Copyright issue?

If you are coming to open a discussion with me because I reverted an edit of yours as a copyright issue, please make sure your post includes a link to the article in question - not just the name of the article, a link. Then read the following:

I typically use an edit summary with "copyright issue re URL", or "cv URL". The URL identifies source material that matches your edit too closely.

Copy Within Wikipedia If you added material to an article which came from an existing article in Wikipedia, it is highly likely that this will be flagged as a potential copyright violation in our CopyPatrol software.

If you followed the best practices at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia, you left an edit summary indicating the source, I will mark it as acceptable, and you are probably not reading this message. On the other hand, if you did not identify what you did in an edit summary, then I probably reverted the edit. However, the indicated source URL will not be the Wikipedia article, it will be be some site that copied from Wikipedia. (As a technical point, this is not a false positive because failing to follow best practices means that the attribution requirements have not been followed.) If the edit has been revision deleted, let me know so I can reverse it and you can provide the proper attribution. If it was not revision deleted but simply reverted, feel free to undo my revert, explaining carefully in the edit summary why you are doing so and add the proper attribution.

Other issues There are other reasons why your edit may have been reverted in error. I do a lot of reviews of flagged issues. In 1 to 2% of the cases, I do make a mistake and I'm happy to rectify it. Some sources of errors:

In any of these cases, politely let me know and I will remedy this situation as quickly as possible.

April editathons at Women in Red

January 2020 at Women in Red

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

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.

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🎄••••

"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,

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Storm Before the Calm#Euro label

Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 2001:D08:2900:657:1075:C376:3717:505D (talk) 06:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

  • New partner:
    • Perlego
  • Library access tips and tricks
  • Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273

Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]


Just a friendly heads-up in case you weren't already aware, since it's installed on your common.js: Careless use of ReferenceExpander has caused serious problems. It's currently at MFD, and a large cleanup project is underway to repair the citations damaged by the script. I and several other users have !voted that the script be deleted or disabled, and I wouldn't recommend using it at all unless you thoroughly check every reference it modifies against the previous revision. If you're interested in a more detailed explanation of the script's issues, Folly Mox has provided an excellent summary at the MFD. — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joey (1985) edits

With respect, the information I placed in Joey (1985 film) regarding its production does not belong to, it is information from the book Roland Emmerich: The Official Biography by Jo Muller which both I and the website you refer to cited it. I also cited the same book they did. Please restore the production section for the movie. Thank you and have a good day. User:BrianRothJr.

I don't have access to that book, but freely licensed books are extremely rare. Do you have evidence that this book is freely licensed so that its text can be used? S Philbrick(Talk) 16:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red July 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276

Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

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

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the section to address your concerns (20 April 2023‎ Sphilbrick talk contribs‎ 7,185 bytes −1,371‎ Reverted good faith edits by GreyStar456 (talk): Copyright issue re Best wishes, GreyStar456 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve The Imaginarium Studios

Hello, Sphilbrick,

Thank you for creating The Imaginarium Studios.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add sources in order to prove the notability of this company.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|Wikieditor019)). Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 19:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE IGNORE THIS - The reviewer tool marked you as creator. Sorry. Thanks, Wikieditor019 (Talk to me) 19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess technically I was, but as you have realized, not really. S Philbrick(Talk) 19:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red 8th Anniversary

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

  • Suggestion improvements
  • Favorite collections tips
  • Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red August 2023

Women in Red August 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280

Online events:

See also:

  • Wikimania 2023 will be held in Singapore, 16–19 August, and will be facilitated by the
    affiliates in the ESEAP (East/South East/Asia/Pacific) region.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

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

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023 at Women in Red

Women in Red September 2023, Vol 9, Iss 9, Nos 251, 252, 281, 282, 283

Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • The books she wrote might be notable, too; learn 5 quick tips about about book articles.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

will solv


for the reminder - always good to see the response - appreciated. JarrahTree 13:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks also for the truck stop issue - wow getting a head around the fit/misfit issues -

I think I will sign off for the night... JarrahTree 13:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Notice

I was working on the article Melody (2023 film) to add details as it has been selected to be in 2024 Oscars, I have added Screen Daily as a source to try to use credible sources. However my edits just gone puff! I cannot even see them even if there was a copyright violation (which was/is not my intention) please let me understand it better and create an edit that just point to the source and not use the wording used in the article. Just want to somehow see my edits that I have spent around 30mins to finalize and improve them or remove the parts that might infringe any respected copyrights.

Please help me learn how can I use the news material in Wikipedia? Farshad (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some reports are close calls but not this one. Your added text comprised:
98.68% of edit S Philbrick(Talk) 16:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be blunt but an overlap percentage in the 50s or above is pretty clear-cut. Get down around 20 to 30% and there might be an argument for cleaning it up and doing a paraphrase but 98.7% is a slamdunk S Philbrick(Talk) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 58

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

  • New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
  • Tech tip: Filters
  • Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red October 2023

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286

Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Clarification on revision


I see that you have reverted some changes I made to the article on Tenterfield Terriers and have cited the reason as "Copyright issue re ". As someone who is relatively new to editing on Wikipedia, I just wanted to confirm whether this is because my additions to the page are too similar to the article I used as a source, or if it is for some other reason. Just so I know for the future. Thank you for helping me out with this!


Citronnel Citronnel (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by this? Citronnel (talk) 00:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure what happened.
The answer is yes, your edit was too close to the copyrighted original. S Philbrick(Talk) 00:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thank you for your response! Citronnel (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

You said:

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

In one of my first edits, I indicated material added was translated text from, and this applies to most of it. I did not put the comment on the same edit as I pushed the button too soon. Rjdeadly (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did miss the edit summary identifying the source as an article in the Italian Wikipedia.
However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
Our copyright tool identified this page as a possible source. It seems plausible that whoever wrote that borrowed from and translated the article in the Italian Wikipedia without properly acknowledging the source. I reverted my removal. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Maximo Group Network etc, and a possible sockfarm.

I see you've nominated Draft:Maximo Group Network for deletion as a hoax. Have you taken at a look at the creator, User:Jhingur Mahan Chand's other contributions? Personally, I'd have to suggest that amongst the inconsequential padding, there is something that looks very much like paid editing going on. And I suspect there may be multiple accounts involved. Chand edited the Aditya Dey article, seven minutes after User:Sumashaikh created it. Sumashaikh in turn created the Atiul islam article, which was very shortly after edited by User:Musenene farahat, who is now blocked as a sockpuppet of User:KibangaWiki. Given the multiple accounts possibly involved, it might take a checkuser to figure this all out. Any thoughts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I confess my detective skills are very rusty. While I am moderately active, almost all my edits are copyright related. Am aware that some well-known industrial names are sometimes owned by a holding company not as well-known I did some brief dating and didn't see any sign that Maximo group which appears to be in the music business owns the major German firm. It didn't ring true it also doesn't sound like a classic hoax. What's the point? Look briefly at some of the other edits something seems off but I haven't put my fingers on it. I'm not a check user but perhaps that's the next step. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also this thread on User:Jhingur Mahan Chand at User talk:Bbb23. [1]. I'm beginning to suspect that User:Mrjoegoldberg may be involved in this too: Chand created Rajkumar Patra at 16:28 today, Mrjoegoldberg edited the article at 17:51. Mrjoegoldberg had also edited Tez Tarrar, six minutes after Chand created it. There may be further connections not visible to non-admins like me, since I can't see the history of deleted articles etc. Unless someone else gets around to it first, I'll start an SPI, but I'd prefer to get a better picture of what is going on before I do. It's all a bit confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a report at WP:ANI [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful deletion of an article in February 2023

Hello. Back in February 2023, I created the article "List of Trichloroethylene related incidents" ( by copying and moving text from the article for trichloroethylene to keep the main article focused on trichloroethylene. You have deleted it on 28 February 2023 for "copyright infringement" from a site that was mirroring the text from Wikipedia and, therefore claimed that I copy-pasted material from a random site that copied material from Wikipedia.

I believe that mirror sites cannot be used as a reason for "copyright infringement" deletion since their material is taken from Wikipedia, which "copyright infringement" wouldn't apply sitewide. Saint concrete (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it is permissible to copy material from one Wikipedia article into another. However, that action must be properly attributed.
Proper attribution serves two purposes. First and foremost, it is required by the terms of the license. This applies to re-use of material both within and outside of Wikipedia.
A secondary purpose is that it helps avoid false positives when searching for copyright violations. Many thousands of sites copy the content of Wikipedia. When our copyright detection tool examines a new edit, to determine whether the text existed elsewhere before being added to the specific Wikipedia article, it is not uncommon that the search tool will uncover a site with the text, which happened to have been taken from a Wikipedia article. This edit will be flagged as a potential copyright issue. These potential violations are largely viewed by humans, who will check to see if proper attribution has been given. Thankfully, many editors are aware of the need for attribution, and will provide some indication that this is material from an existing Wikipedia article. The best practices are outlined at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
I run across dozens of examples of this every week. In some cases editors fully comply with best practices, and those reports can be handled simply by identifying them with "no action needed" in the system. In many instances, an editor will not be familiar with the best practices but will provide an edit summary strongly suggesting that the added text came from another Wikipedia article. While that is technically a copyright violation, it is my practice to simply point the editor to the editing guideline, and either ask them to add the necessary attribution or do it myself. If the editor fails to provide either the best practices attribution wording, or a clear indication that the material did come from an existing article, it's likely that the edit will be reverted or the article removed depending on the circumstances.
I have restored the article and added the required attribution. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Saint concrete (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement re Gautrain article

Hi there, You completely deleted all my edits on the Gautrain article for supposed copyright issues. I respectfully disagree. There is certainly absolutely no justification to delete everything I wrote and other changes I made. You not only deleated EVERYTHING I wrote but even deleted the reorganisation of the article, which certainly cannot represent a copyright issue. What exactly do you consider a copyright issue, please? Can you please restore and let me amend what you consider problematic? thank you Fmjwiki (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor encounters a copyright violation, it is standard practice to perform what is called a rollback, which is in undoing of all consecutive edits by the same editor. While this action is understandably viewed as a possible overreaction, experience shows that when a single edit is a copyright violation, simply undoing that specific edit might damage the article, as the edits before and after the problematic edit are often related, and it is best to remove all of the edits and start over.
If you want to contest the copyright violation I will be happy to discuss it with you to determine whether it was valid. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna talk about Draft:Battle of Akhalkalaki (1918)

Hello, Call me Khutso My real name isnt really important And I would like to talk to you about Battle of Akhalkalaki, Firstly, The words that I have wrote were Deleted even Though, I had source. Secondly, You Don't have to Delete the submittion, I would have gotten More sources. And it was 4 Months away or more for them to see it. I dont really wanna say more stuff because I am not talking about my Article, I just wanna say that u dont have to delete the submittion. (User:Imakewikipedianpages) (User talk:Imakewikipedianpages|talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't responded to the issue which is the use of copyrighted text. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content forking

I reverted your recent edit to Mario Bunge. The section you added struck me as WP:UNDUE weight on a very minor part of Bunge's work and also as undesirable WP:Content forking of the article from which you copied it (Protoscience). Instead of copying a whole section like that and thereby spawning a content fork, it's best wherever possible to transclude the section (for example: Scientific method § Invariant explanation) or, if the whole section isn't required, as I think is true in this case, simply link to the section in the other article. I replaced the copied section with a sentence and a link, which is more appropriate weight for this topic in relation to the whole of Bunge's work.

One very positive side effect of your edit was that I checked the original section in Protoscience and noticed that all the references in it were incorrect, so I was able to correct that! Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sphilbrick, I just noticed that it wasn't you who copied the section, it was Cerebrality. I will leave a note on their talk page. Biogeographist (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]