User talk:Nthep/Archive 47

Archive 40 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #520

Extended content

Wikidata weekly summary #521

Extended content

Wikidata weekly summary #522

Extended content

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

  The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

  • New library partner - SPIE
  • 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

RL Records template

Hi there,

Any chance you could update Template:Rugby league records to show that the link no longer requires a paid subscription? I believe the stats section is now viewable for everyone. J Mo 101 (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

done. Nthep (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #523

Extended content

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2022

Delivered June 2022 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

09:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #524

Extended content

can you add any logo please

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1092801295 Sportski recenzist (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Nthep (talk) 07:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Pushpa Impossible

Hello @Nthep I hope you're doing well. I thought as I had tagged the article with revel that's why no admins are looking and cleaning it. Even at one point, I thought of reverting my edit. I also felt that as an CCI is opened against me may be that the reason that my revdel is pending for long. But Thank, you boosted my confidence I will keep up the good work. Have a good ahead. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 16:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Your declines

I see you declined my RD1 requests for that Australian source. I forgot that it entered the public domain in the United States in 1996 because copyright terms there were only 50 years. Sorry about that. However, I am confused as to why you declined the one sourced to the Canadian museum. Was the content published before 1945, or was I missing something? Sorry if I have overwhelmed you. I am not making any more RD1 requests until all the other requests are taken care of. Again, sorry. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Scorpions13256 you'll have to remind me which the Canadian one was. Nthep (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It was Evergestis subterminalis. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@Scorpions13256 The original description seems to come from this publication which is PD having been published in 1913. Nthep (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah. I see. Thank you for letting me know. Again, sorry about any disruption. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Not a problem, no inconvenience caused. Nthep (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to tell me if I'm going too fast. I'm clearing out 3 sections of Ruigeroeland like there's no tomorrow. It's mostly Public Domain though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Most are fine. Just watch some of Meyrick's, if like Peteliacma it's appears to be a reprint of Meyrick's older works then it is likely they are PD already. Nthep (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see your response until now. I have now stopped tagging Volume 3 of Meyrick's work. I have also now decided to search new sites for signs of reverse plagiarism. Yesterday, I also triggered a lot of edit filters to remove tags. Thank you for everything you do. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Guidance on when to request RD1

Hi Nthep, regarding your RD1 decline here, I need some guidance: all content added here was literally copied from here, which is copyright 1998 by Routledge and used with permission by this website (see here for their own copyright statement). Was it "not a blatant copyvio" because it was too short? Should I only request RD1 when there are at least two sentences or so copied? Only for a whole paragraph? It's also a bit inauspicious because it formed the last drop for the editor who added it to be blocked (see the note here). I mainly want to know what constitutes enough of a violation to bother with RD1 though. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 11:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma There's several reasons for me (other admins may have taken a different view) declining revdel here
  1. Blatant doesn't get defined at WP:CRD or WP:CP but my rule-of-thumb tends to be: "was this person trying to pass the content off as their own work?" Here I didn't think that was the case as they were citing the source,
  2. It is quite short (265 bytes out of an 18k byte article) so it wasn't enough to breach the non-free content guideline,
  3. It's one of those sentences that is difficult to rephrase and it still make sense so WP:LIMITED starts to come into play,
  4. I wasn't looking at the editor's behaviour.
It was borderline by, imo, not enough to require revdel. It was entirely correct for you to remove the content as there is no doubt that it was a copyvio and I would always say that if you consider any content may need revdel to flag it as such, so that it gets a second opinion. Nthep (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)