| Revision as of 02:26, 18 November 2014 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,661 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:Pigsonthewing/Archive 55) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:33, 18 November 2014 edit undoDePiep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 edits →Edit warring: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 296: | Line 296: | ||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to ''you'' in particular.<p>The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when ] in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.<p>If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied ''from the draft'', rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the is very useful for sussing that out.)<p>If you do find a copyright violation, please ''do not'' decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Misplaced Pages to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using <nowiki>{{db-g12|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with <nowiki>{{subst:copyvio|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}}.<p>Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with ]; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.<p> I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--] (]) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).<p> Sent via--] (]) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to ''you'' in particular.<p>The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when ] in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.<p>If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied ''from the draft'', rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the is very useful for sussing that out.)<p>If you do find a copyright violation, please ''do not'' decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Misplaced Pages to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using <nowiki>{{db-g12|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with <nowiki>{{subst:copyvio|url=</nowiki><tt>URL of source</tt>}}.<p>Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with ]; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.<p> I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--] (]) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).<p> Sent via--] (]) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Fuhghettaboutit@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit/AfC_SpamList&oldid=634304948 --> | <!-- Message sent by User:Fuhghettaboutit@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Fuhghettaboutit/AfC_SpamList&oldid=634304948 --> | ||
| == Edit warring == | |||
| re {{tl|infobox book}}. You're supposed to enter the talkpage, link provided. You are edit warring. I note this also requires (ab)use of your TE status. -] (]) 11:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:33, 18 November 2014
| This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pigsonthewing. |
|
Talk to me, Andy Mabbett
- If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page to avoid fragmenting the discussion.
- If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will be watching it, so please reply there rather than here (but do feel free to drop a copy of {{Talkback}} here).
- If appropriate, I will move discussion from here to the relevant article's talk page, so that anyone interested can join in.
- If you want to start a new discussion thread, please start it at the bottom of the page. Better still, use the "+" tab next to the "edit this page" tab, or the link at the foot of this section, either of which will do that automatically.
- Please do not make links from within section headings.
- Inaccessible HTML (coloured text, "small" tags", etc.) will be removed from this page on sight.
- Please sign and date your entries by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
- Start a new discussion.
TB
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
November 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to King Edward VII Memorial may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- DEFAULTSORT:Edward Vii, Statue}}
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
BBC composer pages
Excellent additions. Some top notch stuff in them, which I'm still getting familiar with. Thank you for incorporating links to them. Tim riley talk 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. (Talk page stalkers: see Template talk:BBC composer page). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nonsensical fragment
Andy, I agree that a reference to the Idle Women wasn't sensible in the lead of the Sonia Rolt article, but far from nonsensical. Have a look at this Independent article or this book. Haven't got round to a wiki article, but it's a good piece of feminist propaganda. Chris55 (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- The fragment was the emboldened part of the sentence "At the beginning of World War II she volunteered to work on the canals and because they had a badge for the Inland Waterways (IW) were named the Idle Women". That's - quite clearly - nonsensical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not nonsensical it just leaves out the rather obvious fact that she wasn't the only woman who volunteered. Had you been a little more helpful and less in put-down mode I might have got it first time round. Chris55 (talk)
- It is not written in coherent English. It is nonsensical. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not nonsensical it just leaves out the rather obvious fact that she wasn't the only woman who volunteered. Had you been a little more helpful and less in put-down mode I might have got it first time round. Chris55 (talk)
New Misplaced Pages Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)
Hello Wikimedians!
The Misplaced Pages Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:
- DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
- Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
- Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
- British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
- Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
- Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
- JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Misplaced Pages projects: sign up today!
--The Misplaced Pages Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You can host and coordinate signups for a Misplaced Pages Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
- This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.
Periglacial => Periglaciation_Periglaciation-2014-11-06T03:21:00.000Z">
Hi Andy, I noticed that you unmerged these two articles and then proposed merging them. Since you appear to be an experienced Wikipedian, I infer that your actions and suggestion are ones of process, not agreement or disagreement with such a merger. (I note "bad merge" in one of your comments.) Since there was no page, Periglaciation, before I migrated the contents of Periglacial there, it wasn't really a merge, but a name change. This because the article title, Periglacial, violated WP:NOUN, I moved it to one of the same scope, except with a noun for the title. My move occurred after a period from March to May to allow for other users to comment. None did. Your thoughts? (I'll monitor this page for your reply.) Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)_Periglaciation"> _Periglaciation">
- You apparently performed what is known as a "cut and paste move". This deprecated process neglects to carry the editing history (and this attributions) to the new article. The correct process would have been to use the "move" function, but since the newer article has been subsequently edited, that action is no longer available to us, and a "history merge" should be performed by an administrator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that insight, Andy. Knowledge of the proper function was above my pay grade, but now I'll know to be more careful. Since the move appears to be an issue of mechanics, not of consensus, how do I apply for an administrator to do the history merge? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- You could ask on WP:AN. Be sure to mention "history merge". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that insight, Andy. Knowledge of the proper function was above my pay grade, but now I'll know to be more careful. Since the move appears to be an issue of mechanics, not of consensus, how do I apply for an administrator to do the history merge? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 12:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2014
- In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories
- Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Clophill
I gotta say I'm confused as all get-out by, what seems to be, unreasonable tags as a reaction to this simple factual claim, that "The incident was covered in some detail in the 2013 film The Paranormal Diaries: Clophill." Keep in mind that the only claim being made by this statement is that the movie addresses the incident. Due to the fact that this claim is so extremely easily verifiable, with no room for interpretation, it really is a case where a primary source is acceptable. How could a mainstream motion picture be considered a "fringe" source? The fact that the incident was covered in some detail in the film -- which is all the statement is claiming -- is really indisputable. It's a real stretch of the imagination and of definition to define the source as "unreliable" -- unless I'm somehow missing something? I also don't understand the "not in citation given" tag, as clicking on the tag for clarification leads you to the Misplaced Pages policy article on verifiability, leading me to again point out how extremely verifiable this is. Look, I know that some Misplaced Pages editors like to be on the lookout for the use of primary sources. But read the WP policy, and you'll see that they're not forbidden outright, nor is the use of them automatically "original research." To quote the policy, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
There is no analysis or synthesis of published material going on here. This is a case where the fact is so simple and verifiable that the claim is comparable to stating in the introduction to the article on Moby Dick that there is a whale in the novel.
Furthermore, it seems destructive to simply re-add the tags without bothering to respond to the dialogue opened on the talk page.
Incidentally, this is not a matter of somebody taking "ownership" of an edit, since I'm not the person who originally included this factoid in the article. But I do think that the tags are being really absurdly applied here, and it's the absurdity I object to. If I'm wrong due to my own misunderstanding of either policy or the meaning to the tags that were applied, please enlighten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.102.146 (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's unlikely that the claim "some detail" was in the programme; if it was, it's an unreliable source. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obstinate, or just misunderstanding something extremely simple. The statement under question is "The incident was covered in some detail" in the film. I admit that the film itself didn't use the actual phrase "some detail." That's got nothing to do with the fact that the movie itself covers the incident in detail. Get it? The film is not an unreliable source by any stretch of the imagination. You watch the movie, and you see that the movie covers the incident in some detail -- or, if you don't like that particular phrasing for some reason, the movie covers the incident. With details.
Wikidata weekly summary #132
- Discussions
- Zero error rate - help improve the quality of Wikidata's data
- Events/Blogs/Press
- Wikidata won the Open Data Award by the Open Data Institute in the category Publisher \o/ (blog post by ODI, blog post by WMDE)
- Tutorial: Create instant location based timelines using Wikidata queries
- Did you know?
- Less than 23% of Wikidata items have no statement. Down from ~53% a year ago.
- Newest properties: consecrator, Slovene Cultural Heritage designation, penalty, charge, judge, defender, prosecutor, defendant, number of casualties, deepest point, Desa code of Indonesia, Slovene Cultural Heritage Register ID, Catalan object of cultural interest ID
- Development
- Continued work on LabelLookup and related code to further improve performance
- Made it possible to show references in statements on property pages. (Remaining bugs before roll-out are issues with adding/editing/removing statements on property pages.)
- Further improvements to sitelink editing (The edit toolbar now floats so it doesn't scroll out of the page on a long list of sitelinks. An empty row for adding a new sitelink is shown by default when editing to make this faster and take less scrolling.)
- Further adapting of simple query code so we can get it to review at the Foundation again.
- Lots of bug fixes all over the place
- Monthly Tasks
- Hack on one of these.
- Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
- Help develop the next summary here!
- Contribute to a Showcase item
Tech News: 2014-46
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
- You may see a new tool on the mobile site of the English Misplaced Pages. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata.
- The MediaWiki API now shows information in a nice format. You can translate it in translatewiki.net.
- Reminder: You can help fix file information on your wiki. It will help robots understand the information. After that, it will be easier for you to search files and re-use them.
- You can join two IRC chats this week to learn more about the file cleanup project. One will be on Wednesday at 18:00 (UTC) and the other on Thursday at 04:00 (UTC). You can ask questions during the chat if you need help to fix files on your wiki.
- You can see a list of files to fix on the Labs tool. You can report bugs and ask questions on the talk page.
Problems
Software changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf7) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 5. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis from November 11, and on all Wikipedias from November 12 (calendar).
- You can now use more editing tools for tables in VisualEditor. You can add rows and columns, merge cells, and edit table captions.
- The style and insert menus in the toolbar of VisualEditor now show fewer tools. This helps you see the most common tasks. You can see all items by clicking "More".
- The way windows inside VisualEditor work has changed. VisualEditor should be faster and have fewer bugs.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
15:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: October 2014
| ||||||
Wikidata weekly summary #133
- Events/Blogs/Press
- Upcoming office hours for Commons (Nov 20th) and Wikidata (Dec 3rd). More details on the office hour page.
- GLAM/Wikidata hackathon in Amsterdam
- Other Noteworthy Stuff
- Help make sure these items have labels in your language
- Did you know?
- Newest properties: NATO code for grade
- Development
- Work on reviving the tree of life built from Wikidata data
- Added a "featured portal" badge (Q17580674)
- Improved the performance of getting labels and sitelinks in Lua (and decreased the memory usage)
- Did groundwork on applying page deletions to the repo
- Refactor initialization of EntityView so that we can use batched label lookup for improved performance.
- Added IRC to available protocolls for the URL datatype
- Improved calendar model display
- Monthly Tasks
- Hack on one of these.
- Help fix these items which have been flagged using Wikidata - The Game.
- Help develop the next summary here!
- Contribute to a Showcase item
Bold text...
... in this specific setting, where a "virtual" dialogue between participants of a long-established online community is taking place in the open - for any and all to witness, be that intentional or by happenstance - is considered bad etiquette. The IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) was one, if not the first, to outline the basics of 'good netiquette' back in the 1990s (see RFC-1855). Since then, the online world has changed dramatically, but the underlying rationale behind each point has remained sound in spite of those changes.
In a nutshell, the usage of "all-caps" as outlined back in the days of Dos 6 & Windows 11 has morphed to incorporate more of the commonly available "buttons" the various interface advancements since then has provide us with today - nevertheless, the intention or motivation behind whatever that 'new way to...' comes off much the same in today's terms regardless.
Its my belief that you did not merely want to emphasize a nuance in your rebuttal for my (or any other reader's) benefit or ease of comprehension but to dismiss-by-minimizing the stated opposing concerns in a dominant voice (e.g. shouted down) at the same time ("I note..."). What should I have done next? Replied to you the same way in hopes to regain equal footing? Devolve further into a contest of wills where I note that you note that I noted what you noted part of which I noted that wasn't noted by you in the note where... an so on? More likely than not, any legitimate concerns already voiced or still to come would then be overshadowed by the apparent instability of the resulting online wing-nut parade taking place. _Mission accomplished_
Plus what is the point of reserving bold-text primarily for bulleted items, form labels, section headings, title boxes & similar when one can pollute relevant content or straight talk the same way? Hypothetically, you wouldn't try to emphasize one of your contributions to a typical Misplaced Pages article mid-paragraph by bolding that text would you?—I'd think not (for, I hope, obvious reasons), so why would you do it in just as a formal setting as the main namespace hosts (it felt like something marginally acceptable for the User: space at best; not the Project space).
If that summation still doesn't help to convince you of the offense taken, then there is little else I can say or do to help connect the dots for you in moving forward. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Your beliefs are false. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 November 2014
- In the media: Amazon Echo; EU freedom of panorama; Bluebeard's Castle
- Traffic report: Holidays, anyone?
- Featured content: Misplaced Pages goes to church in Lithuania
- WikiProject report: Talking hospitals
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Tech News: 2014-47
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Software changes this week
- The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf8) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since November 12. It will be on non-Misplaced Pages wikis from November 18, and on all Wikipedias from November 19 (calendar).
- The new search tool ("CirrusSearch") will be on the English Misplaced Pages from November 19.
Move from Bugzilla to Phabricator
- The tool to track bugs will change on November 21.
- You won't be able to add or edit bugs between November 21 and November 24.
- You can make the change easier for you by creating your account.
- Bugzilla will be frozen after the change. You will see, edit and report bugs in Phabricator.
- You can join two IRC chats to learn more about the change. The chats will be on Tuesday, November 18 at 16:00 (UTC) and 23:00 UTC.
Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
18:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews
Hello Pigsonthewing. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Misplaced Pages to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
re {{infobox book}}. You're supposed to enter the talkpage, link provided. You are edit warring. I note this also requires (ab)use of your TE status. -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)