User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 6
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Disambiguation link notification for December 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Reform Zionism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to David Einhorn
- United States recognition of Jerusalem (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Freedom Party
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Manzanar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Manzanar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to WP:STiki!
|
Hello, Seraphim System, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Here are some pages which are a little more fun:
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Please comment on Talk:Thomas Guide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Guide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Balkans
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Balkans. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys
Well done. Very transparent.
...
- 184.66.82.46 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- That Shmoo (disambiguation) edit was not mine. It was made by another editor and you removed it without reason. The only logical reason may have been that you didn't believe it was real. Either that or it is not notable for its own article. Hence the reference to assuage your doubt. In that case remove all the other "Schmoo" examples that are not article worthy but are explanations of the word's usage. If on the other hand brief mentions of what a term may be referring to are appropriate on a disambiguation page, don't revert it so flippantly. I was just attempting to protect the good faith edit of another editor that was not accepted on any reasonable or symmetric or even-handed grounds.
- 184.66.82.46 (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- PS if you're going to template me, at least try and pipe me to that actual article in question. Not the one about the comic book character.
- No, I removed it because Shmoo is not Schmoo, it was revert a second time by another reviewer. Even if it had made it past review, it would been removed by other editors doing DAB cleanup. I reverted it as a good faith edit, but I am starting to think I was mistaken. Seraphim System (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- That Shmoo (disambiguation) edit was not mine. It was made by another editor and you removed it without reason. The only logical reason may have been that you didn't believe it was real. Either that or it is not notable for its own article. Hence the reference to assuage your doubt. In that case remove all the other "Schmoo" examples that are not article worthy but are explanations of the word's usage. If on the other hand brief mentions of what a term may be referring to are appropriate on a disambiguation page, don't revert it so flippantly. I was just attempting to protect the good faith edit of another editor that was not accepted on any reasonable or symmetric or even-handed grounds.
- Are you even looking at the things you're doing or saying? The first line of that disambig... "Shmoo or Schmoo". I dont really care. Go ahead and bite the newbs all you want. Doesn't really affect me. Same with the other editor who just linked to pages of policy without any framing for the original editor. How is he supposed to know where in those mass of documents his sin is? And how is he supposed to be inspired to keep contributing?
- 184.66.82.46 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Part of the issue I think is with the preponderance of all these rapid fire tools for reverting, all the nuance of these situations and individual edits all over the wiki are just getting woefully ignored; to the detriment of the whole project. These tools should be used for blatant vandalism. Other responses should be tailored to the situation. Improvement. Not spanking.
- 184.66.82.46 (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Between Shmoo and Schmoo there is no ambiguity. Now you know. Seraphim System (talk) 05:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You might be interested
The Changing Global Order (From Leiden University) course from https://www.coursera.org You can have access to the whole course (if you are unaware of how coursera works) for free if you decide not to get evaluated. That site is damn fantastic with a lot of videos and very addictive. Some don't realize the impact of such sites in the future. Imagine someone just taking hundreds of such courses, without any formal evaluation... he'd be practically invisible... with all this knowledge... he can pup-up from any Internet coffee and give institutions a taste of their own medicine. :) Yaḥyā (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Zeila
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zeila. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem as Israeli capital. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
User group for Military Historians
Greetings,
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you
I hope I am responding to your message to me correctly. Thank you for the clarification. I know I checked "Minor edit", but thought I unchecked it. Is there a way to fix that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkelber (talk • contribs) 23:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's not a big deal, mistakes happen, but it can be a problem when a new editor makes a lot of minor edits that make substantial changes to articles. Many editors filter minor edits on their watch lists so this tends to annoy them, especially when it continues after multiple requests to stop.Seraphim System (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States recognition of Jerusalem. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southeast European Cooperative Initiative. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
  Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–2017). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Southern Transitional Council
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern Transitional Council. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Cut it out with the stalking
As you did at Anatolia. I won't warn you again. Khirurg (talk) 05:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't post on my talk page, and certainly do not threaten me. Seraphim System (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Re: Lean terminology change
There is some fairly recent discussion on the talk page about this question. Purple drank is an outdated term, the hip-hop community almost universally refers to the concoction as lean now. I do not use TW so I don't know why you specified it when reverting the edits. Etzedek24 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Etzedek24 There is no discussion or move proposal. There is one comment from an IP saying it should move and two relatively new editors making major changes to the article's terminology without consensus. WP:MOVE has details on how to propose a move.Seraphim System (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I moved it because I felt it would be an uncontroversial move, as detailed by WP:MOVE. Is there a history I am somehow unaware of? Seems like there's no reason to fuss about consensus in this particular case. There was no serious activity on the page, so I don't see why this would be a controversial move. Etzedek24 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Lean is an ambiguous term, so I don't see any justification to move the article to an ambiguous term that needs to be disambiguated by a parenthetical, when Purple Drank is available. Seraphim System (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- It may be a smidge more ambiguous, but Lean (recreational drug) is the more accurate term. Since you seem to be the only person opposed to this move because of its potential for ambiguity, would you accept a redirect from the Purple drank page? Etzedek24 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's not a smidge more ambiguous, one requires disambiguation, the other does not. Purple Drank is the more recognizable term since it is constantly in the headlines. They are both slang terms so neither is "more accurate". If you want to move the article, then propose a move on the talk page. Please actually read the move policy, there is no need to disambiguate this, purple drank is fine. If you want to change the entire terminology of the page to favor your personal preference for one slang term over another that is the kind of change that needs to be discussed on talk. I don't really think article names should be disambiguated with parentheses when a more precise title is possible (Please see WP:ARTICLENAME for more).Seraphim System (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- It may be a smidge more ambiguous, but Lean (recreational drug) is the more accurate term. Since you seem to be the only person opposed to this move because of its potential for ambiguity, would you accept a redirect from the Purple drank page? Etzedek24 (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Lean is an ambiguous term, so I don't see any justification to move the article to an ambiguous term that needs to be disambiguated by a parenthetical, when Purple Drank is available. Seraphim System (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I moved it because I felt it would be an uncontroversial move, as detailed by WP:MOVE. Is there a history I am somehow unaware of? Seems like there's no reason to fuss about consensus in this particular case. There was no serious activity on the page, so I don't see why this would be a controversial move. Etzedek24 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have moved the article back to its longstanding title, pending a consensus. I suggest you keep discussion at Talk:Purple drank, where other interested users can see it. William Avery (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Cold War
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold War. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This account was just created and is stating to be an alternative account to this one - is this true? Just let me know; I want to make sure that nobody is impersonating you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- You just verified it. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Pink tide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pink tide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
About Turkish War of Independence
Hello, regarding the articles about Turkish War of Independence, sources especially in English are really scarce, but would it be better if I used printed sources rather than online sources?
Thank you
Eacar94 (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Eacar94: I don't think sources are sparse - but you didn't make any edits to Turkish War of Independence. Do you mean Greek War of Independence? If there is something you want to add you could propose it on the article talk page and I can help you look for sources. Generally academic articles and publications are preferred - Routledge, Brill, Cambridge and Oxford are some examples of publishers that are generally very well regarded. But I reverted the last round in particular due to changing the flags in the infobox - when the flags are changed the country article linked to changes. This article should link to the Ottoman Empire, not the article for modern Turkey. Seraphim System (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Yes I generalized it for a couple of articles. Is it possible if you can reach me through e-mail? I am a newbie here but I am really trying to improve is many articles as possible. Your help will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Eacar94 (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- What exactly is it you want to add? Most of it was WP:REPEATLINKS and the changing of flags - British Empire to UK, etc.Seraphim System (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Google, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Google Cloud (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violations
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
I'm talking about this "expansion" in particular which is copied from this source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it is a copyright violation but I will ask Diannaa Seraphim System (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- It's practically identical to the source (page 4). Tis copyvio. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- What are you doing reinserting the copyvio?? Before I have even had a chance to reply. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop. I am trying to remove the copyvio and am getting an edit conflict. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am trying to drink my morning coffee, but honestly if this is a COPYVIO you should probably block me because it is not very different from thousands of other edits I have made or will continue to make. This is Etienne's personal grudge and harassment. None of it is copied directly from the source. If it is close paraphrasing it is not especially significant - "the church lost many of its properties" is not creative writing. The only thing I can see that might be a problem upon closer scrutiny is "Effective missionaries" and I removed that already. Seraphim System (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, close paraphrasing, as opposed to outright COPYVIO, can usually be fixed through civil discussion without leaving harassing and threatening templates on an editor's talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You presented three points from the book, in the same order, using almost identical wording. That's a copyright violation, so sorry. This is the third time I have spoken to you about our copyright policy, so I am deeply concerned.Suggestions: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. Please don't do this again, or you risk being blocked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have read the material there and I don't think I was close paraphrasing. Editors are not free to just alter the meaning of the sources, that is WP:SYNTH (introducing Turkification without a source, changing Hellenization to "Greek-speaking") - these are academic terms, their use needs to be sourced. Obviously it is going to include wording for the sourced material - you are not going to change "Holocaust" to "large scale murder of Semitic peoples" to avoid a COPYVIO are you? You are not going to use the term to describe random things where the source doesn't use it either. COPYVIO is an important policy, but you have to be able to balance close paraphrasing against the other policies - RS, OR and NPOV. If you sanction me for following WP:RS that is fine, but I will appeal. I think you should probably look at the article history more to find out what the issue is. And Diannaa please remind of the three discussions we've had, I remember only one, about a year ago, on Boston Massacre and that was actually a COPYVIO - this was before I knew it wasn't allowed because I had seen it on other articles and thus, assumed it was allowed.Seraphim System (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Not only are you adding copyright material, you are edit-warring over it. You have been warned three times for the former, and have been blocked several times for the latter. I think it would be good to step back, listen to what people are saying, and utilize the talk pages. Just some simple five pillar advice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have read the material there and I don't think I was close paraphrasing. Editors are not free to just alter the meaning of the sources, that is WP:SYNTH (introducing Turkification without a source, changing Hellenization to "Greek-speaking") - these are academic terms, their use needs to be sourced. Obviously it is going to include wording for the sourced material - you are not going to change "Holocaust" to "large scale murder of Semitic peoples" to avoid a COPYVIO are you? You are not going to use the term to describe random things where the source doesn't use it either. COPYVIO is an important policy, but you have to be able to balance close paraphrasing against the other policies - RS, OR and NPOV. If you sanction me for following WP:RS that is fine, but I will appeal. I think you should probably look at the article history more to find out what the issue is. And Diannaa please remind of the three discussions we've had, I remember only one, about a year ago, on Boston Massacre and that was actually a COPYVIO - this was before I knew it wasn't allowed because I had seen it on other articles and thus, assumed it was allowed.Seraphim System (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You presented three points from the book, in the same order, using almost identical wording. That's a copyright violation, so sorry. This is the third time I have spoken to you about our copyright policy, so I am deeply concerned.Suggestions: Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Purdue or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. Please don't do this again, or you risk being blocked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Incidentally, close paraphrasing, as opposed to outright COPYVIO, can usually be fixed through civil discussion without leaving harassing and threatening templates on an editor's talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- I am trying to drink my morning coffee, but honestly if this is a COPYVIO you should probably block me because it is not very different from thousands of other edits I have made or will continue to make. This is Etienne's personal grudge and harassment. None of it is copied directly from the source. If it is close paraphrasing it is not especially significant - "the church lost many of its properties" is not creative writing. The only thing I can see that might be a problem upon closer scrutiny is "Effective missionaries" and I removed that already. Seraphim System (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok I just want to know which three discussions Diannaa means, because if it is the the last Jew in Vinnitsa image I think it a bit inappropriate because she is involved in the article, and also because USHMM specifically wrote me back to say there are no restrictions on use of the photo. I never bothered to have them release it formally through OTRS, which was necessary because we required clarification on whether its use is free also for commercial uses. I don't really think threatening a block on these grounds for COPYVIO is within even the ballpark of a reasonable suggestion. (Especially as it was a content dispute where I wanted to add the material and she felt she had summarized the sources adequately, and that it would not add anything. It is not the first time I have thought Diannaa has oversummarized, and my writing may be more formal and closer to the sources, but I don't think it's COPYVIO - I think we just have different editing/writing styles.) To raise the issue in an admin capacity would be highly inappropriate, as it was a fair use/content dispute and not a COPYVIO - though I agf believe Diannaa would run this by the community before taking this type of action (as she has before.)
- As for Etienne, I think the main issue is whether or not he is capable of editing constructively and neutrally in the DS topic area and whether previous issues are spilling over into non-DS articles about Turkey/Ottoman Empire (consider edits like removing anti-semitism accusations sourced to the U.S. State Department from Armenia related articles with edit summary NOTHERE which is to me strong indication that the editor is not capable of making constructive neutral edits on this topic [[1]]) Seraphim System (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@Diannaa: My preference is to edit with the sources in front of me. For example, regarding the dispute over the Einsatzgruppen massacres, I think it leaves out a lot of information to just write what you remember after the reading the sources. How do you decide which massacres are worth mentioning and which should be left out? My goal is to stay as close to the sources as possible without plagiarism, and I think I am successful in that. Editors are not required to adhere to your preferred style of writing. I have read the close paraphrasing policy and these are the key points I think are important:
- First it would usually have to be extensive and creative, unless it is a copy paste issue.
- "a selection or arrangement of facts may be considered creative" - adhering to the quote selected from Feist strictly would mean we would basically have to take the entire encyclopedia down, and that every student university paper would also be a copyright violation. I will go find a hundred COPYVIOs right now if this is the working definition. What I can do is read up on Feist but I think we have to clarify this part of the policy carefully with a view to staying on the right side of the law, and probably WMF legal should do it because they are paid attorneys. The key material fact that this case turns on btw is "1,309 of the 46,878 listings in Feist's 1983 directory were identical to listings in Rural's 1982-1983 white pages. App. 54 (§ 15-16), 57. Four of these were fictitious listings that Rural had inserted into its directory to detect copying. " - in the event that Routledge or Brill have taken similar measures of inserting false information into books to detect plagiarism, we should probably always confirm facts in multiple sources. But, I would very much emphasize that academic writing is not a telephone directory. In academic writing, isn't the usual practice to cite information like this? I can look into this more, this issue should arise only very rarely in Wikipedia articles, since we don't do any original research. Seraphim System (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Discussions about copyright issues from your talk page:
- User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 1#Copyright problem on Boston Massacre
- User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 1#Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
- User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 1#Please stop moving pages with cut-paste
- User talk:Seraphim System/Archive 1#Einsatzgruppe.Wikipedia has a very strict copyright policy. Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. This is not a question of differing editing styles: it's a Wikipedia policy for which you can be blocked. I have done literally tens of thousands of copyright clean-ups and know what I'm talking about. Please stop pinging me. I will temporarily watch-list this page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it is better to move this entire discussion to village pump. I entire the ideal of "free use" but we do not create original content. All citation is essentially fair use and it is protected as such. Every University in the United States has a guidance on this. The perfect ideal is not absolute, we can only follow it as much as possible within all the other policies like V and OR. I think it is best to move this to village pump because obviously we should not be relying on a case about a phone book. I hope this part of the policy has not caused people to be blocked in the past because it is complete nonsense in the context of Wikipedia articles. Bringing up unrelated edits about copying between articles from when I was a new editor is pretty dubious, btw, since I never repeated it after you told me the policy.Seraphim System (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm also going to point out that rewriting in your own words does not "cure" the copyright issue you raised - what Feist says is "Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement." I appreciate that you "know what (you are) talking about" but the Supreme Court is considerably less certan. There is an inherent tension here between unprotected facts and creative expression of facts. I really think this needs to be clarified to note that editors can not be sanctioned for cited fair use of academic sources, even if it may arguably be a copyrighted expression. There is no bright line here. Any secondary analysis of primary sources could be understood as copyrighted under this definition, even if the same analysis is duplicated elsewhere. However, it would be a fair use in most cases and providing a rationale for this everytime is unworkable since it implicates the majority of good faith policy -based edits made to Wikipedia. Editors should not have to risk being sanctioned capriciously for following OR, V and RS. Seraphim System (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Seraphim, just take King James Bible, choose several phrases randomly... remove all the words... just mark where are the adverbs, verbs etc... to keep an imprint of the phrase structure. Then take the copyrighted material... take the words off from its phrase structure and replace (the structure) it with King James'... then use a synonymous dictionary to get rid of heavy author specific constructs. Ideally three different sources should be used for the same argument to see if they give similar results with the same phrase structure. King James isn't copyrighted and it is a stable work which will exist for a very long time. It is the best candidate to make uniform written material in Wikipedia, and decopyrighting texts. Yaḥyā (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many sources you check, if we removed the citations from our articles most likely they would not stand up to a legal challenge based on Feist, since we use entire books. This includes many of the FA Holocaust articles, even if they are rewritten in the editors own words. It is the originality that is protected, not the words, under Feist (freely available on the internet, check it out.) Since our policies explicitly state no Original Research, this would be a tough sell, no? Seraphim System (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC) <== glad we figured out feist is not a close paraphrasing issue, I don't even really see why Feist would come up, Wikipedia is not trying to get a copyright recognized. This should only be an issue if you are trying to figure out whether a compilation of facts is copyrighted. What does this have to do with sources that we know are copyrighted? This is pretty simple, it has absolutely nothing to do with close paraphrasing and it should not be taken as a blank check to broaden the definition of close paraphrasing to include basically every policy-compliant edit made on Wikipedia and punish editors who have good faith concerns about following V and OR. It's not "a selection or arrangement of facts" in a copyrighted work, as our policy implies - it is whether a compilation without "protectible written expression" can be copyrighted. Inclusion in our close paraphrasing policy is discomfiting, and it should be corrected. Seraphim System (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Add to this if one of these authors filed a lawsuit that their book sales are down because of our articles Wikipedia would be be neck deep in the shit. But most authors like being cited. Just be glad that no one has objected and don't create problems where there don't need to be any, move on and be glad we can keep doing we do here - building an encyclopedia. Seraphim System (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- That was my main argument against the way articles are written on Wikipedia. What you report is problematic, because databases have specific selection bias, that's why they can be copyrighted; the same way as even if you were to reword an entire book, you'd be mostly recycling it's thesis... which is authored. That's why I said ideally you would have to find three sources (independent) with the same argument. Efficient way is to use standards on how to divide arguments... to correspond with constants (number of human fingers, solar system, Fibonacci, etc.) which hardly anyone can take credit for. I stopped contributing, but once I return, it will be to take control of the system. :) [2] Yaḥyā (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Diannaa...do you see where in the Purdue link you posted right about paraphrasing there is an entire section about fair use? Read that. An article that Hitler that "summarizes the key points" of several entire books and is viewed by nearly 700,000 people a month may actually be a COPYVIO that doesn't fall within the fair use exception. What you are suggesting I do - put the facts in a different order has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is a copy right violation or not. The issue in Feist is whether a database/collection of facts is copyrighted. The fact that the RS we use are copyrighted is not in dispute. Sure, facts are not copyrights. "Substantial similarity" of protected elements or "total look and feel" of unrpotected elements - see this for some hardcore WMF denial mode wikilegal. At the end of the day, worst case, what will protect the encyclopedia is fair use so the articles should at least meet that. My one line edit is not reasonably going to be a problem. An article that 700,000 people view every month that summarizes entire books could be. But it is patently absurd to suggest that I should provide a fair use rationale for every edit I make to avoid a sanction. Basically any edit could be argued that it is substantially similar to the source because substantially similar means whatever the fuck the court feels like it means that day. I shouldn't need a law degree to edit Wikipedia. Generally, I would say editors should not be sanctioned for edits that could be considered fair use, as this is an extremely fine line for any secondary analysis we add to the articles (unless we are going to limit our articles to pure facts - Christopher Columbus made in voyage in 1492 - etc.) and because the law is inconsistent about what substantial similarity even means - as long as it is fair use, it should be ok for text, safe for the encyclopedia, and consistent with the purpose of COPYVIO. The way our policies are written actually suggests that we are using the original creative work of other authors - which is non-free and may not be considered transformative. Resolving this will probably require WMF attention, because non-free seems to be a legal policy, not an ordinary one, and right now it says I would have to provide a fair use rationale for every edit. I am not comfortable editing while I am being threatened with sanctions over some bullshit we don't even have a legible policy about. Seraphim System (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- If Wikipedia had its own POV it would settle it. The four major POV angles provided and every phrase constructions standardized, not decided by the editors, also abundant use of calendars. That would imply that the developer of a system like this remains anonymous... to not be influenced by any groups. Endorsing such a policy, articles will be having a POV nowhere found, something that under current policy would be considered as original research! Because such a thing will be the most hated; it would imply that no POV will ever win to be presented as majority. The whole and not majority would be ruling. We know in our hearts that it is the best solution. Yaḥyā (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Our fair use policy does not allow us to copy material from copyright sources when there's a freely licensed alternative available. In this case the freely licensed material is prose that we write ourselves. You must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. That's the way the policy is worded. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I do think that we should add the subjective description issue from Harper to the policy - I have read the policy but I don't think this was in there. I did not "copy material" I have run my own edits through Earwig before which has told me my paraphrasing is quite sufficient. The only issue I saw upon closer scrutiny was "effective missionaries" which is actually protected under Harper but I don't think editors should be threatened with sanctions for something that is not clearly stated in the policy in the first place. Now that I know about it I obviously won't use an author's subjective descriptions without quotation marks in the future. Seraphim System (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
If anything, correct guideline here is WP:Plagiarism by the way - if you really feel it needed in text attribution, in addition to a citation, all you had to do was ask. This isn't a compilation of a creative selective or arrangement of facts - which is what I think you meant when you said I wrote three facts, in the same order. The words "close paraphrasing" are not even in this case - this applies to things like maps, charts, phone books, some business forms are copyrighted...Regarding a "limited number of ways" to say things, our WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING essay says "Note, however, that closely paraphrasing extensively from a non-free source may be a copyright problem, even if it is difficult to find different means of expression. The more extensively we rely on this exception, the more likely we are to run afoul of compilation protection."
- this is not correct, but it's an easy mistake - the issue is thin copyright, it is a lot of confusing circuit cases. Until this essay is improved, please do not rely on it to sanction people anymore. If you go into a court and say "the Greek Church lost many of their properties" is protected expression, they will spit on you. This comes down to judgment, or what we call common sense. I am not trying to be a bitch about this, and I absolutely appreciate the work you do on copyright, and value your input, but I'm not going to do anything that will expose Wikipedia to legal liability or effect its redistributability. My preference is to use a lot of different sources, and use only a few pages from each, so no one can accuse me of effecting their book sales (which, common sense, could actually be an issue). The courts will look at what you were trying to do, whether it was a good, and balance that against how it effected the rights of the other person and then make some stuff up, so knowing that, I try to stay on the right side of things. I am only pointing out some areas of a very important policy that I think need clarification and improvement. I don't expect everyone to have a background in law, but I wish you would at least consider what I am saying and look into it. It would be unfair if an editor was sanctioned because an important policy that deals with a confusing area of law needed clarification.Seraphim System (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- Diannaa the last thing I am going to say is I think you have to be more careful about this - I just found out that WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING is an essay, and right now not a very good one. To my dismay it is linked to from our main COPYVIO policy. Something that is presented as sanctionable by administrators should be at least a guideline. We do have a guideline WP:PLAGIARISM which says
Wikipedia has three core content policies, of which two make it easy to plagiarize inadvertently. No original research prohibits us from adding our own ideas to articles, and Verifiability requires that articles be based on reliable published sources. These policies mean that Wikipedians are highly vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism, because we must stick closely to sources, but not too closely. Because plagiarism can occur without an intention to deceive, concerns should focus on educating the editor and cleaning up the article.
- Please do try to remember that editors are required to follow all of our policies, and do not accuse me of COPYVIO again unless you are prepared to communicate clearly and exactly what you mean by it. Do not just tell me to "rewrite it in your own words and change the order" and certainly do not ever cite to an incomplete, unpolished essay when threatening me with sanctions. Until this is resolved my advice would be to cite to and follow the existing guideline, which is plagiarism, and assumes our editors are acting in good faith. This part of the COPYVIO policy dealing with close paraphrasing should be clarified after a community discussion. We should have a community consensus and examples in the policy, not just the opinion of one admin.
- Creative language would include subjective author descriptions like "effective missionaries" but I don't think we can stretch it far enough to include something like "was instrumental to", because these are the types of facts we need to source - under this type of definition the majority of edits to Wikipedia would be close paraphrasing (see wikilegal guidance). It does have to be creative language to begin with - but we add more then pure facts to our articles however "when there is only one or a few ways of expressing an idea, idea and expression 'merge' and even the expression is not protectible" - so yes, instrumental is a word that I use a lot in my writing. I don't appreciate being accused of copying, patronized.
- I also don't agree that you can "Replace" non-free content with "free prose" - I support the Wikipedia ideal too, but this is actually more likely to call our "purpose" into question - which is to build an encyclopedia. The only way to solve this that I can see is to stop presenting these as facts based on WP:UNDUE and to write "John Smith argued that" or "Several scholars wrote" - this is a style convention of Wikipedia to try to represent the majority RS opinion as a fact, and I follow it, but in the real word I always give in text attribution. In practice, a lot of edits could be COPYVIOs under this definition of Creative Language. So, please, don't threaten me but instead improve the policy - I'm not really comfortable with how arbitrary the determination is of close paraphrasing and based on an essay about fiction standards and a case that is not evn about close paraphrasing, being cited by an admin as a guidance for how to avoid a sancton is not ok. Seraphim System (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Retracted
Just wanted to let you know I retracted/redacted the accusation I made. It was a jumped conclusion based on how other editors have seemingly enjoyed jumping on unrelated threads about my actions, with a very pile-on feeling. Sadly many have done it on purpose, so it's hard for me to trust people immediately when they say they aren't doing it. That's a personal flaw, and one I intend to work on this year. I hope you can understand/forgive my mistake. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Coffee: I have definitely been involved in tough discussions before and I know how it is, thank you for the comment. Seraphim System (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017–18 Iranian protests. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Inanna#Mythology reorganization
You said back in July that the "Mythology" section for the article Inanna "would benefit from some non-trivial reorganization". I was wondering if this is any better. I renominated the article on July 24, right after you reviewed it, but it still has not been reviewed. I believe I have thoroughly remedied all of your complaints and I am firmly convinced that the article is ready for GA, but I thought I would ask your opinion, since you are the one who reviewed it six months ago. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Katolophyromai: I have two review open now that I need to close first but I will take a loopk at this once I've closed those. Seraphim System (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:2018
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Draft: John Wadham
Hello,
I submitted the above draft article on John Wadham (died 1412), a medieval Justice of the Common Pleas, which I am keen to see published.
SeraphWiki has recently rejected publication of the draft on the grounds of over-reliance on one already published source, which I accept, but as I am new to this and lacking confidence and technical competence, I wondered if SeraphWiki might please contact me with a view to overseeing an amended article on John Wadham through to publication?
Kindest regards,
Even-tables Even-tables (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Even-tables (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Even-tables: Hi, your submission was declined for verbatim WP:COPYPASTE copyright violations, which were WP:REVDEL or reversion deleted by an administrator. Please make sure you do not copy verbatim from sources in the future, as Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. The article was otherwise pretty decent and I'm happy to work on the draft with you now that the copyright issue is resolved.Seraphim System (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
John Wadham
Thanks so much for helping.
Is it not ok to quote sources even if citing the source at the same time ? As in, according to so & so “.....”?
Even-tables Even-tables (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Even-tables (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, as long as you use quotation marks and attribute in text quotes are fine - it only becomes a problem in some cases if they are very long, or make up too much of the article text. You can read the WP:PLAGIARISM and WP:COPYVIO guidelines for more details.Seraphim System (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
No
Moved from other talk page:
It was deliberate, since you had retired. Or been blocked, an equally likely occurence around that time I think. It was mainly due to the fact that the "massive amount of text" you had added was imperfect and took us no closer to our goal of GA, indeed also added, could we say, distance. Incidentally I've noted your use of this alt-account- and I see no necessary reason for your logging in and out every couple of hours! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129: Please don't post this petty shit on the other talk page, it is mostly for draft-related discussions. I was neither blocked nor retired, and that was stated in the edit summaries. Nothing that you are doing right now is helping it get to GA, and you were not involved in either of the previous reviews. So, aside from blank the article, in the past year I have seen you do absolutely nothing to take "us" closer to "our goal" of GA. In fact, I can't remember ever speaking to your before and so far all you have is insult my work and complain about my being logged into a different account on my mobile phone. If you have constructive criticism, then I'm doing work to get it there - but insulting me, vandalizing the article and general incivility haven't been particularly valuable contributions to the process so far. Seraphim System (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it still needs more added for the resolution and aftermath, if you want to help. Some parts of it are still a little weak, but I got tired. If you want to try to clarify the Durham in fewer words, that could help.Seraphim System (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018
|
![[2]](https://img1.etsystatic.com/209/0/14873967/il_570xN.1255889737_2hun.jpg){kind=link}
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Zwarte Piet
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zwarte Piet. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Greek royal family
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek royal family. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"Vinay Bajrangi" - The article should not be deleted.
I just notice you nominated my article "Vinay Bajrangi" for Speedy deletion. The article should not be deleted because this is not a promotional content. The article is about Dr. Vinay Bajrangi who is the famous & noticeable Indian vedic astrologer. He has been covered by many popular News & TV channels for Indian vedic astrology discussion also. I have already added reference urls to validate the mentioned information. I agree this article is about a person but purpose of this article is not promoting any person intentionally. The purpose of this article is only highlights the information about noticeable Indian vedic astrologers & Dr. Vinay Bajrangi is among of them. In future, we will add more information about other Indian vedic astrologers so that people can get more authentic information about any of noticeable Indian vedic astrologers. So, I’d like to request you please don’t delete this article. Cell Bonn (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Cell BonnCell Bonn (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Harvard Crimson. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Esplanade
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Esplanade. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Abkhazia
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abkhazia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Gråen
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gråen. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions
- The following is cross-posted from the Arbitration Committee noticeboard.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Page restrictions section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
Best practice is toEnforcing administrators must add an editnotice to restricted pageswhere appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:
- The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and
- There was an editnotice ({{ds/editnotice}}) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.
Editors using mobile devices may not see edit notices. Administrators should consider whether an editor was aware of the page restriction before sanctioning them.
The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following:
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:
- They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
- They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
- In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.
There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding discretionary sanctions
Please comment on Talk:Czechland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Czechland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 January 2018
- News and notes: Communication is key
- In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media
- Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics
- Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count
- Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers
- Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018
- Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Special Barnstar |
| For creating synchronicity by creating the Arndt Freytag von Loringhoven article scope_creep (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC) |
Please comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1948 Palestine war. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:March 14, 1891, lynchings. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ahmet Fevzi Big, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circassian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1RR violation
Just letting you know, you violated 1RR on a Syrian Civil War related article with these two reverts: [3][4]. Please use the talk page and refrain from using the revert button so much on such a contentious and sensitive topic area. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)