User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Fragrance wheel deletion

I noticed that you have deleted the Fragrance wheel article several months ago stating that the article is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". This is actually not true, and is a commonly used classification method in perfumery, such as the wine aroma wheel of Ann C. Noble. Can you please reinstate the article? -- Sjschen (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The argument used for deletion was that the article looks promotional. I just reviewed the article, and agree. It is clearly promoting the concept of a fragrance wheel. It may be a commonly used method in perfumery, but one cannot tell that by reading the article as it was written. There is nothing wrong with having an article in Wikipedia that talks about concepts generally used in industry, but there is a problem if Wikipedia is used to promote a term that might not be well-known. You've stated that the term is well-known in industry – if so it will be easy to demonstrate that by citing independent reliable sources referring to the concept. At the time the article was deleted, it had exactly one references, and that was a reference to basenotes, which is very closely related to the fragrance wheel so doesn't qualify as an independent source. Had it not been deleted on the basis of promotional considerations, it could have been deleted due to failing notability. If you can find references to independent sources, you can resolve both issues. If you like, I can restore a version to a user subpage, where you can work on it, but I can say with confidence it is not acceptable in its current form.

I'm actually typing this while pretending to pay attention in another meeting, so apologies if my train of thought isn't clear enough, please let me know if you want me to expand on any points.--SPhilbrickT 15:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There are at least two references I can give on top of my head. As well to my knowledge, basenotes is a media site and is unaffiliated with the creator and the company who owns the rights to the fragrance wheel. Once it has been reverted I can add this information in. -- Sjschen (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Restored to User:Sjschen/Fragrance wheel. BTW, I misread the information about basenotes, so my statement that they are connected to fragrance wheel appears to be mistaken. However, it will be extremely helpful to have additional references.

Additionally, while I was the one who deleted the article, User:Alexf is the one who recommended the deletion, so I urge you to contact Alex before moving back into main space, to see if Alex agrees you have addressed the issues.--SPhilbrickT 17:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Judging by his user contribs, User:Alexf is rather quick at passing verdit with automated tools without alway going through with verification. By the time this article is cited it should be fine. -- Sjschen (talk) 17:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I will be happy to converse with Alex, at such point you think it is ready, obviously no promises, but I suggest that not including him might be more detrimental than including him.--SPhilbrickT 17:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully things will not be detrimental. Though with good independent citations to the article, I doubt it will come down to that. -- Sjschen (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Page Deletion

Sir or Ma'am, You deleted my page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effort_Administrator The codes you provided indicate to me that I infringed on copyrights and had information that was not important. The software is used by many major institutions and all content was original and footnoted. Can you please explain. Thank you. Zctglassman (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Zach

The material was clearly a copy of this site, which is under copyright. I didn't investigate the other claims, as the copyright violation was a sufficient reason to remove. Are you the author of that site? If so, it is still a copyright violation, but there are steps that can be taken. --SPhilbrickT 20:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple further points. It isn't "your" page. That's a minor issue, but an important concept. Second, you had no involvement with that page. This is a curious question, for an editor with no edits other than this one.--SPhilbrickT 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I work with IT Works. One of my team member's put up the page at the CEO (Jim Wrenn's )request. He is now in Kenya on the mission field, so I am trying to figure out why our page was deleted. We deliberately tried to write it to be somewhat like our corporate site. So we just need to re-write so it is not as similar? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zctglassman (talk • contribs) 02:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rewriting it so that it isn't like the corporate site is a minimum. And it cannot simply be a rewrite, as that might be Close paraphrasing, and not permitted.

In addition, you have to establish Notability. The link will explain what is required.--SPhilbrickT 11:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Petra Cetkovská

if you have a better photo of her, please go ahead and upload. Sometimes, people put the older photo (wow 2008) into the article, but no need. Thanks for the heads up though dm (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't heard back from the photographer, but I expect to soon.--SPhilbrickT 14:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Protection of Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

I see you protected it. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#No edit buttons for me on one particular page? PrimeHunter (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just coming here to say the same thing.. I understand your reasons for protecting it but maybe it would be better to leave the page unprotected, to make it easier for users to leave feedback on the many requests. -- œ^™ 06:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Responded at VP, although unprotected (as opposed to semi) would be a major mistake.--SPhilbrickT 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Regards

Hello Sphilbrick,

I am sorry to see that you have decided to be less active. You will be missed at RFF. Perhaps after a break, you might reconsider? --Ykraps (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There's a good chance I'll reconsider. I need to recharge. Thanks for the thought.--SPhilbrickT 18:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, do what is best for your comprise. Just remember, there are left here, people who appreciate association with you and your insight. If common sense is waning, it relates in no small measure to a waning contingent of colleagues with it. We really can't afford to loose our base of common sense. We can't afford loosing you! My76Strat (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Sphilbrick, Thanks for all your help and I really hope you come back soon! If you'd like to go over a page I've been working on, I'd be honored to get your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntergs (talk • contribs) 21:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Rick Proctor

I started a page on Rick Proctor, the new Rahway mayor, and it was marked for Speedy Deletion (which you apparently deleted)

The material was unfinished, as I was interrupted while putting it together, but more importantly, while it was largely copied from elsewhere those pages duplicated were not copyrighted. I now have to start over from scratch and it is disappointing that my work -- albeit incomplete and left in poor condition -- was erased without a trace.

Removal should be done slowly if it is irreversable Njdemocrat (talk) 06:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Starting with your last point first, I agree 100%. Removal should be done slowly if it is irreversible. Deletion of an article is reversible. If the article were simply not ready, I'd undelete it and move it to user subspace, which is where drafts should be started.

However, it was deleted because it appeared to be copied from material under copyright. I haven't reviewed the issue, but will if you request. Can you explain to me why I was mistaken to think the material was copied from pages subject to copyright?--SPhilbrickT 12:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Article, Pakistan Canoe and Kayak Federation

I dont understand why Article Pakistan Canoe and Kayak Federation such an informative page has been deleted, -- Aslam 10:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)-- Aslam 10:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam Kassi (talk • contribs)

Because the material was clearly copied from http://www.travelhawk.ca/baddeck/news/Pakistan-Canoe-and-Kayak-Federation.html--SPhilbrickT 22:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for respond

please check that the Material was been copied from the Wiki Article, and this material is also available on Facebook, by clicking, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Pakistan-Canoe-and-Kayak-Federation/161781660551839?sk=info so please as per record re-Air the Article :Pakistan Canoe and Kayak Federation" Please,-- Aslam 21:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam Kassi (talk • contribs)

 Done--SPhilbrickT 00:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Bravo, -- Aslam 07:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslam Kassi (talk • contribs)

Copyright problems with Mysorean Army

Sir I requested the author of that article. He sends me a free licence under GNU Free Documentation licence. Is it usefull sir?--Sridhar100000 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to take two steps, hopefully not too onerous:

1. GNU licensing is helpful but not sufficient. The material needs to be licensed under a CC-BY-SA license See this for more details
2. The licensing information either needs to be shown on the source website, or sent to Wikipedia. To send it to Wikipedia, see the same page linked above. Once received, someone will create an OTRS ticket, and it can be displayed on the article talk page.

Let me know if this isn't clear, and I'll give more information if needed.--SPhilbrickT 16:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CBBALL discussion

Before making wholesale changes on certain types of navboxes at WikiProject College Basketball, we'd like to get some other editors' feedback. If you feel so inclined, there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball#College basketball program navboxes - standards which could use some input from editors such as yourself. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Tinh Gia District

Thanks again for all your help. Tinh Gia District was double deleted. Kauffner (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

One of them "felt" wrong when I did it - I thought I deleted, then I thought I hadn't, so I tried again, so I may well have messed up. If so sorry. Is it fixed now, or do I need to restore something?--SPhilbrickT 14:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have a pair of redirects --SPhilbrickT 15:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)pointing to each other at this point. Kauffner (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, what a mess. Let me see if I can sort it out.--SPhilbrickT 14:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can find the original stub, but I'm not managing to restore it correctly, so I've reached out to a real expert. Sorry,. I think it will be fixed soon.--SPhilbrickT 15:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

(stalker) Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the problem, but don't you just need to revert to a previous version? I did that, is it fixed or is there still a problem I don't know about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's it, thanks. Not sure why I couldn't do that myself, but when i try to revert to an earlier version, sometimes I stumble on to the right place, sometimes I don't I am sure it is quite simple, but I don't have it in my head.

Add it to WP:Gigantic list of Mediawiki bugs and mysteries that will never be solved or understood. Glad it helped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts at Wikipedia:Contribution Team/Backlogs/Participants and progress. Cloudbound (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life Orientations

Please have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Life_Orientations --Cyril.holweck (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the article again, It consists of one sentence. Not a single reference. (An external link, but external links are not part of the article itself.) After reading the sentence, I come away with the impression that someone simply wants to be able to say their company is mentioned in Wikipedia. It doesn't say where the company is located, how many employees it has, or even really what it does. There's no evidence that any reliable sources have talked about the company, which is the entire point of the encyclopedia—to summarize and organize what reliable sources say about a subject.--SPhilbrickT 11:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably will not care any more about that page, so I will not pursue that discussion or try to create it again. The day I created it, it would have saved me time if it had been there. LIFO was mentioned in the paper I received during a Project Management seminar. When I look for information, I make a guess if Google or Wikipedia should me my first search. I searched LIFO on Wikipedia that day, and ended up looking for it in Google, so I tried contributing and created the page, quite truly a very empty page, but better than nothing IMHO. --Cyril.holweck (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, and feel strongly about this. When someone is searching for something on Google, and sees a hit, they hope to go to a page with substantive information. If they see it is a Wikipedia page, they have an expectation that there will be something more than a single sentence. Delivering a single sentence with no substantive content is a waste of everyone's time, and is literally worse than nothing.--SPhilbrickT 20:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Muar State Railway copyvio

Thanks for pointing that out. I pasted the copyvio text, not the url! I've fixed it now. andy (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Muar State Railway.

When I wrote this page in 2008, there was in fact multiple sources devoted to the railway, but due to patchy coverage of topics and an utter disinterest towards railway history by locals, most of the citations I could dig up were from personal websites and blogs. Stepping Stones (where this citation originates), is where the majority of information for the article came from; the other four were mostly unprofessional derivatives that nevertheless may contain minor bits of additional information or images. Of the five websites cited, four of them have either turned into deadlinks or are completely unrecognizable by now (two were based on the now defunct GeoCities). The only remaining source, Stepping Stones, is by far the most reliable and comprehensive, although the contents derived from private research. - Two hundred percent (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer – I cannot access the site you think is the best, so I can't so much more, but I see the move to do a Speedy Delete has been halted. It may still get deleted, but now there's time to do proper research. I won't be able to help, as I am out of the country and have no access to the main source. Good luck. --SPhilbrickT 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Office Hours

Hey Sphilbrick/Archive 17! I'm just dropping you a message because you've commented on (or expressed an interest in) the Article Feedback Tool in the past. If you don't have any interest in it any more, ignore the rest of this message :).

If you do still have an interest or an opinion, good or bad, we're holding an office hours session tomorrow at 19:00 GMT/UTC in #wikimedia-office to discuss completely changing the system. In attendance will be myself, Howie Fung and Fabrice Florin. All perspectives, opinions and comments are welcome :).

I appreciate that not everyone can make it to that session - it's in work hours for most of North and South America, for example - so if you're interested in having another session at a more America-friendly time of day, leave me a message on my talkpage. I hope to see you there :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to see you at the session; the logs are here. In the meantime, the Foundation has started developing a new version of the tool which dispenses with the idea of "ratings", amongst other things. Take a look at WP:AFT5 and drop any comments, criticisms or suggestions you have on the talkpage - I'd be very grateful to hear your opinions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Shea Ralph

Hi, I saw you left a note on my talk page a few months back. I've been away (as you probably noticed) from Wikipedia for awhile for various reasons, but I'm planning to start contributing again in the next few months. I took a look at the Shea Ralph article and it looks pretty good! I'm not a big fan of the "letter" quality grades as I don't see the value in breaking down article quality that finely; "featured" and "good" work because they are based on community consensus, and identifying incomplete stubs is valuable, but otherwise I'd just label everything "start" and work toward GA. If you're interested I'd be willing to work with you to get Shea's article up to GA and maybe even FA status; let me know. –Grondemar 23:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images#Black_stone_image --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

James Marcus Bach

I wrote the James Marcus Bach page in December 2010. You then find some magazine published in March 2011 which paraphrase some of the content and conclude that Wikipedia is a copyright violation? Please. This makes no sense.

At the very least, the "plagiarized" source should be dated *before* the wikipedia entry, no? DanielLemire

Yes, sorry I missed that, as I usually check that and have declined several CSDs, on this very basis. I have restored it.--SPhilbrickT 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Sitush's talk page.
Message added 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sitush (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UConn Women Career 1,000 Rebounds

Template:UConn Women Career 1,000 Rebounds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

CCI

Small note: if a article includes text taken from a public domain source then it needs to have an attribution template such as {{PD-old-text}}. Just citing the material in a reference isn't enough. Hut 8.5 22:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following. If it is a requirement, I would expect to see it in Wikipedia:Citing sources, along with a rationale. I don't see any indication on {{PD-old-text}} that it is required, nor a rationale for why it might be required. Don't get me wrong, it might be a good idea, but it hasn't occurred to me why it is a good idea, and if it is required, it seems like it should be mentioned in one of the above or WP:MOS. Is it some where obvious that I've missed? We aren't doing a service to our editors if we have a requirement that is so obscure that I can't find it even when searching for it.--SPhilbrickT 23:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It's in Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. Merely citing the source as a reference isn't actually an acknowledgement that the text came from that source, only that the source verifies the factual accuracy of the material. Not attributing properly is therefore a form of plagiarism since it copies someone else's work without providing adequate credit.

The templates are pretty counter-intuitive, yeah. The templates are mean "yes" and "no" and I presume they were designed for ticking off things on "to do" lists. It's a general CCI procedure though so it ought to be discussed centrally. Hut 8.5 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree, if any changes are made that discussion should be done centrally, but I'm trying to keep track of which items are "done" and "done" includes those with a red x, and those with a green check if it says cleaned, but not those with a green check if it says something else. I'll think about this more, and if I come up with something decent, I'll propose it more centrally.--SPhilbrickT 23:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Brick, I was in the middle of reworking my Hell On Wheels episode site and went to preview and it disappeared with all my rework, so thanks for that.

WylieCoyote 17:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAWylie (talk • contribs)

I've noticed that some editors have a habit of starting a draft article with a copy of copyrighted material, in some cases with the intention of cleaning up and removing the copyright problems. This is not good practice for more than one reason. We do not permit material in violation of copyright, even temporarily. Please don't do that.--SPhilbrickT 18:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Grandmaster Howard

Hi Phil, there was no infringement on this content as I working for the organisation (RITA) whose copyright you said I'd infringed. In fact they specifically asked me to use their content as it appears on their page. I do the marketing and PR for RITA and Grandmaster Howard it the President of RITA; he helped set the organisation up. No he is Grandmaster they asked me to add him to the page on Taekwnon-do Grandmasters and set up on a page on him like there are for other Grandmasters. How can I confirm that there is no copyright infringement? Do you need confirmation direct to you from RITA. Thanks, Simon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.107.161 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Phil, I realised I wasn't signed in when I left the message above, sorry about that. RITA (the Repubic of Ireland Taekwon-do Association) can confirm that the information is licensed to be used publicly anywhere. RITA's Secretary, Valerie Keane, is happy to confirm this. Her email is secretary@rita-itf.ie. Thanks, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohnpalmer (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, confirmation is necessary, because we allow anonymous editing, and we allow people to choose user names that may or may not be their real life identities, so we require some formal statements. The details are at Donating copyrighted materials. Let me know if the instructions aren't clear.--SPhilbrickT 13:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Great thanks Phil, Valerie, the National Secretary for the Republic of Ireland Taekwon-do Association, can confirm that I am allowed to use their information. Her email is <redacted> Thanks, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohnpalmer (talk • contribs) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, as the instructions note, you have to arrange to send an email. I'm not one of the people involved in the process.--SPhilbrickT 00:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, will do, thanks, Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonjohnpalmer (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ISIL

Mr. Sphilbrick, first my article Indian Society of International Lawis marked by a 'bot' for deletion for Copyright violation and then you delete the page despite me correcting the same.

I also wrote on the talk page giving my reasoning, but you chose to delete the article and then write your reasoning. Had the infringed article remained I would have been liable for violation, if at all. But since I change the entire text, there was no reason to delete.

It seems you have a tendency to increase your 'counts'.

You may be a great editor, but as a lawyer I know my laws well. Further as an actual member of the organisation I was well within my right to use the written material from the organisation's website... if this is Wikipedia's laws, then I must say that it has been framed by non-understanding fellows like you.

Recently Jimmy Wells in the Mumbai Conference said that it is upon the administrators to encourage the new editors, as we often find that very few people moves from the 2nd edit to the 99th... with people like you I may leave this new found passion of mine, for I still think that my time can be spent elsewhere would be appreciated more. DebashisM (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked the content on the article you were working on and it started out with an obvious cut-and-paste from a page which is clearly marked with a copyright.

Do you disagree?

I see evidence you were attempting to cure the problem, but as I noted, it is technically a violation to have the material in article history. While we aren't always rigorous about removing prior versions in such cases, it does happen.

Putting material subject you copyright in quotes is not enough. It needs to be properly referenced (which it wasn't) and needs to be a sufficiently small portion of the entire article (which it wasn't).

You suggest that there may be provisions in Indian law allowing such use, but I'm not at liberty to simply accept your word. For one thing, we haven't verified your identity, so we do not know that you are a member of the organization. Second, even if you are, I'm not aware of the law that permits copying material under copyright. Which is my ignorance, if true, but the burden is on you to show that it does comply with the law.

At a minimum, you should make such assertions on the article talk page.

We aren't opposed to having an article on the subject matter, but we do have procedures to follow to ensure that we do not violate copyright law. If you'd like to work with me, I'd be happy to help you navigate what can be a confusing list of Wikipedia rules. Let me know.--SPhilbrickT 18:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor correction, the article wasn't marked for deletion by a 'bot. It was marked for deletion by a real human. The 'bot simply picked up on the fact that you removed the notice. You are new, so perhaps unaware that you shouldn't do that. No big deal, but if you thought some robot decided the article should be deleted, that isn't the case. I know I'd be unhappy if some faceless robot decided something I wrote deserved deletion, but that isn't the case here. If you want some help following exactly what happened, I'd be happy to explain, or we can just move on and talk about how best to get an article written on the subject.--SPhilbrickT 19:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Freshacconci's talk page.
Message added 19:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

freshacconci talktalk 19:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

A sentence at ANI

[1]

Did you really mean to say this? "I would call a person a criminal no matter what despicable act they committed, if they had not been convicted." Looks to me like you missed a "not" in there.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops, good catch, thanks, corrected--SPhilbrickT 15:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Attribution

In the Richard Arthur Norton CCI, you have indicated for a number of articles that they were no violation because the source is PD. While this is indeed not a true copyright violation, the articles still need proper attribution. We are not allowed to copy public domain sources without proper indication that we have copied the text from that source (instead of just using it as a source). I have corrected this at Lachlan Og Maclean and will do so at Hector Odhar Maclean as well. Fram (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your suggested approach in any of the guidelines. It may simply be that established practice no longer follows the written guidelines, but if you agree that is the case, let's discuss how to modify the written guidelines.

I trust the guideline for citing references is Wikipedia:Citing sources. That guideline says(in part):

A full citation fully identifies a reliable source and, where applicable, the place in that source (such as a page number) where the information in question can be found. For example: Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971, p. 1. This type of citation is usually given as a footnote, and is the most commonly used citation method in Wikipedia articles.

I think the citation provided by RAN met that standard.

It appears we do have some additional rules when it comes to citing Public Domain sources. Curiously, even if one were to look at Wikipedia:Public domain, one would not find them. If you stumble across (or have someone like Hut 8.5 point it out), Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources provides some guidance. It specifies the template to use when "a significant proportion of the text is legally copied from another source". I've done that here, here, here, and here.

I've been using that template since Hut 8.5 pointed it out, but failed to go back and add it to ones I had done earlier.

However, you are addressing it differently.

I see two issues that could be discussed.

1. Is the attribution approach you used the correct one (or a acceptable alternative) or is the advice in Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources correct? If that guidelines is incorrect, it should be modified. If both approaches are permitted, it still should be modified.
2. Users looking for guidance on citing sources are (reasonably) going to look at Wikipedia:Citing sources. If we have additional requirements, they should be mentioned in that guideline. I'm not proposing a merge of all material, but a guideline on citing sources could mention, for example, in the case of PD material additional requirements apply.

Unfortunately, my plate is overflowing, but if we can reach an agreement on the proper way to attribute PD material, I'll open a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources to discuss the need for inclusion there or Wikipedia_talk:Plagiarism is that guideline needs modification.--SPhilbrickT 15:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No time for a longer reply, sorry. The appicable guideline is Wikipedia:Plagiarism. I'll come back to you in a few days (probably). Fram (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Allright, now I have a bit more time, and realise that you had found the link I gave and discussed it at length. I agree that the plagiarism guideline isn't visible enough from the copyright pages, and need some pointer from there. As for the correct way to attribute things: the method you use is clearly correct, but the main thing is that the reference section claerly states that (parts of) the text is copied (or minimally adapted) from a public domain (or similar) source, with indication from which source that was. The attribution I made in the two articles I gave above was a minimal solution, the suggested solution from the guideline which you now use is a more thorough one. Fram (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I made a Bold addition to the See Also section on the citing sources page, and I'll posted the need for a better solution on the talk page.--SPhilbrickT 13:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)