Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:Thank you for the notice, Peter. I provided a list of articles on my RfA so that they would be reviewed, and I mentioned highlights precisely because of the stubs and disambiguation. As I said in my RfA, "As I said in my introduction, rather than writing very long, epic GAs and FAs, I enjoy creating shorter requested articles which can be expanded in time by those passionate about the subject." Thanks, ''']]''' 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thank you for the notice, Peter. I provided a list of articles on my RfA so that they would be reviewed, and I mentioned highlights precisely because of the stubs and disambiguation. As I said in my RfA, "As I said in my introduction, rather than writing very long, epic GAs and FAs, I enjoy creating shorter requested articles which can be expanded in time by those passionate about the subject." Thanks, ''']]''' 06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Well then please provide a breakdown into which were DAB pages, which were the Roumanian generals and other 'copied' articles, and which were actual articles written and sourced properly by yourself. That would be the honourable thing to do. In your RfA, you said only that 'some of them are stubs'. That in my view is grossly misleading, given that ''most'' of them were stubs. You do understand the difference between 'some' and 'most', do you? ] (]) 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Well then please provide a breakdown into which were DAB pages, which were the Roumanian generals and other 'copied' articles, and which were actual articles written and sourced properly by yourself. That would be the honourable thing to do. In your RfA, you said only that 'some of them are stubs'. That in my view is grossly misleading, given that ''most'' of them were stubs. You do understand the difference between 'some' and 'most', do you? ] (]) 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
== More article problems, and the larger issue ==
I'm sorry to make the yellow bar light up again at the top of your talk page and hope I don't cause you any stress, but the more I look into your articles the more concerned I am. I say this as someone who, as far as I can recall, has never interacted with you in the past. You probably also saw my general concern posted on ANI. Note that that I'm not interested in rehashing the particulars of the RfA (in which I did not participate) or talking about IRC and the like. My concern is with your article work and the degree to which this affects community confidence in you as an admin.
From ] I took a look at some of the "flux" articles which all appear in a row starting at 118 (please note that I know nothing of any of these topics). ] is a copyvio from . Sure, you cited it, but you are still plagiarizing, as when you say "It can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stresses. For waves, momentum flux is related to mountain wave drag" and the source says "Momentum flux can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stress. For waves, it is related to mountain wave drag." ] plagiarizes an article from the journal ''Applied Optics'' (actually it only plagiarizes from the abstract, which suggests you did not look at the actual article). There is also some copying at ], and in addition over there you have cited ] as a source which is not something we really do here.
One of your sources for ] seems to be a blog talking up a software program called "Unit Converter EX" which does various unit conversions. In the context of basically saying "check out this product," the blog mentions some units which relate to volumetric flux, apparently, and then you mentioned those units in our article. Citing that source seems to me largely along the lines of citing an advertisement, and obviously we don't do that either. Please note that these are just the first few articles I happened to look at on your list since they all seemed related.
I have not done anything with these articles because quite simply I don't know how to fix them short of blanking them (I already basically blanked ]) but obviously they need to be fixed and soon.
As I said on ANI I consider this a major issue (i.e. articles based on copyvios/plagiarism) which relates directly to your fitness for adminship, a status which you have obviously recently achieved. I would ask you to consider the fact that, had the points I've raised here and on ANI been raised in your RFA, the odds are extremely good that you would not have passed. The fact that they have only come to light now is, in a sense, merely coincidental, and whatever happens now I hope you take the views of the community to heart even though the RfA concluded successfully (maybe I'll be the only one who sees a big problem here, who knows). Responding to me here on your talk page is obviously completely optional for you, but I would like to hear your rationale as to why someone who seems to have committed obvious plagiarism (I'm sure quite unintentionally) is a good representative, in this case an administrator, on a project that is writing an encyclopedia. I seriously hope that this does not come across as too harsh because I know you are very much a good faith and constructive contributor here, but I did feel it necessary to put these points to you directly. --] <small>| ] | ]</small> 07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Revision as of 07:35, 20 May 2009
I answer questions left here on your personal talk page.
Hello, FlyingToaster. You have new messages at Rosiestep's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
FlyingToaster, thanks, that'll be great. I've answered the 3 questions and am ready to move forward but, to be in compliance with WP:RFA/N#Warnings, I'm awaiting your co-nom before I transclude. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. I just noticed that your talk page archives are misnumbered and /Archive 3 is actually the one with the oldest messages. I think you should fix this before MiszaBot filled /Archive 2 and starts mixing new threads from here with the oldest ones in the already existing Archive 3. If you already knew that, just ignore my message^^ Regards SoWhy12:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Happy FlyingToaster's Day!
FlyingToaster has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as FlyingToaster's Day! For being a valuable and experienced wikignome and one of our kindest, most civil users, enjoy being the star of the day, dear FlyingToaster!
SoWhy would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact SoWhy to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be created for your nomination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
I have created the page to allow you to answer the questions now and to invite other people to co-nom you if you know anyone who has already signaled to be willing to do so. Since I am currently sitting in a university class, I'll write the nomination later this day (on my lunch break most likely), so you are good to go this evening (UTC). Regards SoWhy07:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, glad to see it's up: I'll get around to adding my actual support soon. As for my statement, it's 9:00am here where I live, so I hadn't long been up when I wrote it; I'm glad you like it though. ;) Acalamari16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Signature
Is that a yes?
Yep I applied my custom signature to my preferences.
Quick question. Can I find the tilde on my keyboard?
FlyingToaster, My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 and I wanted to give you special thanks, not only for co-nominating me, but for seeking me out, encouraging me, and supporting me through the process. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Oh, I don't think that's "fool who can sit around and talk all day." Those things on the side of the head are probably really good at keeping people focused! And I like the mystic "W" at the end of the staff. But it would be better with epaulettes. :) --Moonriddengirl11:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Yikes!
I'm astounded, at my sheer stupidity.
I was searching and searching my keyboard for the tilde and I didn't even see it tucked away under the Escape key. Sorry!
TheSavageNorwegian has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Unfortunately, my RFA was closed recently with a final tally of 75½/38/10. Though it didn't succeed, I wanted to thank you for your support and I hope I can count on it in the future. Even though it didn't pass, it had a nearly 2 to 1 ratio of support and I am quite encouraged by those results. I intend to review the support, oppose, and neutral !votes and see what I can do to address those concerns that were brought up and resubmit in a few months. If you would like to assist in my betterment and/or co-nominate me in the future, please let me know on my talk page. Special thanks go to Schmidt,, TomStar81, and henrik for their co-nominations and support. — BQZip01 —
RfA
That depends on whether you consider 65% to be a "vast majority". ;) But I'm happy to see that your RfA is going well so far. Everyking (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
May I also drop in to offer you my congratulations as well. I notice you got a wave of opposes at the end - good luck and prove that the closure was the right one! Camaron | Chris(talk)17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe a bit late, but sometimes pile-ons are good eh? ;). You certainly deserve this :). Don't let the mop get in the way of your great work - Kingpin (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Your RfA
Congratulations on passing your RfA. Should you need help, I'll try to help you in any way I can, as will any other administrator you decide to ask for assistance or advice. If you need information on the admin interface, Misplaced Pages:New admin school is the place to go. :) Best wishes. Acalamari16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
You may want to undelete it. We both made the same mistake: not checking the history properly. I quickly reverted my CSD-tag, but I guess our edits crossed. Yintaɳ 21:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. First, contratulations on passing your RfA.
I wanted to note that restoring only one revision of an article is likely to separate the article from its attribution history, which is not allowed under our licensing. GFDL requires that we give credit to content contributors. The only thing that User:Grutness (whose edit was the sole you had restored in this article) had contributed was a template: . I've restored the article's history so we comply with our licensing terms, which keeps us from infringing on the copyright of our own contributors. This is just a heads up for future. In this case, I've just reverted back to the pre-vandalism version. If you want to delete the advertisement altogether, the procedure is set out at Misplaced Pages:Selective deletion. I use this sometimes in obscuring particularly egregious copyright infringement, although under many circumstances reverting is sufficient.
Also, I have restored the talk page, since G8 no longer applies. This is a good idea not only in case there are conversations about the article that need to be retained but also to avoid wikiprojects having to duplicate project work, like rating articles. --Moonriddengirl12:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! Maybe now you lot can come back to the crown? I think pledging yourself to some tyrannical, unfair system is about equal to being +sysopped. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I see you're fixing the </ div> that was left off the table. It's also shifting all later conversations to the right (an example). There's a misplaced </ span>, but that doesn't seem to be causing it. Any ideas? Shubinator (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Still not exactly sure what's causing it, but putting a {{-}} at the end fixes it (unfortunately leaves a lot of white space too). I've fixed it at the example above, you can see if it works for you. Shubinator (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It's caused by the left-floating image which is position-relatived a bit towards the top. For some reason, browsers seem to reserve the space where the floating toaster would normally be. Tables FTW. :) Amalthea13:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Now that the two toaster images are deleted, the thankspam doesn't display properly. You might want to upload placeholder images to fix that. On a side note, you should register User:Flying Toaster and redirect here. –xeno15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Spacing outside the box doesn't concern me, but I got the message centered in the box by changing "top: -176px" to "top: -216px" (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've speedily deleted both images under F9 - Unambiguous copyright infringement. You may have done the work to piece them together, yes, but that does not grant you the right to release the images under a new license. I'm dismayed to see such blatant ignorance of our Fair Use policy to be displayed by a new administrator, honestly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it was pretty blatant. The only reason I didn't speedy is to give a chance to clean up. Please be more careful in future Flying Toaster, I realise that one was uploaded a while back but you really should have known better than uploading the second one today. I suggest you read up on copyright and non-free content policy. the wub"?!"15:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
From what I understand of the image description, she drew them both herself, but they are clear derivatives. Not sure if the "parody" argument holds up. I'm sure if she drew flying toasters which looked a lot more unlike the AfterDark ones, she would be ok? –xeno15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd be absolutely okay with it; they just looked exactly like the "modern" (almost a decade old now, heh) updates to the flying toasters module. (I'll try to find a better screenshot to compare against, though) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that there are clones of the Flying Toaster screensaver available as free downloads, and although they're copyrighted, they're not copyrighted by Berkeley Software and as far as I know Berkeley Software has no objection to their existence. (example) I am unfamiliar with the details of Wikimedia's copyright policy and therefore am not sure if this knowledge changes the situation in any way but I am offering it in the case that it might enable FT to bring back the banner or some variation of it that doesn't violate any copyrights. Soap /Contributions15:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a screenshot of the "modern" flying toasters module. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's a direct copy (specifically, compare File:Flyingtoaster star.gif to the large toaster in the bottom/middle of the image. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
From my knowledge of the screensaver and its history, I'd say if it's a copyvio of anything it's probably of the original screensaver from 1989, since I believe the "big" toaster in the modern image is just an exact copy of that original while the baby stuff is new. But I'm not disputing that the images were copypastes of a copyrighted screen saver, or arguing that the images shouldn't have been deleted; I'm just trying to search for a possible way forward that would lead to the re-creation of the images without violating any copyrights. Perhaps the best thing to would be to find out if there would be any possibility of deletion if she makes toaster images that don't much resemble the Berkeley originals. Soap /Contributions15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Soap, on the page you linked to it says "Currently download links are not enabled by request of Vivendi". Vivendi is the company that now owns Berkeley Systems. Also see the lawsuit mentioned in After Dark. But even if they weren't actively enforcing their copyrights, we still have no excuse to violate them. the wub"?!"15:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone. EVula is right about that screenshot. To be honest, I did a lot of animation awhile ago and have had this image in my graphic asset collection for years - I actually thought I'd made it or most of it, and honestly didn't think it was a screenshot from anything. Certainly my version of Flying Toasters from the 90's looked much different! But EVula's link makes it really clear, so I can only apologize and say I'll (maybe) make a new one that's a real departure from anything published later. FlyingToaster16:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If you can quickly whip up some (non copyvio) images and upload them to the exact same names as the old files, that'll be the fastest (and easiest) way to instantly restore the thankspam. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you think it's worth one more pass-through to remove all the links to File:Flyingtoaster star.gif, since it is entirely transparent, and its code is causing whitespace issues on some browsers? It would just take a few minutes with AWB. Also, do you think either of the files should be renamed? Soap /Contributions20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The absent-minded newbie
Well, I've been so self absorbed with my own problems, I didn't notice your entire adminship process until now! Conglagerations! (Intentional typo)
Hey FlyingToaster. Your /created list was brought to my attention and I was dismayed to see it contained non-notable BLPs. Three of them don't appear to be notable, thus have been nominated for deletion.
Also, Francis L. K. Hsu, was recently marked as a copyright violation. You didn't create the article and the plagiarism was there from the start, but it is your 7th-most-edited article. At least one other article you did create follows one of the sources "very closely". That's why I suggested getting feedback through DYK with a few articles. Gimmetrow16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
and I'm sure you know to simply fix them and learn from them. There is only one kind of mistake which is unfixable, which is one that chases away a new editor, because they usually can't even be reached to apologize--and i don't think you'll be making that one at least. DGG (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I went to look at User talk:Peter Damian just to see if there was any clarification as to which articles he might find concerning. Based on User:iridescent's comments there, I've blanked Glencree Centre for Peace and Reconciliation for the moment. I've compared and do see duplication, and I can't find any indication that they have licensing compatible to ours, though perhaps I've missed it. That's the only specific article listed there. Hopefully, he'll prove to be mistaken for the most and part and this will prove easy to resolve. --Moonriddengirl02:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I have given the full list on my talk page, and on WP:BN.
WP:BN
I have raised the issue at WP:BN. My concern is more about your claims of 156 articles you created, during an election where content creation was an issue. You did say that 'some of them' were DABs, but you did not mention that over 40 were mere copies from other internet sources, nor that many of them were DABs or stubs. Perhaps you could break down that figure of 156 into something that is more transparent? Peter Damian (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice, Peter. I provided a list of articles on my RfA so that they would be reviewed, and I mentioned highlights precisely because of the stubs and disambiguation. As I said in my RfA, "As I said in my introduction, rather than writing very long, epic GAs and FAs, I enjoy creating shorter requested articles which can be expanded in time by those passionate about the subject." Thanks, FlyingToaster06:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Well then please provide a breakdown into which were DAB pages, which were the Roumanian generals and other 'copied' articles, and which were actual articles written and sourced properly by yourself. That would be the honourable thing to do. In your RfA, you said only that 'some of them are stubs'. That in my view is grossly misleading, given that most of them were stubs. You do understand the difference between 'some' and 'most', do you? Peter Damian (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
More article problems, and the larger issue
I'm sorry to make the yellow bar light up again at the top of your talk page and hope I don't cause you any stress, but the more I look into your articles the more concerned I am. I say this as someone who, as far as I can recall, has never interacted with you in the past. You probably also saw my general concern posted here on ANI. Note that that I'm not interested in rehashing the particulars of the RfA (in which I did not participate) or talking about IRC and the like. My concern is with your article work and the degree to which this affects community confidence in you as an admin.
From this list I took a look at some of the "flux" articles which all appear in a row starting at 118 (please note that I know nothing of any of these topics). Momentum flux is a copyvio from here. Sure, you cited it, but you are still plagiarizing, as when you say "It can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stresses. For waves, momentum flux is related to mountain wave drag" and the source says "Momentum flux can be associated with either mean velocity components, internal gravity waves, or with turbulent velocity fluctuations. For turbulence, the momentum flux is also called the Reynolds stress. For waves, it is related to mountain wave drag." Radiative flux plagiarizes an article from the journal Applied Optics (actually it only plagiarizes from the abstract, which suggests you did not look at the actual article). There is also some copying at Chemical flux, and in addition over there you have cited answers.com as a source which is not something we really do here.
One of your sources for Volumetric flux seems to be a blog talking up a software program called "Unit Converter EX" which does various unit conversions. In the context of basically saying "check out this product," the blog mentions some units which relate to volumetric flux, apparently, and then you mentioned those units in our article. Citing that source seems to me largely along the lines of citing an advertisement, and obviously we don't do that either. Please note that these are just the first few articles I happened to look at on your list since they all seemed related.
I have not done anything with these articles because quite simply I don't know how to fix them short of blanking them (I already basically blanked Homeokinetics) but obviously they need to be fixed and soon.
As I said on ANI I consider this a major issue (i.e. articles based on copyvios/plagiarism) which relates directly to your fitness for adminship, a status which you have obviously recently achieved. I would ask you to consider the fact that, had the points I've raised here and on ANI been raised in your RFA, the odds are extremely good that you would not have passed. The fact that they have only come to light now is, in a sense, merely coincidental, and whatever happens now I hope you take the views of the community to heart even though the RfA concluded successfully (maybe I'll be the only one who sees a big problem here, who knows). Responding to me here on your talk page is obviously completely optional for you, but I would like to hear your rationale as to why someone who seems to have committed obvious plagiarism (I'm sure quite unintentionally) is a good representative, in this case an administrator, on a project that is writing an encyclopedia. I seriously hope that this does not come across as too harsh because I know you are very much a good faith and constructive contributor here, but I did feel it necessary to put these points to you directly. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs07:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Congrats — looking forward to the thankspam — Athaenara ✉ 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
