's a copy on the Wayback Machine. Does that work for you? Otherwise it might be some script thing. It works for me on Firefox but I might try some other browser. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Alpha3031, I tried Chrome, IE and Firefox. None worked. However, the Wayback is sufficient. I completed it, thanks. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Stile Liberty

Can you revert not copyrighted material? Entire Galileo Chini section, part of graphics etc. Or if you can just revert your edit I will remove copyright material. Thank you.Sourcerery (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcerery, I temporarily undid my revision deletion so that you can recover the material not subject to copyright. Please let me know when you are done so I can restore the revision deletion. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, done.Sourcerery (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourcerery, Thanks for handling it so promptly. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

WDSO Chesterton

I just noticed you took down my edits on the WDSO Chesterton Wikipedia for "Copy Right Reasons". As the public relations officer for WDSO FM, I have permission to post the content. Why did you find it necessary to remove the information added? I spent nearly 2 hours typing half of the stuff up per the General Manager's Instructions... At the very least please undo you revisions and ill take the content from our website off until I can get the form for copyrighted material or whatever is needed. Other stuff included in that edit was not copyrighted whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeweitzel (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Jakeweitzel, if you can place a note on the website noting the release of the text under the a compatible licence, that'll be the quickest way, and once the note is seen it'll be restored, but our policy does not allow use to have text that isn't officially released under a compatible licence or public domain. It needs to be correctly licensed because we don't want to be sued for copyright and we don't want the people who reuse text from Wikipedia to be sued either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Jakeweitzel, Thanks to Alpha3031 for stepping up when I was away. in addition to the useful advice from that editor, I'll also add that you have a conflict of interest due to your position. Please see WP:COI, especially the mandatory disclosure requirements. I cannot restore your edit, but if you want me to email you any content, I can do so, although you will have to enable email as it appears not to be currently available. Check the lower section of the first page on preferences in order to enable your email. S Philbrick (Talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What is your view about the current Archbishop of Onitsha,Most Rev.Valerian Okeke?

I have read so much about his influence on the education system in his State Anambra Nigeria. Kevinchuks (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

He was born in umudioka of Anambra state Nigeria inBorn: Tuesday, 20 October 1953. Kevinchuks (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Kevinchuks, No opinion. S Philbrick (Talk) 23:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

List of Colors

I have just found your message to me about my entry of African Violet to the list. The section Color Issues is now missing from the Talk page, so I have no idea what I am supposed to read. The entry is now gone, so logically that would indicate it was contrary to the standards listed under Future initiatives. I have no idea now why I added the entry or why it was removed. However, I trust your judgment. Meanwhile, my own personal Color List project has been on hold for quite some time now due to other higher priority projects, and a mishap in 2017 that deleted many of my files leaving me only with year-old backups. I did check the old files and I have two lists from Wikipedia. The first is the only list showing African Violet. The second states that some colors were edited out. African Violet is not on that list. Even so, the RGB value (#B284BE; 178, 132, 190) assigned to African Violet was unique on all of my lists. It only appears on the Wikipedia list with no other source given. Since there is no entry for the color African Violet on Wikipedia, I suppose it must have been dropped on those grounds. Rod Lockwood (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Rod Lockwood, I see that you are relatively new. FYI, new comments go on the bottom of a talk page. If you go back to the list of colors talk page Talk:List of colors, you won't see my comment because it has been archived. You can either type "African" into the search box on the page, or go directly to archive 3. Caution. the specific discussion has been collapsed so open the section saying something about A-Al. The explanation is there. Feel free to discuss, as we ought to have an entry for African Violet if it can be supported. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Rod Lockwood, As an additional point, it sounds like you are knowledgeable about the subject, so I hope we can work together. I'm in an airport at the moment, so not in a position to track down additional info, but I put together a to-do list somewhere. Let's talk. S Philbrick (Talk) 13:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately my project is stalled. Basically, I was trying to collect defined colors and organize them, remove the duplicates and give them consistent names (but citing popular alternatives) to use for whenever I needed to create images. My spreadsheets, have pages that include the range of skin and eye colors, coat coloring of horses and dogs, and the like. The project has been on the sidelines for several years now. The only changes made since 2016 has been formating the pages. If you like, I could send you a copy of the file, and the two old files, so you see what you could use from them. I generally write notes in my spreadsheets in order to pick up where I leave off. I do this just because I often hit a snag on a research project and not resume the project for quite some time. (There are places where it is noted that I did not document properly, started losing track of what I was doing, and had to start over.) I also try to make notations on the sources of information. I also have in the first page the rules that I use for color names and what colors I list. Also a full glossary of terms, or at least the ones I find useful. As for African Violet, according to my notes and new pages, I have dropped the color from my official list, but it is on a list of “personal colors” on the Notes pages of the two latest files.

Personally, I am backlogged. Aside from what I have on the computer system, I have forty years of paper that needs to be put into my computer system.

I apologize for the error of what order I commented in. I usually only make grammatical or spelling errors on Wikipedia. Sometimes I make requests for additional information, or clarification of a statement the article, but these are not frequent. Rod Lockwood (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Someone made a comment in an edit summary about George Friedman. If it's a personal attack, can it be redacted from edit history? -- George Ho (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

George Ho, Yes. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert in saraswat page

Dear User talk:Sphilbrick I accept that history may be from some net coz I didn’t knew about this restriction but yeah diet and marriage contents are my research so please do restore only this section coz I don’t have copy of that.I spared 1 hour so please provide solution for this. With best regards, Phadke1234 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, Please go to preferences and turn on the option for email, and I will email the contents to you. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I am really not getting what to do since this is not user friendly.So can you paste content here or atleast revert that I personally delete those who are under copyright if you don’t mind.It’s my request. Phadke1234 (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, No, I cannot post copyrighted material here, or revert it. in the upper right corner of your screen if you are on a desktop computer and you'll see "preferences". That link has multiple pages put on the first page there is an option to turn on your email. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much,I set the email preference.Next? Phadke1234 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, I get the following message:

This user has not specified a valid email address.

Username:

Phadke1234

This suggests you did not enter an email address. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, You needed to check the box that says:

Allow other users to email me

and enter a working email address S Philbrick (Talk) 15:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was invalid by mistake,Now I have corrected that. Phadke1234 (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Phadke1234, email sent. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@SP, for context, see... ——SerialNumber54129 15:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, Thanks S Philbrick (Talk) 15:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Another personal attack

This edit should be redacted. George Ho (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

George Ho,

Done S Philbrick (Talk) 12:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I also found another similar edit made weeks ago. George Ho (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

George Ho, It's my opinion that this entry does not constitute a personal attack. Sounds like a factual statement, which apparently was removed from the article but isn't directed at any particular individual. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Ehud Arye Laniado.jpg

I noticed you deleted this file with CSD F9 but I'm pretty sure I saw this page earlier with a non-free use rationale template provided, which would preclude F9? --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Krenair, Please see User_talk:Philafrenzy#Ehud_Arye_Laniad Happy to respond further if that doesn't suffice. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw that but this is not about whether the image should be deleted or not, this is about the rationale used for deletion. The one provided in the deletion log comment does not appear valid as it relies on there not being a non-free usage rationale provided. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Krenair, I understand. I prefer to spend time debating whether we have the legal right to ignore the wishes of the copyright holder rather than debating the bureaucratic nit about whether the deletion rationale should be worded differently. S Philbrick (Talk) 15:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Continued copyvio by Legende Legende

Hi Sphilbrick, thanks for removing copyvio content added by Legende Legende at Xian H-20. This user has added copyvio content to multiple articles despite my warning on their talk page. See other examples: [1] [2]. This user appears to be the same as the IPs 188.201.255.66 and 217.103.150.88, both blocked for persistent copyvio. See edit history of Mao Yichang. -Zanhe (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe, Happy to help. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this user should be blocked for a) repeated copyright violation despite warning; b) likely block evasion; c) removing sourced content with no explanation; d) general unconstructive edits (multiple editors have now left warnings at User talk:Legende Legende, with no response from the user). Thanks, -Zanhe (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe, Blocked. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope the user will change their behaviour after the block expires, although I'm not holding my breath. -Zanhe (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe, Nor I. Keep me in the loop if it continues, as failure to change will result in lengthening blocks. Please consider adding a personal message, as I will next time if I block. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Legende Legende is at it again. On Jiang Zemin, they replaced sourced content with jokes and memes, in violation of BLP. Typical WP:NOTHERE behaviour. -Zanhe (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Zanhe, I blocked again, this time for a longer period of time. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Question about Kings of Con

Would this be considered a copyvio? Wiki liscenses always confuse me.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Money emoji, Many other wikis use the same license as Wikipedia:

Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License

But if you may see some other variation, notably adding in a noncommercial (NC) restriction. That restriction would make it absolutely inconsistent and revertable on that basis alone, however, because a wiki is typically an unreliable source, that usually a better way to go.

My personal practice is that when I'm in "copyright mode" a search for copyright issues and take action based on whether it is a copyright violation or not. Some other editors might examine the copyright issue but if they see another issue, might make the edit based on that other issue. I do this sometimes, for example, I recently reverted something as unsourced because it sort of look like a copyright violation but I couldn't quite nail it down. When I see material from another wiki, I tend to reverted if it has a noncommercial license, but has an acceptable license or an unclear license, I tend to leave it to someone else to revert on the basis of unreliable or other reason.

I poked around that site a little bit but did not find a clear statement of the license, so you have to decide whether you want to:

Track down the license and revert if it's not an acceptable license
Revert on the basis that a wiki, in general, is an unreliable source
Let it go for another editor S Philbrick (Talk) 17:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as Bengele seems to be assisting with the article, I think it's safe to let it go for him. Thanks for the advice- you've been of great assistence in helping me out and answering my questions. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 17:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion nomination of ASME B73 Pumps

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement.

The web page in question (https://www.techstreet.com/standards/asme-b73-1-2012?product_id=1863631) is NOT the owner of ASME B73 standards. The product description (in this case, B73.1) comes from the Standard itself, and can be found also on ASME's shop, a source that is cited multiple times in this article.

I am willing to provide you with approval from ASME on the use of this content. Papertd (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Papertd, If the text used in that article is available under one of the acceptable free licenses, I'll be happy to restore the article if you point out where it can be found and I can confirm that there is a free license identified on the source page.

Containing the text does not currently specify a free license but the copyright holder of the material would be willing to provide a free license, that would be the best and easiest next step. An alternative approach is to file a formal permission statement. You can read more about this at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials S Philbrick (Talk) 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, while I wait on ASME's webmaster to get back to me, what if I rephrased the article and cited the same sources? Would you be willing to restore the article on the contingency that I do that? I initially did not stray from ASME's wording out of caution as to not misrepresent the scope of the standards. Papertd (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Papertd, I'm leaving for a press conference in a few minutes so I will not be able to do much until I return a few hours from now. I understand your goal not to misrepresent a standard. The standard itself could be placed within quotation marks or in a block quote and cited. I don't recall how much of the article text was the standard itself; we may have an issue if there is not much to the article outside of the standard, but we can address that. I'm not comfortable restoring the article because that would mean restoring what I believe is a copyright violation. However, I have emailed you a copy of the contents. S Philbrick (Talk) 14:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, thank you for mailing me the original contents of the article. If I repost the article myself with significantly modified wording, would that be acceptable? Please let me know if you would advise anything else regarding the intellectual property or copyright of the article. I want to make sure I proceed correctly. Papertd (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Papertd, It is always best to start with multiple sources, then read them all, put them aside and write something in your own words, but I grant that this ideal is not always achievable. The danger with use of a single source is the possibility of lose paraphrasing. I do get that sometimes you have no alternative, so take care to make sure that it is written in your own words. As mentioned before, this good reason that the standard itself should be quoted exactly, properly cited and set off in quotation marks or in a block quote, but the exactly copied word should be a small portion of the entire content.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, I have resubmitted the draft article with different wording and a wider variety of sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ASME_B73_Pumps. I hope this is sufficient.Papertd (talk) 40:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Papertd, I hope so too. I typically do not do a follow up - if it isn't flagged by the Copyright detection tool, I assume it is fine. S Philbrick (Talk) 20:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Honda RC100 revert

I saw the link you gave on the edit description and I have a feeling that the revert you did on Honda RC100 article might be a case of reverse copyvio/WP:FORKS. (That wiki had no copyright lines and isn't here either.) Or is there something else? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

FMecha, One of the challenges of our copyright detection tool is that it can be susceptible to false positive reports. In many cases, I catch them due to an edit summary which might say something like "restoring material incorrectly removed" or something similar.

Your edit summary simply said "proper info for RC101B '96", so it didn't indicate to me that it might be a false positive.

Looking closer, I see that some of your edit involved moving some paragraphs around, which gets picked up by the copyright violation tool as matching some other the material so I think that's the issue.

I undid my edit. S Philbrick (Talk) 19:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime, I added honda-wiki.org to the WP:FORKS list. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 20:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

FMecha, Thanks S Philbrick (Talk) 20:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)