Request restoration of a previously deleted file version

Greetings. Will you please restore the older version of: File:Poster for the fifth Salon de la Rose+Croix Point Sarluis.jpg? The file was was non-free, but it is now Public Domain. I would like to move it to Commons but it won't let me until the older version is restored. Rockfang (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Done S Philbrick(Talk) 14:29, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Rockfang (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Copyright violations in Gender pay gap

Dear @Sphilbrick: I believe there has been a mistake. My edition in Gender pay gap: I have used a publicly available article as a reference: which anyone can consult by following the link. It is not the lyrics of a song or a poem, but an academic work that invites debate and is therefore freely accessible. Most articles are published in indexed journals with limited access to paying readers. This is not the case here. According to Wikipedia's copyright policy: "Since most recently created works are protected by copyright, almost all Wikipedia articles that cite their sources include links to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain permission from the copyright holder before including a link to copyrighted material, just as the author of a book does not need permission to cite another person's work in their bibliography." For all these reasons, I kindly request that my edit be restored, as I believe that the rules have been followed and that there is no copyright infringement. Thank you very much for your attention and for your competence in protecting Wikipedia, a public good... DamAzul (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy that you reached out to me. Sometimes when a new editor has an edit reverted, I never hear from them again. We can always use new editors to help accomplish the goals of the Wikipedia project.

Thank you for citing a portion of the Wikipedia copyright policy. You cited the section related to linking which confirms that you do not have to get permission from the copyright holder to link to a source to be used in a citation. However that merely permits you to identify the source of material without getting permission does not in that it's okay to use the content exactly as is.

Please look at the paragraph immediately above the one you cited. In particular, "Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. " (emphasis added)

Our copyright detection tool found a 98.15% match between the source material in your edit which means it was not written in your own words. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:25, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick, thank you very much for your reply. I will try to rephrase it... Is it possible to access that copyright detection tool? It would be very useful for my relationship with my students... Thanks again. DamAzul (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The tool can be found here:

https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en

However it is not structured as a tool that can be applied by you to existing articles are text. It runs in the background. I don't know the exact rules but my speculation based on observation is that it looks at all new edits or perhaps all edits meeting some criteria, and looks for comparisons to existing texts. He does not have the ability to identify if match text is out of copyright or otherwise acceptable, so it simply reports the match and then human editors like myself look at the comparison and determine next steps. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your cooperation and assistance. I can already see that this can be a very useful tool. I have reread the IESE report and rewritten what I wanted to say in my own words. I hope it is correct now. DamAzul (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Bill Ackman

Hi Sphilbrick. I found your name at WP:WREQ - I'm looking for a responsible, uninvolved editor to implement consensus at Talk:Bill Ackman#Support of Israel section. The Gnome expressed concern that he is too involved to implement his own version of my initial proposal, which another editor wrote was "reasonable enough." Would you mind stepping in here? Thank you, FMatPSCM (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I added my name to that list when I was much more active as a general editor. In recent years I've wound down and do little more than copyright issues. I'm trying to ramp back up a little bit but I don't have the bandwidth for this, sorry. (I removed my name from the list.) S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of Template:WBB player statistics legend

Template:WBB player statistics legend has been listed for discussion, which may result in the template being merged or deleted by consensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - March 2026

Women in Red | March 2026, Vol 12, Issue 3, Nos 358, 359, 364, 365, 366 Online events: March 1-31: Artists & Activists | Artworks by women | Alphabet run: countries starting with C Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Celebrate Women Unreferenced articles backlog drive Wiki Loves Ramadan Tip of the month: Those experiencing difficulties with new articles can follow the guidance in our essays, perhaps starting with our Ten Simple Rules. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Trelewis Platform

Hi, HaydnMillerUK here, just wondering why the article I made is still named as a draft. You messaged me about copyright but didn't tell me which page it was so I'm assuming its the Trelewis Platform page. Please get back to me about the steps to making the page ive been working on so it can be published as an article and not a draft, cheers. HaydnMillerUK (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no involvement in the process to convert from draft to article. The best thing to do is to visit the teahouse.

Experienced editors willing to help new editors hang out at the teahouse, where questions like this are answered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions S Philbrick(Talk) 00:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2026).

Administrator changes

• Brendanconway
• Calmer Waters
• Hut 8.5
• Joe Roe
• VersedFenrir

CheckUser changes

Ks0stm

Oversight changes

Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the web archival service archive.today has been deprecated; links to the site should be removed.
• A request for comment is open to discuss retiring CSD criterion R3 in favour of handling such redirects through RfD.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedy 9.1 of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been amended to limit TenPoundHammer to one XfD nomination or PROD per 24-hour period.
• Following a motion, the Iskandar323 further POV pushing motion has been rescinded.
• The Arbitration Committee has passed a housekeeping motion rescinding a number of outdated remedies and enforcement provisions across multiple legacy cases. In most instances, existing sanctions remain in force and continue to be appealable through the usual processes, while some case-specific remedies were amended or clarified.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2026 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: A09, AmandaNP, Barras, Count Count, M7, SHB2000, Teles and VIGNERON.
• An Unreferenced articles backlog drive is taking place in March 2026 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Protect

Please protect User talk:Psiĥedelisto thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 12:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It's Fredrick Brennan's account, he died in January so there is no need for people to contact him. The guy behind 8chan. He is internet (in)famous so dumb people show up on his talkpage. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I know nothing about this. I'm curious why you contacted me — is there some reason you think I'm involved. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ANI got this nice recently active admin tool near the top. You happened to be at the top of the list. I don't think you have to watch the Q Into the Storm documentary and listen to all the QAA Podcast podcasts to get every single detail.

Some dude died. Dumb people leave dumb messages on his usertalkpage. If you protect the usertalkpage they can't leave any dumb messages anymore. Polygnotus (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, I did not know about that tool. I'll have to check it out. However, 95% of my activity recently copyright issues. I'm trying to keep reading AN ANI and the village pump so I have a clue about what's going on. I am aware that that it's a procedure to protect editors pages when death occurs, but I've never done it and did not feel comfortable I know what steps are to be taken as part of proper investigation. Sorry. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll ask someone else. Yeah that tool is very useful. The original developer left but it still works fine. Polygnotus (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 73

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 73, January–February 2026

• Four new partnerships
• User survey thanks

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 12:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Sphilbrick and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Women in Red – April 2026

Women in Red | April 2026, Vol 12, Issue 4, Nos 358, 359, 367, 368, 369 Online events: New: Countries starting with D, E and F | Women's Works: Written works | Cascading Women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: CEE women Tip of the month: When creating a new article, take a moment to ensure any notable woman is redlinked. Someone might be inspired to create an article for her. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – April 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2026).

Administrator changes

• ARandomName123

• Biblioworm
• Causa sui
• Djsasso
• Espresso Addict
• Fenix down
• Firefangledfeathers
• GeneralNotability
• NawlinWiki
• Northamerica1000
• Smalljim

Checkuser changes

Giraffer

Oversight changes

Kj cheetham

Giraffer

Guideline and policy news

• The content of Wikipedia:Writing articles with large language models has been updated following a request for comment. It now prohibits using LLMs to generate content, with exceptions for translation and copy-editing.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the GSCASTE extended-confirmed restriction in the Indian military history case has been narrowed. It now applies to caste-related topics in South Asia, and the preemptive protection remedy has been amended accordingly.
• The arbitration case Pbsouthwood has been closed.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 7 April.

Mel Henke reversion - copyright

If you have a moment to help me improve my reviewing skills. I was just asked to help with reviews of recent changes to wiki articles unrelated to any of my own contributions. One of my first attempts yesterday was to review changes to Mel Henke. I just indicated "citation needed" for the new paragraph. You, with more experience and skills, reverted the changes because of copyright. Good work (I checked out your reference in edit summary). My question: how do you go about finding such infringements (=how do I do a better job of assessing editorial changes to articles I have no connection with)? Thanks for any advice to improve my skills. TanneC (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The number one issue is to write in your own words. That can be some exceptions, for example, sometimes an article is developed best illustrated by an exact quote from some source, but it has to be reasonably short be identified as a quote using quotation marks or quote blocks and attributed. Another exception is use of material that is in the public domain or acceptably licensed, but in those cases should be attributed. My reversion occurred because you included some text that appeared to be exactly the same as in https://www.spaceagepop.com/henke.htm

Thanks for asking S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I did not write (or copy/paste) any of the text in the Mel Henke article. I am just a relatively new disinterested editor, asked (by wikipedia, based on my own edits and corrections) to review potentially questionable edits. I added the "citation needed" template because I sensed something was wrong, but I didn't figure out what it was or how to find what was missing or copied. I understand about not copying and about careful attribution. That's not the issue. Please reread my question, which is "how did you know that there was a copyright problem?" Did you put all or some of the suspicious text into a search term or is there a better way? Thanks again for your guidance. TanneC (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I already explained, I'll try again.

My reversion occurred because you included some text that appeared to be exactly the same as in https://www.spaceagepop.com/henke.htm

Can you explain how that happened? S Philbrick(Talk) 00:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

What makes you say that I was the one who added the "text that appeared to be exactly the same as in https://www.spaceagepop.com/henke.htm " I don't know how to be more clear: I did not do that. The editor who did that is: 2026-21670-49. That's not me. So, no, I cannot explain how that happened, other than to say that 2026-21670-49 copied directly from another website. NOT I. TanneC (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

My bad you are correct. I revert dozens of these every week and typically my reversion is immediately after the addition of material, so create a response and send it to the most recent editor but in this case you made an edit after the addition I accidentally sent the notification to the wrong editor. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to expand on my prior answer. Whenever we detect a copyright violation, we want to remove the text subject to copy right. While one might imagine that this could be done in the surgical way, that's not the way it's done for several reasons. Editorially, removing only the problematic text leaves a hole, which must be repaired so that the remaining text flows properly. That's not a trivial undertaking, and it is much easier to revert to earlier version before the problem was introduced. A second reason is that we don't want to be problems in the history, because while most people are going to be reading the most recent version of an article, the software is designed so that one can make references to earlier versions of an article, including version that might have a copyright problem. For this reason we want to, not just remove the problem, but perform a revision deletion, so that versions in the history containing the problem are no longer accessible.

This is potentially very tricky when there are edits following the introduction of a copyright problem. Repairing such problems years four months after it's detected can be extremely tricky editing. It's much more straightforward when it is caught soon after the introduction. Our copy patrol to identifies potential problems almost in real time, and volunteers review them sometimes, within minutes, and in most cases the problematic edit is the most recent edit. In such cases, reversion to the version prior to the introduction of the problem is fairly straightforward.

If, however, a substantial edit occurs after the introduction of a problem more care must be taken. If the most recent edit is totally unrelated to the problematic edit, it can be set aside, and we added after the cleanup. In many cases, the most recent edit is an edit to the problematic material for doesn't matter if it's reverted. In other cases, it's a minor edit and not worth the effort to analyze examine and reintroduce. I noticed that your edit had an edit summary about punctuation, so I concluded without investigating that it was not worth the effort to investigate and get a complete reversion including your edit. I did make the mistake of sending the notification to the most recent editor which I have apologized.

If your question is about what was wrong your edit which was swept up in the reversion I haven't even looked, and it is likely there are no issues.

If you are wondering why you don't simply examine your edit, it was taken away as part of the revision deletion. It is technically possible to restore it to look at it but that's a fair bit of work. It's highly likely your edit was perfectly fine. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

You are so gracious to spend time explaining some of the issues involved with reversions and potential consequences. Thank you; you're a good teacher, and I'm now a more aware editor (though I've never reverted anyone's work, I understand how it can happen and what repercussions might result).

My quick review of the Mel Henke article led to two changes: 1) (perhaps important) addition of the "citation needed" template for the paragraph lifted from another website (my only question to you was: how did YOU know or determine that it was lifted? – I only knew that something wasn't quite right) and 2) (very minor) change of two hyphens to an en dash in that problematic paragraph (now gone) – thus my editorial summary of "punctuation."

Thanks again for taking the time to respond to my questions. TanneC (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I see that I still haven't responded to one of your questions.

We have a tool called copy patrol. https://copypatrol.wmcloud.org/en

That tool looks at every single edit (I think, it's possible it skips over edits involving only a few characters). It looks at the added text, and then uses a tool called Turnitin, which I believe was originally developed to help teachers check for potential plagiarism. That tool searches to see if some subset of the added text matches something written elsewhere. If it does, it adds an entry to copy patrol. That entry requires human review, because the reason the text matches might not be a copyright issue. For example, if the added text was part of a quote, it will of course match exactly but quotes of limited length are exceptions to copyright laws. The text might match exactly but the copied text might be in the public domain or acceptably licensed. There are other legitimate reasons as well, many of which are not trivially subject to an algorithm which could indicate the added material is acceptable, so volunteers like myself review the report to determine whether the match is acceptable or requires reversion. We get several hundred of these reports every week, and there are less than a dozen active volunteers reviewing them. In fact, the single most active volunteer is dealing with some real life issues, so others are trying to step up, but that does mean we sometimes spend less time than we might like on any particular issue. The good news is that the very concept of a the wiki software means that if I make an assessment and it's wrong, it doesn't take long to reverse it. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Excellent explanation of what you do and how. Thank you for your generous time commitment to wikipedia editing & protecting what's published. The copy patrol tool is fascinating – I learned something else today. TanneC (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Politician's website not public domain?

Is a politician's website not a public news release not in the public domain?

A page I created was deleted based on a copyright issue. The page's content sourced only the politician's campaign website. KnRqxR (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Typically no. There might be counterexamples but I don't believe I've ever seen one. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

What is a politicians website if not public domain?

Will you point me to the definitions you are using for both? KnRqxR (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain S Philbrick(Talk) 21:54, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Curzon Ashton F.C. Logo 2018.png

Thanks for uploading File:Curzon Ashton F.C. Logo 2018.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Got it S Philbrick(Talk) 00:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red – May 2026

Women in Red | May 2026, Vol 12, Issue 5, Nos 358, 359, 370, 371, 372 Online events: New: Countries starting with G and H | Women's scientific works | Religion and Spirituality Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements from other communities: Contest: Destubathon of the Americas Tip of the month: Struggling to find scientific works to write about? Start with review articles or textbooks, which may highlight influential studies, theories or methods by women. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest

--Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Administrators' newsletter – May 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2026).

Administrator changes

• Deepfriedokra

• EvanProdromou
• Wouterstomp

Interface administrator changes

L235

Chaotic Enby

CheckUser changes

• TheresNoTime
• Versageek

Oversight changes

Moneytrees

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• Changes to user permissions made from Meta are now included in the local user permissions log (T6055).
• The autoconfirmed user group will soon be modified such that the four-day account age requirement begins when an account makes its first edit (T418484).

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case closed on 15 April.
• Per a recent motion, appeals of blocks from the conflict-of-interest VRT queue are, by default, appealed on-wiki through the normal unblock process. However, they may be heard by the Committee if COIVRTers disagree on the interpretation of the evidence or believe ArbCom would be better suited to hear the appeal. Administrators are also advised that loosening or lifting such blocks without the consent of someone with access to the queue or ArbCom can be grounds for desysopping.
• Per a recent motion, restrictions issued directly by the Committee may now be enforced with blocks which work exactly like contentious topic blocks.
• The arbitration case Maghreb has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The May 2026 administrator elections are scheduled to run from April 29 to May 19. The call for candidates ends May 5.
• The 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is scheduled to run from April 25 to June 1. Candidacy submissions close on May 10.
• A new noticeboard for non-urgent, batch page protection requests has been created, primarily for the enforcement of contentious topic restrictions.

Draft South Africa National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy 2026

@Sphilbrick:, thanks for the patrol and copyright notice left on the above page revision history. I accept that my summary of the “Core Pillars” section of the draft policy is very close to the page cited. This does not surprise me as the policy itself is in public domain and the law firm summarized the core policies themselves. I am actually surprised that they can claim copy right on this. But I am willing to work on that section. Would it be ok to put back the rest of the sections? For example the Reaction and Critique sections do not appear in the url page cited when reverting. Looking forward to helpful pointers on how to fix the errors. —-Thuvack | ^talk 20:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I run into many situations where someone uses some public domain texts and then slaps a copyright notice on the bottom of the page.

One option is to put the core pillars information in a block quote, so we don't even have to deal with the whether it's subject to copyright or not as long as it's not too long.

Yes feel free to restore anything else that wasn't part of the identify problematic material. It would be nice if we could use a scalpel but with only a handful of volunteers dealing with hundreds of reports we have to resort to a bit of a meat ax at times. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Understood and I do sympathize with your work loads and yes the tools could be better (But still better than what I have on my small language wiki as an admin). Thank you for the suggestion on using block quote. I will re instate the other sections gradually while I work on a more neutral summary of the core pillars section.—-Thuvack | ^talk 21:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2026

Women in Red | June 2026, Vol 12, Issue 6, Nos 358, 359, 373, 374, 375 Online events: New: LGBTQ+ women | Alphabet run: Countries starting with I, J, K and L Article improvement campaign: Orphaned women Continuing (year-long initiatives): #1day1woman | Sports Announcements, tips, participation... Announcements from other communities: Eiffel women Tip of the month: Consider contributing to two of our monthly events at once, and improve coverage of LGBTQ+ women by de-orphaning their articles. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events and add any general ideas on developing the project. Follow us on social media: Instagram & Pinterest

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A cookie for you!

Hello! From Jahnmo123! =) Jahnmo123 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know it would say my name. Jahnmo123 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hello, You deserve this! Jahnmo123 (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2026

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2026).

Administrator changes

• Asukite
• Bobby Cohn
• Bonadea
• Ca
• Drm310
• Reconrabbit
• Sammi Brie

• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

• Ezhiki
• Queen of Hearts

Bureaucrat changes

• WereSpielChequers

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the "persistent usage of large language models" has been included as a common reason for a block.

Technical news

• Mandatory 2FA for bureaucrats: Bureaucrats without two-factor authentication (2FA) enabled have already lost access to their advanced rights on 26 May. Those who do not enable 2FA may be automatically removed from the groups in mid-June 2026, and from that point onward, new members must have 2FA enabled before they can be added. (T423119, T423120)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case SchroCat has been closed.
• The arbitration case Michael Jackson has opened. Evidence submissions in this case closes on 1 June.

Miscellaneous

• Voting for the 2026 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election closes on 1 June.

Books & Bytes – Issue 74

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 74, March–April 2026

• New partnership: Swissdox
• User survey results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to User:Sphilbrick and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

Rev del - Draft:Theophilus McKinney

@Sphilbrick I noticed that you've rev del'd the 1st version of the page but you labelled it as an RD1, which is for blatant violations. I explained that the text was copied and the edit summary contains an attribution. That the text came from that page is also evident in the typo "Graduatiing" that appears on both pages.

The Copying within Wikipedia says:

If a Wikipedia article (the "parent article") contains text that is a breach of third-party copyright and is copied to another article (the "child article"), then the child article will also contain a copyright violation. Attributing the copy in the child article as specified below helps editors identify when an inadvertent breach of copyright occurred and determine that the editor who made the copy did so without knowing that it was a breach of copyright. (See here for an example.) The appropriate attribution in the child article may also help editors trace the copyright violation back to the parent article.

I don't think an inadvertent breach is the same as a blatant breach. (Also, is the copyvio going to remain on the parent page?) Mme Maigret (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don't overreact to the use of the word "blatant". I've done tens of thousands of revision deletions to remove copyright violations from visibility, and I always use the shorthand RD1 to identify the rationale and I had to look it up toSee that it has "blatant" in the description. I wasn't around when that terminology was written — had I been I would've objected to the word latent because we don't generally make any distinction between copyright violations that are blatant versus inadvertent.

I understand you said the problematic text existed in an earlier version of the page. I take that to mean that you want the editor were originally added it so it shouldn't be attributed to you as a problem but I guarantee that that's not the way anyone views RD1 reversions.

I don't know what you mean you when you make mention of the parent page. I'm aware that you said the page you started was copied or created from another page but I've never seen that one. I also don't recognize the term "parent page" in this context. My revision deletion only affects Draft:Theophilus McKinney. This is pretty much a non-issue, but I'll look into it further if there are two issues that concern you. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Newtown, Birmingham

Could I ask why you marked this CopyPatrol report as No action needed? To me, this looks like CLOP when I looked at the new case and went to look at the prior cases. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary is:

Undid revision 1357833438 by Gnomingstuff (talk)

We get a number of false positives in Copy Patrol. Those can arise for a variety of reasons, but one of the most common instances occur when there is a full-blown edit war going on, which often manifests in a lot of revision reversions. In those cases, the reversions often trigger a copy patrol report because almost by definition, the reversion is reintroducing text that was in the article shortly before. The copy patrol algorithm doesn't great job in many cases but not surprisingly, when it finds text that matches an earlier version of the Wikipedia article, it doesn't attempt to figure out whether this is a brand-new insertion or simply a reversion to a prior version. When I see an edit war in progress, there are multiple issues to address but most of those issues are not copyright related so I like to leave the sorting out of the editorial issues to others. Many reversions to a prior revision are rollbacks. This one seems little different and to be honest I've looked at it and I'm not quite sure I fully understand the sequence of events. Possible a reversion is reintroducing material that should have been identified and revision deleted earlier — if that happened it wouldn't be possible for someone to revert to that revision. That's also something that can happen in an edit war where people are fighting over editorial issues but not spending the time to identify revisions that should be revision deleted.

In this particular case that may be at best half an answer but if you feel comfortable you know exactly what's happening, feel free to either do a revision deletion or request one if appropriate S Philbrick(Talk) 11:54, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I know what you mean, though it does appear in this case that it was copying from a CC-BY-NC-SA website. There was also some other copyvio that they've inserted which wasn't found before which I've cleaned. It was a mess, though please keep an eye on it since the author's reverted me once and has three warnings now for adding copyright violations into articles. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:38, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

After our exchange, I revisited the Copy Patrol site and realized it was an older entry related to the same page. It has now been handled, but that might have been one of the early ones identifying a problem. It may have led to me Miss understanding what happened the revision I accepted. I'm trying to think how to incorporate this into my process and don't yet have a clear answer but thanks for bringing it to my attention. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Combat uniform

could i ask why you undo this page? Even i put some source on that, and my purpose in doing that is purely to make it clear. What part you didn't understand? ~2026-34021-27 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The source you used is:

https://www.camopedia.org/index.php/South_Korea

That's a wiki, which is never (as far as I know) deemed to be a reliable source.

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources in general, and

WP:USERG More specifically.

"Websites whose content is largely user-generated are generally unacceptable as sources. Sites with user-generated content include personal websites, personal and group blogs (excluding newspaper and magazine blogs), Internet forums, social media sites, fansites, video and image hosting services, most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites." S Philbrick(Talk) 14:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

it's reiable. I'm sure you don't understand that the sources used are actually sourced from other sources. Please do your own research if you don't believe me. ~2026-34021-27 (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you looked for content or resources related to their armed forces? ~2026-34021-27 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a wiki so by definition it's not reliable.

I'm very aware that wikis are often sourced from other sources. If those sources are reliable, you are free to cite them.

Your reversions are bringing you into edit warring territory which is a blocakable offense. Please take a break and do some homework if you wish to continue contributing S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Copyright for History of the Culture of War

Hello, Sphilbrick, I hold the copyright for my book, History of the Culture of War, since I published it by the Amazon system of Createspace, now called Kindle Publishing. If you go the Amazon page for the book and look at page 3 of the images, you will see my copyright. For 10 days now, I keep saying this for you on my talk page, but apparently you do not see this. Please respond to me so I can re-instate my contribution to the wiki page about the Seville Statement on Violence. Thank you, David Adams Adams1peace (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi again, Sphilbrick, Thank you for the long message on my talk page, including the explanation of the difficulties of communication within the Wiki community. Do I understand from your message that the issue of copyright has been resolved and that I can re-instate my contribution to the wiki page about the Seville Statement on Violence? Thank you, David Adams (Adams1peace talk page). Adams1peace (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I urge you to read WP:SELFCITE. You are strongly discouraged from adding material of your own to an article but if you really want to do so, you can add limited excerpts identified as quotes. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:52, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanations. I will take the time to do things correctly. ~2026-34987-63 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)