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: New: Activists / Public domain / Geofocus: Central America / Year-long campaign: Sports! Continuing: 2019 deaths / #1day1woman Editor feedback: Help us plan our future events at the Ideas Cafe Join the conversations on our talkpage Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

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.

"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

Hi Sphilbrick! I noticed on the Frankfurt Christmas Market, Birmingham that you made an edit that reverted my "Template:Copyvio" template on coprighted text that was added by another user but did not remove the copyrighted text.[1] (The text was later removed by another user because it was "borderline advertising-like"). Copyright issues on Wikipedia are something I'm not super well versed in, so I wanted to make sure that I didn't make any mistakes in the future. Was adding this template appropriate for this article and situation? If not, how should I handle it when I notice what I believe to be copyrighted content? Thanks so much for any advice! Wikipedialuva (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, you were fine. In looking at the history trying to sort out exactly what happened and confess I don't fully follow it. The article came to my attention because it appeared in a CopyPatrol listing, which was triggered by an edit by Gazzapeal. Frankly, I didn't look too closely will notice, but I did note that the editor made several edits, all problematic so I chose to revert to a version before the beginning of the sequence. Because I thought I was cleaning out all of the problems, it seemed logical to remove your notice as well so the edit summary talks about reverting good-faith edits by you, which may leave the impression that your edits were problematic. That's not the case. It also appears that my choice of a reversion point wasn't ideal and left some problematic material which was removed by a subsequent editor. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, you asked advice regarding best practices and I'm still mulling this over.

The state-of-the-art regarding handling copyright issues is evolving. I'm aware of two bots which revert copyright violations. I wasn't involved in the creation of either I will make a comment about both of them but it's based on observation rather than truly knowing how they work. I believe both of these bots examine brand-new edits — they aren't scouring existing articles looking for copyright articles they are only drinking from the fire hose of new edits. I've never look closely at the results but I am unaware of any thoughts positives. It's also my impression that they catch only a modest proportion of copyright violations.

The more important tool is that all new edits are examined and some are flagged in the Copypatrol tool. These flagged edits are reviewed by volunteers such as myself. A significant portion of these edits are reviewed by humans within hours of creation and most within a day or two.

My suggestion is that if you see an edit that appears to be a copyright violation, and that edit is recent (less than a couple days old) you should either fix it yourself if you feel comfortable, or let it go and count on it showing up in the Copypatrol tool. If it is older than that then tagging it with the template you used is appropriate.

If you have any interest in helping, Copyptrol is understaffed, and could use help. As you can see from the leaderboard, a relatively small handful of users is trying to address the hundreds of reports that show up each week. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for clarifying and for such a thorough response about both my edit and how to address possible copyvio issues going forward. Also, thanks for letting me know about Copyptrol; I had not heard of this, but it looks like something that I might be able to help with. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since when Politico is a violation of copyright? Snarcky1996 (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since forever. They've never been freely licensed as far as I know. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted a USAToday citation due to copyright concerns on the VoteRiders page. USA Today is listed as a generally reliable source in Wikipedia. Please elaborate your concerns. Gumballhead1of2 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue has nothing to do with it being a reliable source. I agree it is a reliable source but the content is copyrighted so you cannot simply copy it. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I came across your message on User talk:NyssaFloors, and I noticed that the user was performing a valid merge (though they should've included attribution) from a article deleted via AfD. The blog you cited as the copied site is a backwards copy. Our version of the article had the text before the blog did, and at the bottom of the blog it says "Source of article: Wikipedia". See [2]. Please reverse the revdel. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's critical to identify when working on a merge. I trust it's obvious that such an edit is highly likely to trigger our Copypatrol tool, and seeing the edit summary explanation is the best way to identify it as a false positive. I think of merging as a fairly sophisticated edit so I'm surprised to see it from a brand-new editor but I suppose it's possible. If they would like to contact me, we can talk about next steps. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm a bit confused, now that the copyright problem has been cleared up (correct me if I'm wrong), is the remaining problem an improperly performed merge? Is the revdel still needed? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know, I haven't had a chance to look into it S Philbrick(Talk) 13:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted my reversion. Thanks for letting me know. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello I am writing with a question of importance to an issue of academic dishonesty; I am hoping for your quick help. On October 30th you removed some information from this page for copyright m: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Marmon_Silko. I do not see the passages that were removed from wikipedia on the shmoop.com site you reference. Can you provide any information on what led you to think these passages were on shmoop.com and when they were there (as they are not currently). Thank you! 76.16.237.103 (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what's happening. The report:

https://api.ithenticate.com/en_us/dv/20220511?lang=en_us&o=103317409

Clearly identifies the sentences I removed. I typically do not simply accept the report but check myself confirm that the material is in the source as identified. However I don't see it now, so I reverted.

It is still problematic to include unsourced material, but I am narrowly working on copyright issues, and I don't see it now so I've undone my reversion S Philbrick(Talk) 20:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you so much for your reply! I should be clear we do not believe the passages that were uploaded are valid from the book Ceremony and as such it is appropriate for you to remove them from this site. What we are trying to understand is whether those passages ever existed shmoop.com but may have been deleted. It seems your copyright tool identified that they had existed there at some point which would be helpful for us to know. Is it possible that your copyright tool was matching to a previous date on shmoop.com and the site has been edited since with the passages removed? Thank you for your time! 76.16.237.103 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a possibility. Most of the time, I make sure the passages identified in the iThenticate tool can be found in the source. I use the term "most" because I can think of a couple of exceptions and when I see a couple I literally mean a couple like maybe two times in the last few hundred, and this wasn't one of them, so while I don't affirmatively recall seeing the text, that is my usual practice.

Your supposition is plausible. I did briefly try to search for the relevant passages to see if I can find them elsewhere and failed. I think they could be removed for reasons other than copyright but that's not a step I'm ready to take so if someone else wants to, go for it. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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 dish•growths)} 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And the ensuing explanation and conversation, for your attention, at User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus § Draft:Ossett RUFC - Rejection. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•growths)} 15:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

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

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

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 [3], which is cited as reference at the rightmost column of the table. Contents by IAU are under CC BY 4.0 DEED according to [4], which can be shared with attribution.

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

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

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[reply]

Wait, maybe this request should go to User:SamX; please let me know. Suriname0 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[reply]

Done S Philbrick(Talk) 17:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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

What did you think of my other two outstanding RD1 requests? Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't looked at them. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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[reply]

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Women who died in 2023 | Honoured Women Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Avoid copyright problems by rewriting in your own words. You can check any article or draft with Earwig's copyvio detector. 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. Follow us on social media: Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

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[reply]

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[reply]

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[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[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[reply]

Hello Sphilbrick,

The information on this page: Draft:Chief Justice Mark V. Green is from [5]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:

[6]https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgov-terms-of-use [7]https://copyright.lib.harvard.edu/states/massachusetts/

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

I'm also going to ping @Tails Wx: who intially tagged the page. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

I agree. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will address this shortly. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I temporarily turned off the revision deletion so you can access your edits S Philbrick(Talk) 19:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FireBrigadeFanaticNO1: sending ping S Philbrick(Talk) 19:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

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

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

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.

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296 Online events: New: Education (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Temperance women Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2023 Announcement In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part of the #1day1woman initiative! Tip of the month: Check out the new navigation on our Women in Red Project home page. 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: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

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

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

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

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[reply]

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[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[reply]

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[reply]

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[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[reply]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) 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: 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 | Twitter

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

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

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

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

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 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!

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[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[reply]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301 Online events: New: Alphabet run Q & R | Art+Feminism | Find Her Continuing: #1day1woman | Education (year-long initiative) Announcements Celebrate Women – All content gender gap events, in every language Wikipedia, in March 2024 Francophone Women★ Writers Fortnight 2024 Feminism and Folklore 2024 Writing Contest 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: 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 | Twitter

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