Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols/Archive 3

Two additional officers have been suspended

2 deputies at Tyre Nichols’ arrest and beating have been suspended following investigation, county says - CNN, Feb. 16, 2023

Two Shelby County sheriff’s deputies who were at the scene of Tyre Nichols’ deadly arrest in Tennessee last month violated department regulations and have been suspended for five days each without pay, according to a news release from the sheriff’s office obtained by CNN affiliate WHBQ. The suspensions of both Shelby County deputies who were at the scene of Nichols’ beating by Memphis police became effective on Wednesday, the release reads.

Both Deputy Jeremy Watkins and Deputy Johntavious Bowers were found to have failed to report to dispatch or their supervisor that they were on the scene, failed to have their body-worn camera in record mode and failed to report to dispatch they were leaving the scene, the department said in investigative reports obtained by WHBQ.

Additionally, Watkins did not note in his daily log that he was on the scene, one of the reports says.

Pertinent info that should be added to article. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

If it could be attributed to causing the death of Nichols, I think it should be included. But there were only 4 LEOs present from 832pm to 836pm. At 836pm is when other LEOs/Sheriff Deputies showed up. The deputies failure to follow Sheriff policy about "report where you" cannot be attributed to a but for cause of Nichols death. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not about if these officers contributed to Nichols' death, this is about the overall police response in and of itself, and issues related to that. Inclusion of this information helps present details about the bigger picture overall. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Are wikiwikiwayne? It does not add value to the overall incident. Nichols was cuffed by the time they arrived. That they did not "call in" or turn on cameras is procedural issues in the Sheriffs Office. AgntOtrth (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedural issues, related to a crime scene where alleged police brutality occurred. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

If the Sheriff had said something like that, then maybe. But as it is right now the Sheriff department is concerned about procedures regardless of crime scene. It is not relevant to the article AgntOtrth (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a part of the story, and worth a mention. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath : claim not supported by the reference, remove sentence.

"This controversial tactic had a tendency of suddenly escalating with the use of aggressive tactics by the police with little supervision.[95]"

Reference 95 leads to an article title "New Question in Tyre Nichols Case: Where Were the Supervisors?"

"This controversial tactic..." not discussed in the article.

"had a tendency of suddenly escalating with the use of..." not discussed in the article.

"aggressive tactics by the police with little supervision." not discussed in the article. AgntOtrth (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't address all of your concerns, but here is one relevant segment from the cited New York Times article:

But the unit quickly developed a reputation for heavy-handed tactics, and a lawyer for Mr. Nichols’s family, Ben Crump, said on Friday that Mr. Nichols’s death was the direct result of this aggressive style of policing.
"The Scorpion unit had a pattern and practice of doing this to Black people in Memphis — that's it," he said. "They trample on the constitutional rights and human rights of Black and brown citizens. They don’t do that in the white communities to white citizens."

It also looks like WWGB removed a couple of problematic words with this edit. Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Also of note, references to the "heavy-handed tactics" and the "aggressive style of policing" relate to the previous paragraph in The New York Times story, which talks about the SCORPION unit:

The five officers charged ... had been part of a specialized street crime unit called Scorpion, which was formed in late 2021 with a mandate to help bring down rising crime rates. Driving muscle cars and wearing modified police uniforms and plainclothes, officers from the unit pulled over countless motorists for low-level violations, which regularly led to drug and gun seizures.

Hope that helps! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

AgntOtrth – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, you can only regurgitate what has already been said – but, you cannot copy what has been said. You need to research, read, and then put it in your own words. You keep deleting things for not being written verbatim, but again, that would be copying, which is a copyright violation.

I also sense that you are being myopic. Read ALL the sources before you dispute a statement. There is a rafter of references here, that cover a lot of stuff. Don't get too stuck on the reference that hangs on them. Look around. Only dispute OR and controversial stuff. If it's true, find the citation. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 03:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair Use under international copyright law allows for it quotes.AgntOtrth (talk)

We don't use non-free content if we can help it. What that means in practice is that we paraphrase and summarize, and directly quote our sources as little as possible, ideally not at all. Bowler the Carmine | talk 09:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline), and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, {{Quote}}, or a similar method." It is not prohibited by wikipedia policy. It is not prohibited by US Copyright. It is not prohibited by International Copyright law. Under both US copyright and International copyright it is protected under "fair use". AgntOtrth (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may be so frank, I'm beginning to doubt your competence to contribute to Wikipedia. Throughout discussions on the talk page, you've been Wikilawyering, and badly at that. You've been removing properly sourced info for tiny mistakes, rather than fixing them. We've been trying and trying to set you on the right track, yet you refuse to listen, so that's why I'm being so direct now. Start listening, or log off, just stop disrupting work on the article. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Bowler the Carmine – You reinstated a "tag" that does not indicate what the specific issue is - why did you reinstate the tag? And since the tag was put in place without identification of the specific issue; how is anyone suppose to know what needs to fixed? What is disruptive is placing a tag, without identifying how the issue can be corrected. So are you willing to identify the specific content that needs to be addressed / rephrased, so it can be corrected? AgntOtrth (talk) 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Article title should be "Death of"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Much of "support" for keeping it "Killing of" is based on original research, and biased original research at that.

Removing the "it is obvious" type comments there are roughly 10 editors supporting "killing of".

The flow chart clearly points to "Death of", Is the person dead = Yes; What was the manner of death = UNKNOWN = Death of

Reliables sources are not reliable 100% of the time.

The article title is not a neutral point of view; it reflects the bias of editors that said "it is obvious". Additionally, the article content can present the biased point of view of the reliable sources; but, again, neutral is about editing biased context.

The article title is does not present a neutral point of view. AgntOtrth (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

An independent autopsy has indicated that Tyre Nichols has died from bleeding from the police beating. According to that same flowchart, it is homicide and not capital punishment, and there isn't a conviction yet, so it is a killing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The autopsy was commissioned by attorneys representing the family. It has not been released; and there is no indication that news orgs have been permitted to view a copy of the report; which suggests it is not from verifiable source, secondary source. So the unofficial unpublished autopsy is not relevant; nor are the news publishers providing medical opinions. AgntOtrth (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here in January 2023. There was a strong consensus to revise the title from "Death of Tyre Nichols" to "Killing of Tyre Nichols." The consensus was that this title is consistent with WP:DEATHS - because this was a homicide; the title should be "Killing of..." This consensus was reached just six weeks ago. Unless there is some substantial update from primary sources (i.e. new information indicating that this was not a homicide), I can't see any justification to open another discussion so soon. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No there was not a strong consensus. The overwhelming majority of the "support" comments are original research of the editors. Almost all the support comments are a version of "If you only watch the videos you would know". That is original research, and it is not a neutral point of view. Of course I posted this in my first paragraph in when I created this topic.

I will also note that you labeled it a homicide without offering any support as to why it should be considered a homicide - you are making an assumption, whilst relying on unverifiable comments from an attorney, and there is no secondary source to verify the the original claim.      When the biased original research is removed, the consensus is Death of.AgntOtrth (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

1. Referring to a video is, by definition, not original research. Primary sources are explicitly excluded from the original research policy, and a plethora of secondary sources from all sides of the political spectrum interpret the video as homicide. We are simply following reliable sources here, and labeling sources that don't fit your position "biased" simply makes you look like a fool.
2. This discussion has been settled weeks ago. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass.

Bowler the Carmine | talk 06:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not referring to a video; it is analysis and opinion of the video - which is original research. Again, when the "support" comment that are based on analysis and opinion of what the videos show are exclude; the clear majority is the title should be "Death of". Your claim about primary sources is incorrect. Please also see 4, from page you linked '''Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself'''; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Also, per wikipedia, news organization are not qualified to make medical opinions - and, the autopsy claim is not verifiable. And please abide by wikipedia policies and cease the name calling/personal attacks. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This matter is settled. Drop it. Bowler the Carmine | talk 16:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not settled. As you have multiple times reverted from "Death of". And it is entirely telling, that rather than discuss wikipedia policies/guidelines, etc, you make personal attack, make claims about NOR that are verifiable false, and just stomp your feet exclaiming "it is settled". The overwhelming consensus was "Death of" when the original research and bias is excluded. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Let me be more straightforward: by continually ignoring consensus, twisting the verifiability policy to suit your own ends, and persistently arguing this specific point long after the discussion has closed, you are disruptively editing. Stop now or risk being sanctioned or blocked from editing. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful, if you attempted to explain how I am "twisting", or ignoring, or being disruptive. I have provided details as to why the title should be death of. Yet in return I have received threats and insults. So I ask you kindly, please explain how I am twisting verifiability? And could you also help me understand how "consensus" can be founded on editors opinions, analysis, interpretation of a primary source. I have not changed the article title, I have kept my concerns about it on the talk page. I have been civil, when you have not. I have made know my reading of specific rules/policies/guidelines; despite that you made a false claim about NOR. So, as for disruptive, twisting, and violating the pillar of civility....it is not me.

Are you willing and able to discuss, the issue of the title? Are you willing and able to discuss what you consider me twisting veribility? AgntOtrth (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the title: overwhelming consensus is to keep the title as "Killing of Tyre Nichols". Your selective reading of the discussion on this issue, i.e. rejecting any arguments you believe are biased, is out of line.

Regarding sources: primary sources are acceptable as sources; the Verifiability policy says as such. We are meant to refer to secondary sources for interpretation, and we have done so. Again, rejecting interpreting primary sources when such interpretation is well-sourced by secondary sources, simply because they are primary sources, explicitly goes against policy.

Now, drop the discussion. I will not warn you again. Bowler the Carmine | talk 18:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Please have a discussion. I am using the talk page as intended and as requested, Requested move 27 January 2023 "Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. " AgntOtrth (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

And did you talk to the closer? Bowler the Carmine | talk 19:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Also from wiki:about The content must conform with Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable by published sources.

The autopsy is not published, the claim of the lawyer it is not verifiable.AgntOtrth (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The move request was discussed for almost a month and closed on February 21st. You participated in that discussion. The discussion is closed now. A consensus has been reached. It is over. You have not brought up any new information, or any reason for reopening the discussion aside from your own personal disagreement with the decision. You are at this point violating a number of Wikipedia standards of editing behavior, as multiple other users have already pointed out. Take a sober look at this section of the talk page that you've created. You'll find that the only new consensus emerging is the consensus that this sort of behavior is exactly the type of disruptive editing that typically results in a ban or sanction. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus from the move discussion is "Killing of" Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 17:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Was WP:CONS reached through building, consideration of the quality of the arguments for or against? So much of the support is based on a version of "it is obvious from the videos" AgntOtrth (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

You do realize that you are arguing based on your interpretation of the reliability of sources without actually providing any reliable sources that support your point of view? "Verifiability, not truth" might no longer be in the wording of the verifiability policy but the idea is still valid. You are trying to ignore consensus based on reliable primary and secondary sources because you (alone) believe that the sources were misused / are not reliable. And if you can provide reliable sources that support your point of view, then we can consider changing the title again. But at this point I can only echo Bowler's suggestion that you drop the stick and accept that this is not how you change consensus. Regards SoWhy 20:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Serious questions is a wiki editor support based on "it is obvious from the video" a reliable source upon which to find consensus? WP:ECREE WP:SOURCE Is the the attorney's self-interest extraordinary claim a reliable source? As for the news publications WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ss a Reliable Sources reliable for every subject they publish? AgntOtrth (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright violations by AgntOtrth

AgntOtrth has riddled this important article with constant copyright violations, so for the protection of the project I am going to blank the entire article body, leaving only the lead, which is not a copy/paste nor is it close paraphrasing nor unattributed direct quotes, as most of the article is.

This is sad, but we can quickly rewrite in our own words and unmask it. That being said, I am exhausted and won't be able to assist. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 19:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is all my fault, then why did you remove sections I did not edit? AgntOtrth (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no source or evidence of copyright infringement mentioned in the listing. The copyright violation template that you added to the article links to a Copyvios report which analyzes the current revision and does not find any copyright violations. I ran another Copyvios report on the last revision before your edit removing the entire page, and the report finds "Violation Unlikely" with only 39.4% similarity to any sources it could find (link here). The similar text is all from names, titles, and direct quotes - nothing concerning. All other wikipedia pages which have been flagged for investigation into copyright infringement in the last 5 days have had at least 87% similarity to other sources when tested with Copyvios. I do not see any justification for deleting the entire page and asking other editors to rewrite it, nor does that action seem to follow WP:CP. If you still think there is a copyright violation, I believe the correct course of action is to discuss it on the listing page, and/or ask for a review from a WP:COPYCLERK. In the meantime, I am going to revert to the last edit before this page was erased in its entirety. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 05:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Combefere. I sense you are acting in good faith, but please read the page notice. A lot of the issues are with one-sentence copy/paste, unattributed full quotes, etc. Take care always! Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 07:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

so instead reverting a 5th time, would you identify the offending edits? AgntOtrth (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey WikiWikiWayne, thanks for responding on here! I have read the page notice, as my response above indicates. As I mentioned above, the Copyvios report linked on the page notice does not find any evidence of copyright violation. The "issues" you mention are not listed on the page notice, nor the report, nor the listing that you created... so it is unclear why you have erased the entire page and made the report in the first place. You have not linked the source whose copyright you are claiming that this page infringes on the listing page nor on the page notice. I do not believe that pre-emptively deleting the entire page before a copyright investigation has been concluded is part of Wiki policy. This kind of behavior - nuking an entire page, filing a copyright violation listing that is completely blank, and edit warring to keep the page destroyed - strikes me as vandalism. I'm hoping we can talk it out here without getting an admin involved. Could you please explain which source's copyright has been violated, and which parts of the page violate it? And ideally update your copyright listing with this information as well (like all other listings on that page include)? Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 08:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yo, Combefere – You're not allowed to unblank the page portions that are blanked. I did not revert anything. Those were not net reverts. You saw this, eh?

Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or VRT agent.

No worries, but please do not disparage me for protecting the project within our policies, etc. My hands were tied to restore the templates. Also, the template can only be set by substitution. No edits or comments are allowed. AOT fully well knows what they copied. Courtesy pings to: @Elli, AgntOtrth, and Ritchie333:. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 20:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Using the earwig copyvio tool, I don't see a copyright violation. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Right now it just looks like a blanked article.

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=&oldid=1145547953&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne it sure seems you are not trying to help get supposed violations corrected. Point out the violations, discuss the violations, offer suggestions for correcting the violations. That would show you acting in good-faith AgntOtrth (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey WikiWikiWayne – , not trying to disparage, just honestly trying to understand both Wiki policy here and the specific claims of copyright infringement on this page. If it's standard procedure to blank an entire page while the copy clerk team reviews, then I won't revert.

However, I am still wondering what exactly is supposed to be copyrighted material. The listing on WP:CP just says it contains copyrighted information from "source(s)." The Copyvios report linked in the template gives an error message because it is set up improperly - instead of a working url to an actual source, it is trying to compare the wiki page to a website with the url "http://source(s)" which obviously does not exist. The word "source(s)" is not a source. What is the source? What specific copyrighted article, video, or other media has actually been infringed here? It feels like this most fundamental part of a copyright investigation has been completely omitted, and the page has been blanked for no reason. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 21:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I get it. The process is not set up with any place within the template to add reasons or notes. I left the lead alone because was clear of copyvios. But, bam, existing consensus text in the lead was overwritten with 95% copy/paste of the ref's headline. My mop was broken by then so I blanked one sentence only, trying to save the lead. It's not my job to babysit the page against somebody who thinks that everything we post has to use the exact word that the citation uses. I could go on but this is a huge suck on my time for productive and enjoyable editing. Having fun when I can. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne Why didn't you start a talk page discussion to address specific issues. It is not other editors job to decipher vague claims made by others? Why did you blank portions of the article I never edited? AgntOtrth (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Combefere – I was not expecting the blanking. I was expecting a curtain.

The template bundle is hard to use.

Maybe post on the template talk page with your questions. A bot is supposed to clean up any buggy expansions of the template. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne –  - This isn't a problem with the template, it's a problem with your use of it. You are required to provide a url indicating the source where the content was copied from. You have not provided one. You just typed "source(s)." That's not a valid url. The word "source" is not a source. It's getting very difficult to continue assuming good faith here when you have continued to evade this simple and fundamental question. I have asked three times now, and others have asked as well - it seems like we are clearly in WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. What is the specific url to the source whose copyright you are claiming has been infringed? Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 01:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Combefere – No, I typed nothing into the template. It's automatic, and a bot is supposed to repair any transclusion errors after it is substituted and saved. I only come in good faith. Please take your issues with the template to their talk page. Not my problem and I have no solutions. Sorry.

Take care always. PS: I will read the verbose template doc again. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@WikiWikiWayne please actually read the template documentation. You are supposed to insert a link to the source of the infringed material. like this {{subst:copyvio|url=INSERT URL OF SOURCE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL HERE}} into the article. You can't claim it's not your problem and you have no solutions when we've clearly asked you to just produce a link to the copyrighted material. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne –  You are required to provide a "source where the content was copied from" as "url 1" in the template. This is a required parameter. It appears you left this field blank, which is not the correct usage of the template.

So am I to understand that you do not have a source or url whose copyright you are claiming has been infringed? This is the fourth time I have asked on this page. This is the simplest and most fundamental piece of information that you are required to provide (both in the template and in the WP:CR listing) in order to make a claim that a page has violated copyright - whose copyright? Without this piece of information - and with you clearly refusing to answer and pretending you can't hear the question - my only conclusion can be that you have abused the copyright infringement procedures in order to vandalize the page. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 02:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sections that have been checked for copyvio

WikiWikiWayne, can you please explain the copyvio concerns with the Court hearings section? I've compared the article text with the source, and I do not think any copyright violations or impermissibly close paraphrasing is present. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ditto for the Grand jury indictments section. If restored, I'd probably add an OR tag, as the article text is making claims that are not present in the source. The presence of the (possible) OR makes the presence of a copyvio/CLOP issue seem unlikely to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WWW, what issues did you find in the Tyre Nichols section? I checked the content against the cited sources and am not seeing anything problematic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this @Firefangledfeathers, both I and Combefere have repeatedly asked WikiWikiWayne to explain the copyright violations and they haven't done so. They claim they can't figure out how to use the template they put on the page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Templates can be tough! Just a text explanation here would be fine, and I'm happy to try and update the templates as needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That said, WikiWikiWayne, I would very much appreciate your prompt attention to this. The article is in a sorry state for the thousand + readers that are likely to be checking it out today. I am all for using a sometimes-too-blunt instrument to deal with pressing copyvio, but admins and other editors can't help if you don't explain what the issue is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers – I do not have the bandwidth. I beat my head against the floor to prevent this... Can't. Plus, I'm on mobile editing. I have family emergencies now. I'm burnt. Sorry. That's why I tagged it. And, look, the one sentence in the lead remains. AgntOtrth has started the replacement text on that linked page. Whatever you deem good, I'm not gonna challenge you. WP:SOFIXIT. Good luck. You're on it. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 02:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne can you at least point us to article containing the headline that you claim is used in the lead? And if you have time to reply us, I assume you can at least write a sentence or two about the copyright violations that YOU tagged the article for. Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping we can let WWW focus on their emergency. I started a thread at WP:AN to hopefully attract some admin attention, as admins are empowered to remove or tweak the tags. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also seeing nothing wrong in the Autopsy section. These are the first four sections I checked, and I think this is probably the best place for me to pause for a bit. I am concerned that all four have turned up no copyvio issues. Additionally concerning: the Autopsy section is the one that contained the sourced WWW mentioned as closely paraphrased in Wayne's edit summary. Out of an abundance of caution, I'm not copying the potentially infringing content here, but the article text just reports a fact in a way that is similar to the cited source, because there are only so many ways of saying the same thing. Both the article and the source are quoting from the same statement by Nichols's family's attorney, increasing the similarity. In my view, WP:LIMITED applies: "Close paraphrasing is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. This may be the case when there is no reasonable way to avoid using technical terms, and may also be the case with simple statements of fact. " Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers – You are correct, but everything I checked was a copyvio and it's not practical to tag every sentence, sentence by sentence. In my mind, AgntOtrth could clean it up quickly, and remove the two tags. It's their mess. To my horror, they dropped a ref's headline into the lead virtually unchanged. I threw in the towel and only tagged that one sentence in the lead, which remains unedited/unfixed. I'm not gonna drone on, but I put in the word battered, they say the ref says beaten, so they say we can only use beaten. They're new, I get it, but they're bossy and inflexible. Leads too long. I carefully shorten it in my words, they say my words are not in the ref. This article is becoming less relevant, but at first, it was 150,000 views a day. Anyway, I don't add much content, I prefer to polish what you folx put up. In closing, it was so overwhelming that I set 2 tags instead of 200. Ask an admin or clerk to set two more tags to open up that section. Good job. Good faith. Carry on. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 02:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you're not willing to tag sentence by sentence, can you at least tag section by section? Some of the sections you tagged are identical to versions present before AgntOrth ever edited the article. AgntOrth has done nothing to worsen those sections, and you have, and you "could clean it up quickly". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiWikiWayne Please stop accusing other editors of being "bossy" and "inflexible". Philipnelson99 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Philipnelson99 – Please stop stalking and hounding me in an article improvement area. Thank you. Everybody else will affirm their experience here. Ask Bowler the Carmine. You have edited little content on the wiki. Take your badgering & bullying somewhere else. You're on my last nerve. Just you. This is not a forum for you to express your non-article improvement personal concerns. Thanks. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 04:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have unhidden the text because WWW is at the moment unable to identify exactly where the problems are, while FFF has reported finding little issues. Anyone who can identify specifically where the problems are, can hide the text again. starship.paint (exalt) 10:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to an editor an ANI, I was to able identify an edit in the revision history that added copyrighted material to the article. This edit introduced text from https://web.archive.org/web/20230207230916/https://wreg.com/news/local/tyre-nichols/city-8-more-officers-may-face-charges-in-tyre-nichols-case/. The text was removed in this edit.

This may not be the only case of copyright infringing text being added but at least it's something to work with going forward. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed your links. So, it seems WWW inserted that copyvio. starship.paint (exalt) 11:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that is correct. @Starship.paint, thanks for fixing them. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the second link also, I changed it to the one you linked at ANI. starship.paint (exalt) 11:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Appreciated, sorry, got mixed up. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

remove archive page #4 ?

The fourth archive page has all the same stuff as the current talk page. Seems like some cleanup is necessary to avoid confusion. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. WWGB (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

my bad, thought I was helping AgntOtrth (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Metric conversion

@Combefere: Re this edit: [1], could you show me where MOS:UNITS prevents conversion to metric units? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Naturally, the base units in this article would be US customary. But MOS:CONVERSIONS states:

Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except: [...] In some topic areas (for example maritime subjects where nautical miles are the primary units, or American football where yards are primary) it can be excessive to provide a conversion for every quantity.

And this isn't about sailing or sportsball, so I don't get why conversions shouldn't be included. Bowler the Carmine | talk 15:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As a non-American, I would really like the provision of conversions. starship.paint (exalt) 00:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

After reviewing, I believe this is my mistake in understanding the MOS. Still learning. My B. Combefere ❯❯❯ Talk 19:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)