User talk:Pbsouthwood/Archive 25
 | 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 29 |
Administrators' newsletter – February 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
- Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.
Technical news
- The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
- In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
- Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Wikipedia coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:TRAPPIST-1 on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/New Weather Infobox on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Question from TheSidelineSportsFan (17:20, 26 February 2023)
How do I create a new page for a public figure? --TheSidelineSportsFan (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- TheSidelineSportsFan, first you find reliable sources for the information you intend to provide, and check that they are sufficient to establish notability. Then you create a draft and compose the new article, citing each claim to a suitable source. Once the article has sufficient content, it can be moved into article space. If the article is about a living person, there are also other rules that apply about what may be included. You also need to ensure that you comply with our WP:Terms of use. Read Help:Your first article for more information. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – March 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
- Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
- A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.
Technical news
- The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.
Arbitration
- Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
- The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
- A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.
Miscellaneous
- The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
- Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
- The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a
[p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing
. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Question from ImProbablyNotThePope (20:31, 27 February 2023)
Hello, I have a question about the page list of human anatomical features. It says citation needed, but I don´t really understand why, like can´t you just look at a human? --ImProbablyNotThePope (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- ImProbablyNotThePope, I believe you are referring to the article List of human anatomical features. If you scroll to the end of the article, you'll find a few paragraphs and only 1 source. The article needs more references so that readers can verify that the content of the article is true. Please read WP:Verifiability. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- ImProbablyNotThePope, Nythar is essentially correct and you would learn much by following their advice. The purpose of citation is to verify that the information provided in Wikipedia can be traced back to a reliable source, and was not just made up by an editor. Looking at a human will not verify what the anatomical feature is called. The List of human anatomical features has only one reference. It is a good one, as the Encyclopedia Britannica is recognised as generally containing reliable information, but only one paragraph is cited to that source, the rest of the information, while quite possibly correct, does not have inline citations informing the reader where they can check back to be sure the information provided is reliable, a process we call verification. It is quite possible that the Britannica article can be used to verify quite a lot of the other content, but this should be done by comparing the statements in the article against similar statements in the source, and adding an inline citation for each verified statement. The banner at the top of the article warns the reader that the article is insufficiently referenced, and though it may be correct, it cannot easily be checked, and therefore does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. Does this adequately answer your question? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
- thank you, that makes sense ImProbablyNotThePope (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Question from Parth1011004 (15:28, 1 March 2023)
I am a college student and have created this account for a college project in which I have to make a Wikipedia page for a rural village. If it is possible can you guide me further? --Parth1011004 (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- Parth1011004, yes, I can. You can ask me questions, and I will try to give useful answers. Also I will advise as seems appropriate at the time, so a good place to start would be to read Help:Your first article. When you create your draft, leave me a link so I can take a look occasionally, and learn how to format your references. Good references overcome a lot of problems. The most important references are the ones which establish notability of the topic, which is usually straightforward with towns and villages. Once you have established notability, look at what other information is available, and consider what would be useful to a reader. Most readers will not have heard of the village, so geographical and historical information are good places to start. Be sure to put it in your own words, and do not directly copy the source. We are very strict on copyright infringement. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Slip bands in metals and Talk:475 °C embrittlement on "Natural sciences" Good Article nominations. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Your sandbox
Hi Pbsouthwood, I have moved your sandbox page to User:Pbsouthwood/International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, which is the correct place for it, please do not create User:User:Pbsouthwood/International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness again, the extra "user:" makes it ownerless to the system--Jac16888 Talk 18:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Jac16888, this was what we can call a dialog box induced typographical error. It was not intentional, and if I had noticed I would have moved it myself. The chances of me recreating it intentionally are roughly zero. Do not lose any sleep over it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
IP Address troubling me
There is an ip address on my talk page saying that i am sock and is messaging nonsense, can you do something to my talk page so ip address like this won't message ArmyOnceBlinkMidzy (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Technical news
- Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
- The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
- A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.
Arbitration
- The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
- A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.
Greetings, mentor!
As I can't ask at the Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions page -- in classic Wikikafka wise, it's of course semiprotected -- would you happen to know if there's any scope for requesting addition to the "confirmed" group on the basis of contributions as a (disclosed) IP address? If not, no great difficulty, autoconfirmed will roll around soon enough. 109.etc (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- 109.etc, Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed is the venue for a request, but registered users are not encouraged to link their user name to an IP address, as it could possibly have privacy implications at some time, apparently such requests are usually turned down, so you need a persuasive reason, and as you say, autoconfirmed will arrive soon enough. Also, have you made a significant number of IP edits that could not have been made by someone else using the same address? How would you prove this? Just make a few more edits and wait it out. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's probably technically confirmable -- at least up to the level of "someone else editing with my computer from inside my residence" -- but if there's a strong institutional bias against it, I'll act in line with the old "please do not ask for credit" type jokes. And more work than anyone needs to bother with, at least. Thanks for the speedy response! 109.etc (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- No worries 109.etc. A WP:CheckUser could probably do technically do that, but would not, because it is not within their remit without due cause, and there is no strong reason to do so if a short wait and a few edits will suffice. The strong institutional bias against having information on Wikipedia identifying users in real life exists for privacy reasons. We would not stop you from self-identifying, but will not ask you to publicly identify yourself, and we consider all edits on Wikipedia to be on public record. For some editors this is literally a life and death issue, for others, not important at all, but we don't take the chance or allow anyone on Wikipedia to do so. It is a banning offense to intentionally identify another person to their account, and one of the rare causes to have an edit completely suppressed. Of course you may know all this already, but as I don't know who you are, I mention it, just in case... Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand why it would never be a requirement or a recommendation, but that wasn't quite the context. Also, pragmatically as I'll be editing the same article as I've already commented on as a mere IP, the identity will be obvious, and indeed basically necessary per WP:SOCK. The institutional bias I was referring to is simply the "won't confirmation without autoconfirmaton". Which is fair enough in itself, but not screamingly obvious from the existence and text of a process to do it. (Or like many WP processes, to ensure that it doesn't happen...) 109.etc (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- 109.etc, you have insider knowledge of the situation you are in, and it would be inappropriate for me to even ask some of the questions to get some of the information I would need to pass reasonably informed judgment, so I must trust you to decide for yourself how much you need to or want to disclose. Sometimes assuming good faith in the absence of enough information can lead to poor decisions, so in those cases where the decision isn't urgent, it can be safer not to make one. You are in the position to decide what to disclose, but bear in mind that WP:SOCK does not apply to a new account for an editor who has only edited as an IP before, even as several IPs as one is allowed to move around and edit from different places. However, now that you have an account, you need to use it whenever doing anything that could be reasonably construed as controversial, so log in when you can. In return you have the opportunity to develop the recognition and respect of your editing peers, (or at least some of them), and may be taken more seriously, since you now have skin in the game, so to speak. I wish you well with this new status and hope you are able to make many productive edits which improve our content within the terms of use and all that stuff. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't want to get an account partly as I dislike the (it seems more and more prevalent) presumption in favour of the "logged in", and their frankly often fairly breezy contempt for the mere "IPs". (No doubt plenty of contempt for each other to go around too, mind you.) I disliked the pressure to play along with that, but evidently I've given in. SOCK'd apply (as I understand it) if I participated it in the same RfC both logged in and logged out (even if I only "!"voted once). I won't elaborate on the exact situation as it's TBH needless detail and the point's now mooter than ever, but if you're curious, it's fairly clear if you look at my contribs. Thanks again for the input. 109.etc (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- 109.etc, you have insider knowledge of the situation you are in, and it would be inappropriate for me to even ask some of the questions to get some of the information I would need to pass reasonably informed judgment, so I must trust you to decide for yourself how much you need to or want to disclose. Sometimes assuming good faith in the absence of enough information can lead to poor decisions, so in those cases where the decision isn't urgent, it can be safer not to make one. You are in the position to decide what to disclose, but bear in mind that WP:SOCK does not apply to a new account for an editor who has only edited as an IP before, even as several IPs as one is allowed to move around and edit from different places. However, now that you have an account, you need to use it whenever doing anything that could be reasonably construed as controversial, so log in when you can. In return you have the opportunity to develop the recognition and respect of your editing peers, (or at least some of them), and may be taken more seriously, since you now have skin in the game, so to speak. I wish you well with this new status and hope you are able to make many productive edits which improve our content within the terms of use and all that stuff. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand why it would never be a requirement or a recommendation, but that wasn't quite the context. Also, pragmatically as I'll be editing the same article as I've already commented on as a mere IP, the identity will be obvious, and indeed basically necessary per WP:SOCK. The institutional bias I was referring to is simply the "won't confirmation without autoconfirmaton". Which is fair enough in itself, but not screamingly obvious from the existence and text of a process to do it. (Or like many WP processes, to ensure that it doesn't happen...) 109.etc (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- No worries 109.etc. A WP:CheckUser could probably do technically do that, but would not, because it is not within their remit without due cause, and there is no strong reason to do so if a short wait and a few edits will suffice. The strong institutional bias against having information on Wikipedia identifying users in real life exists for privacy reasons. We would not stop you from self-identifying, but will not ask you to publicly identify yourself, and we consider all edits on Wikipedia to be on public record. For some editors this is literally a life and death issue, for others, not important at all, but we don't take the chance or allow anyone on Wikipedia to do so. It is a banning offense to intentionally identify another person to their account, and one of the rare causes to have an edit completely suppressed. Of course you may know all this already, but as I don't know who you are, I mention it, just in case... Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's probably technically confirmable -- at least up to the level of "someone else editing with my computer from inside my residence" -- but if there's a strong institutional bias against it, I'll act in line with the old "please do not ask for credit" type jokes. And more work than anyone needs to bother with, at least. Thanks for the speedy response! 109.etc (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
| New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Question from Treecerman (21:09, 28 April 2023)
It's my first time. I wish to add some major credits missing from Mike Royer's page. How may I do that? --Treecerman (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Treecerman, Do you have a reliable source for the information you wish to add? Also, what exactly do you mean by "credits". Thirdly it is not Mike Royer's page, it is the page about Mike Royer. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is important for editors to be aware that no page is owned by anyone. When discussing a page it is desirable to link to it so that it is clear exactly which page we are discussing, as we have many pages with similar names, and there may be several people called Mike Royer. Don't worry too much though, it takes a while to learn all these things.
- To add content to a page, you first work out where on the page it should go. You then open that section to edit and type in the content so that it fits the flow of the existing content, then you check the preview, make any corrections that may be necessary, and publish the page. It is good practice to leave an edit summary briefly describing your edit if it is not obvious. You will also have to provide a reference for the information you add so that anyone who wants to check the facts can do so. This is particularly important on biographies of living people. There are several ways this can be done, all of them explained in detail on our help pages. I suggest you work through WP:The Wikipedia Adventure which addresses some of these things. There are tutorials on how to do these things, or you can just have a go. Anything you do can be fixed if it goes wrong, but it is obviously better not to make a mess for someone else to clean up. An alternative is to leave a message on the article's talk page with the information, and leave it to someone else to add to the article if/when they get around to it, but if you intend to edit frequently you need to learn how to do it yourself. If this is not what you need to know, ask again, and try to be as specific as you can. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I will try to look over the information you supplied.
- I have all the books which from Marvel in the 1970's which Jack Kirby drew and Mike Royer inked.
- Hopefully, I can figure it out. This is a huge oversight for Wikipedia not to include this.
- Yes, I know exactly where it should appear. Under the DC section of his work under the heading The 1970's. 23.155.160.1 (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- You will find that Wikipedia has plenty of what you describe as "huge oversights", because not everyone has access to all the sources. This is basically how a collaborative encyclopedia works, we each do what we can, and what we can't, we leave to someone else. It is also why we never consider an article to be complete. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.
Technical news
- Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.
Arbitration
- The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.
Miscellaneous
- The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.
Cataract surgery
 | Hello, Pbsouthwood. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Cataract surgery at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Baffle gab1978, I will monitor your progress. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk):
- No worries; there's a lot to do here. You seems to be an expert in the subject, so please pull me up if I mess up anything important. There seems to be lot of unnecessary details here;
I'm currently converting lists to inline prose but I'm probably going to leave the list in "Complications" --> "After surgery". Cheers, Baffle☿gab 23:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)- Scratch that, though I've left a small list at the end of the section. From "History" --> "Couching", I've moved a lengthy passage translated from Sanskrit to Couching (ophthalmology) as a footnote; I think it's more appropriate there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Baffle gab1978, I am no expert, I just have enough education and experience to be able to do the research in a field that is well covered by good sources. I rewrote the article after I had the procedure myself (phaco). I have been impressed by your ability to clean up without information loss or distortion, but I guess you are basically doing what I did with a different focus, and without the constraint of avoiding close paraphrasing. I was considering the same split and merge for the translation, so support that change. I used the standard WP:MEDMOS section headers, but your changes so far have been fine in my opinion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, well you've done some good research and rewritten the article comprehensively, well done. Having some "distance" from a subject does help; it's easier to view the text in the role of someone who just wants good information. Parts of the article may still be a bit jargon-y but possibly up to GA standards now. Good luck with your planned nomination and cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Baffle gab1978, The question always remains whether I have been comprehensive enough, and there is always more that can be said, but I will nominate and see where it goes from here. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- No problem, well you've done some good research and rewritten the article comprehensively, well done. Having some "distance" from a subject does help; it's easier to view the text in the role of someone who just wants good information. Parts of the article may still be a bit jargon-y but possibly up to GA standards now. Good luck with your planned nomination and cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Baffle gab1978, I am no expert, I just have enough education and experience to be able to do the research in a field that is well covered by good sources. I rewrote the article after I had the procedure myself (phaco). I have been impressed by your ability to clean up without information loss or distortion, but I guess you are basically doing what I did with a different focus, and without the constraint of avoiding close paraphrasing. I was considering the same split and merge for the translation, so support that change. I used the standard WP:MEDMOS section headers, but your changes so far have been fine in my opinion. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Scratch that, though I've left a small list at the end of the section. From "History" --> "Couching", I've moved a lengthy passage translated from Sanskrit to Couching (ophthalmology) as a footnote; I think it's more appropriate there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 05:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- No worries; there's a lot to do here. You seems to be an expert in the subject, so please pull me up if I mess up anything important. There seems to be lot of unnecessary details here;
Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cataract surgery on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Five years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Gerda, Nice to gear from you again. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing section name on "Map Projection"
Hello,
Thank you for fixing the name of the section on Map Projection. I didn't notice that at all, and have glanced through the page a few times. Your contributions is much more professional, however it doesn't remind me of the office "best bear" debate, so that is a shame.
Again, just dropping by to say thanks for the fix. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you!
 |
BloxyColaSweet (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Geography and places Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Clipperton Island on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright problem: Marine construction
Hello Pbsouthwood! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Marine construction, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://marineman.ir/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Ben-C.-Gerwick-Jr-Construction-of-Marine-and-Offshore-Structures-Third-Edition-CRC-Press-2007.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
- Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Marine construction and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en
wikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Marine construction, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. - If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Marine construction. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Marine construction with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Marine construction saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Copyright problem on Marine construction
Hello Pbsouthwood. Our CopyPatrol system has detected some copying and too-close paraphrasing from Gerwick's book Construction of Marine and Offshore Structures. There's been three different reports so far.
- https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/?id=99563254
- https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/?id=99565447
- https://copypatrol.toolforge.org/en/?id=99566956
You can click on the iThenticate link in each report to find out what overlap the detection service found. Some bits are too technical for paraphrasing but you need to go back and reword everything from that book in your own words where it is possible to do so. Could you please do this as soon as you can, and let me know when it's done, and I will check the results? Thank you, — Diannaa (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Diannaa, I will do that now. I tried to check for myself with Earwig, but it could not find the source so I was getting zeros. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I also feel I must point out that some of those claimed/suggested possible infringements are of sources I did not even know existed, and have not used at all. I suspect that I have accidentally used similar phrasing to other people writing on similar topics, because those are the concepts we each wished to convey, using the terminology that applies to the topic and which is in standard use. Coincidence. Sometimes it happens. I don't think I should be required to rewrite things that are already genuinely in my own words, just because someone somewhere that I had no knowledge of, also chose to use those words in that order, for part of a document they wrote on a similar topic. There are a few basic facts that are copied directly from Gerwick because changing them would be misleading. Also, some of the comparisons will not open so I cannot check them. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS: Diannaa, Make that all of the comparisons with Genwick, which is the only source listed in the reports that I actually have used, making it a bit tricky to work out exactly what the problems are. Can you read the comparisons? I do have a copy of Genwick, but I am usually drastically summarising it, to the extent that some of those matches may even be from pages I have not used for the content I have written. He does tend to repeat himself a bit and his book is about 800 pages long. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was able to find a pirated copy of the book here. Perhaps you could use it to compare the book with the highlighted content in the three iThenticate reports? For example the highlighted content in the first iThenticate report is very close to content on page 79. I searched the pdf using the phrase "corrosion from stored liquids". I have to go to work now and will check back with you later. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I missed this discussion, but the article has now been flagged five times in CopyPatrol and a closer manual review reveals more problems. I sent it to WP:CP. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- CandyScythe, Diannaa Since it is not practicable to do anything about it while the page is blanked, I will wait until I get further feedback. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- There's an option available to do a rewrite on a temporary page. See the template below for instructions as to how to do that if you wish. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Diannaa does this differ in any practical way from rewriting from scratch? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Also, is there a way to check whether the tool is going to consider new text a likely infringement before saving it, so when necessary, it can be tweaked as far as necessary, but not too much further, which tends to risk distorting or obscuring the meaning in technical topics. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- There's an option available to do a rewrite on a temporary page. See the template below for instructions as to how to do that if you wish. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- CandyScythe, Diannaa Since it is not practicable to do anything about it while the page is blanked, I will wait until I get further feedback. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I missed this discussion, but the article has now been flagged five times in CopyPatrol and a closer manual review reveals more problems. I sent it to WP:CP. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I was able to find a pirated copy of the book here. Perhaps you could use it to compare the book with the highlighted content in the three iThenticate reports? For example the highlighted content in the first iThenticate report is very close to content on page 79. I searched the pdf using the phrase "corrosion from stored liquids". I have to go to work now and will check back with you later. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- PS: Diannaa, Make that all of the comparisons with Genwick, which is the only source listed in the reports that I actually have used, making it a bit tricky to work out exactly what the problems are. Can you read the comparisons? I do have a copy of Genwick, but I am usually drastically summarising it, to the extent that some of those matches may even be from pages I have not used for the content I have written. He does tend to repeat himself a bit and his book is about 800 pages long. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The article Srk Zayn has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bovlb (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please sir, don’t delete my article. Thank you. Shafi Aleem (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Shafi Aleem, It will not be my decision whether the article is deleted, and the chances are very high that I will not even be involved in the deletion discussion. To prevent deletion it is necessary for the article to have sufficient independent references to establish notability of the topic by Wikipedia's standards, which is basically your responsibility to do. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
- Shafi Aleem, it seems that someone else has already moved the page and added some references and some more content. The nomination for deletion of the redirect is no longer relevant. I have no opinion on the current status of the page, but someone has removed the deletion tag, so it may well be OK. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
CCI Notice
Hello, Pbsouthwood. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. CandyScythe (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- CandyScythe, Are you an expert on copyrightt? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert. I just think that there might be some issues and WP:CCI is the place where the actual "experts" are, and where that can be sorted out. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- CandyScythe, you seem to have very little experience on Wikipedia under your current username. Have you previously edited under a different username or extensively as a IP user? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've had one or two previous accounts that I did some editing with (and have lost access to), but mostly have edited as an IP. I wouldn't call my editing history "extensive" though. CandyScythe (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- CandyScythe, Do you have any experience in technical writing, or professional editing, or any other activity which would develop your competence to judge other people's technical writing? Have you substantially contributed sourced content to any technical Wikipedia articles? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Experience in such areas is not necessary to determine when text has been too closely paraphrased, although I agree it may be helpful. In any case, I suggest you address the potential violations directly, rather than questioning CandyScythe's competence. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 03:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Darylgolden, I agree that experience is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove competence, but in the absence of more effective measures, and taking available history and evidence into account, it seemed a fair question. I do not agree with the blanket statement that
experience is not necessary to determine when text has been too closely paraphrased
, in some cases it is necessary, or there would be no copyright lawyers. I looked at the listed potential violations, and I am still wondering whether they actually need to be addressed, as "too closely paraphrased", as far as I know, remains a judgement call in many cases, requiring expertise and consideration of context, and is not always reliably established by software. Is your advice based on experience or established expertise in this field, and have you examined the listed potential violations yourself? I would value a competent second opinion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk):- Yes, I have looked at some of the potential violations myself. I agree that some of them are borderline and hard to say whether they are too closely paraphrased. However, in the example listed here, the content is not too technical that it cannot be rephrased, and in my opinion too closely paraphrases the source. It feels to me to be a similar level of closeness as this example from the close paraphrasing essay. The example I brought up on the CCI page, on the Derivation of the Arterial Bubble Model section of the History of decompression research and development article, the content is more technical, but the text is much closer to the source, essentially being a reorganization of phrases, so I am still not comfortable with it. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 08:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Darylgolden, I have rewritten the text at the marine salvage in the 16th to 18th centuries, hopefully while retaining the intended meaning. Please take a look and see whether it assuages your concerns. I will look at the arterial bubble model next. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Darylgolden, I have also rewritten the text at the arterial bubble model, which was written quite a long time ago. I was able to make a fair amount of change without unduly affecting the meaning, as I have improved my understanding of the topic since the original work and am more confident about having made these changes than I would have been at that time. Your comments on the current text would be appreciated. Let me know if the current text makes more or less sense to you than the original. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I have looked at some of the potential violations myself. I agree that some of them are borderline and hard to say whether they are too closely paraphrased. However, in the example listed here, the content is not too technical that it cannot be rephrased, and in my opinion too closely paraphrases the source. It feels to me to be a similar level of closeness as this example from the close paraphrasing essay. The example I brought up on the CCI page, on the Derivation of the Arterial Bubble Model section of the History of decompression research and development article, the content is more technical, but the text is much closer to the source, essentially being a reorganization of phrases, so I am still not comfortable with it. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 08:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- Darylgolden, I agree that experience is neither necessary nor sufficient to prove competence, but in the absence of more effective measures, and taking available history and evidence into account, it seemed a fair question. I do not agree with the blanket statement that
- Experience in such areas is not necessary to determine when text has been too closely paraphrased, although I agree it may be helpful. In any case, I suggest you address the potential violations directly, rather than questioning CandyScythe's competence. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 03:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- CandyScythe, Do you have any experience in technical writing, or professional editing, or any other activity which would develop your competence to judge other people's technical writing? Have you substantially contributed sourced content to any technical Wikipedia articles? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I've had one or two previous accounts that I did some editing with (and have lost access to), but mostly have edited as an IP. I wouldn't call my editing history "extensive" though. CandyScythe (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- CandyScythe, you seem to have very little experience on Wikipedia under your current username. Have you previously edited under a different username or extensively as a IP user? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 17:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert. I just think that there might be some issues and WP:CCI is the place where the actual "experts" are, and where that can be sorted out. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Imperobator on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
May 2023 NPP Drive Awards
|
Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| This award is given to Pbsouthwood for collecting more than 800 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
Asymmetric Epicyclic Gears Award | |
| This award is given to Pbsouthwood for collecting more than 200 points per week doing reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 16:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC) |
Feedback request: Natural sciences Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Howard Florey on a "Natural sciences" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
- As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.
Technical news
- Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.
Arbitration
- The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.
Miscellaneous
- Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brunswick Falls on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Question from Kalna rural welfare organisation (15:21, 12 June 2023)
hi --Kalna rural welfare organisation (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Please read the Wikipedia:Username policy and choose another user name. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Geography and places Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dvorichna settlement hromada on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Question from CoryHReynolds (21:43, 15 June 2023)
Hello. I am making a Wikipedia page in the Sandbox. How do I cite information that was given in an email? --CoryHReynolds (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi CoryHReynolds, There is no way to cite an email on Wikipedia as it is not a verifiable source. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 02:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Geography and places Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sol de Mañana on a "Geography and places" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Engineering and technology Good Article nomination
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gatlinburg Bypass on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)