Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:35, 23 January 2015

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Personal reference

Welcome!

Hello, Coffeepusher, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello Coffeepusher. 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)

You should read this helpful list

See Timbo's Rule 14 User:Carrite#Timbo's_Rules Atsme☯ 02:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And this one is for you Coffeepusher (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Friendly warning about DS at Emerson

Before you go reverting BLP violations - you need to recheck those sources. I will file an AE - not what you want. This unsourced/poorly sourced attack on Emerson has to stop. Atsme☯ 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, I have read the source about Islamophobia closer than you have. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The source that was cited said nothing about Islamophobia - it wasn't even a term back then. Read it again. Atsme☯ 01:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I did, 4th paragraph, 25th word. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

are you filing that AE? Just curious, because I actually do want you to. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You need more than one 1999 obscure bi-weekly report from Egypt to make such a contentious statement about Emerson in the lead. The other sources cited include a letter BY Emerson to the Times. The rest are questionable reports by partisan sources such as CAP. I'm calling you on a BLP violation. You can revert to what I had written, or I'm taking this to 3RR - your choice. Atsme☯ 02:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

so what is it? do you need only one source per statement otherwise it is synth? or do you need more than one source per statement otherwise it is a BLP violation? You have made both claims on my talk page alone, so which is it? Coffeepusher (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it to you this way - a BLP-N resulted in the removal of the Islamophobia template from Emerson's IPT organization because it was determined to be a BLP violation. For you to attempt to relive that disaster by citing a 15 yr. old obscure bi-weekly report in Egypt is complete madness. You will lose that fight. I don't want to get into a war with you. I am fine with the criticism, but it has to be worded and cited properly. I consult you to not attempt to use the Islamophobia label. It will not go well for you. Atsme☯ 02:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

are you filling out the AE as you promised, or was that simply an idle threat to chill the discussion? If you do not intend to file, are you going to strike the comment? Just curious. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Promise not to beat me with it?

.

Cheers mate! Coffeepusher (talk) 07:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Abuse of warning template

I was not edit warring. I was following BLP policy, and changed the text to correct those violations. SEE WP:BLP Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.Be advised that the abuse of warning templates is frowned upon. It is also a courtesy to not template the regulars. Also, do not mistake my kindness for weakness. I offered the olive branch because I simply didn't see the Islamophobia reference in that 1999 obscure bi-weekly report from Egypt. It was not an admission that the BLP violations did not exist. You might want to read the policies it violated, including NPOV, V, and BLP. Atsme☯ 15:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

please read the template, if you revert three times in a twenty four hour period you are close to violating 3RR. You in fact have now reverted four times, I placed the template the third time you reverted, which means you were warned and ignored that warning. You have your interpretation of BLP, but from my count you are now reverting against three editors, not just me. You like quoting polices at people, but when other people tell you that your interpretation is wrong you are working against consensus. good luck on your vendetta. Cheers Mate Coffeepusher (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Again - BLP violations are not counted as reverts. Furthermore, I changed the paragraph and included proper citations to make it policy compliant. Not the same thing. Thx. Atsme☯ 18:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, since you reverted me: 19:37, January 21, 2015‎ Coffeepusher (talk | contribs)‎ . . (55,565 bytes) (-522)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 643587401 by Cwobeel: Now that IS WP:SYNTH. trying to discredit the Center for American Progress by adding a source which doesn't mention Emerson at all. (TW)), you might want to do something about the sources now cited in the lead. You might also look at the revert of the template I added for needed citation regarding the contentious statement about criticisms - BLP clearly states: Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Atsme☯ 18:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

good luck with your vendetta, I'm interested in how this turns out for you. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous

Read a policy before you cite it, please. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I did. Position of a statement within the article must reflect WP:WEIGHT. Completely invalidating Alcoholics Anonymous with a generalized "there has never" statement right before talking about it's effects is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP alert

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33