User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Archive 18

TLanders09

I was still working on my article and was looking for feedback. Can you please undelete it so I can edit the cites? Tlanders09 (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Alan Kurdi

Would you mind looking at the AfD for the above article and seeing if it warrants an early close under WP:SNOW ? There is also an AfD at Photographs of Alan Kurdi that I feel could be closed. In addition to the 2 AfDs there 3 separate merge discussions and a request for renaming all going on at once and I am concerned it is descending into a mess. Best Flat Out (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Flat Out: Okay, I've looked at both discussions. I know exactly what the result would be if I were to close them today. However, a typical condition precedent for a snow close is near overwhelming consensus – such that there isn't "a snowball's chance in hell" that a different result will obtain from continued discussion. I would deem the AfD as to Photographs of Alan Kurdi to meet that standard — for a merge into Alan Kurdi (whatever that is to become). However, the same cannot be said of the other AfD. I am not saying that the state of the discussion at the Alan Kurdi AfD right now, were it at seven days, could not be closed in a specific direction (keep and move to Death of... as the title and topical scope definer). I am rather saying that it isn't so one-sided that a snow close would be at all safe from challenge – and why would I want to invite that? This is especially true where a procedural issue with a close (here, "only" two day's of discussion) would give strong ammunition to anyone who objected. My experience is that a challenge becomes more and more likely, the more a topic is controversial and has strong emotions attached; this is exactly that. In short, it fails both parts of the "snowball test". And even though the photographs article does meet the test now in my estimation, I think both discussions should be closed together. So I'm not going to close either now. But I'm on alert if they're still open on the 13th.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

Please get another admin to place an interaction ban between myself and User:Anniepoo. Also, please remember I am trying to help here rather than publicly criticising tiny things I did wrong, as you did at ANI. I already told her I was taking it to ANI at my user talk page, I explained my revert on her user talk the first time and I did not want to continue communicating with this editor for obvious reasons. Rubbish computer 23:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound snappy and I think you're a great admin. Rubbish computer 23:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey RC. I appreciate that. I stand by my edits here but I'm sorry you feel I publicly and unfairly criticized you. As to informing the user, I looked at your edits to her talk page and did not see you had informed her of the specific discussion. I do see you informed her of taking her "to ANI", in a response at your talk page, which is not very specific, and sorry, not trying to rub salt into the wound, but you should know the requirement, just for future reference: It states at the top of ANI that "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." Anyway, I am incapable of issuing an interaction ban as they cannot be imposed by "individual editors, including administrators". Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban. If she interacts with you again in an unbecoming manner, I suggest you then ask the community to issue an iban. But I also suggest doing your best not to interact with her! I of course looked just now before posting this to make sure she has not interacted with you in the interim.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I definitely won't interact with her. It's policy to leave the ANI notice and I should have done that, but didn't because I panicked. Leaving the notice would have helped, I guess, so fair enough. I thought maybe there should be an iban in response to that communication between us in the first place, but to be honest I know nothing about this. Thanks anyway. Rubbish computer 00:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

MESQUITE AND SLOW GRILLED

--Cityside (let's talk! - contribs) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

You gotta be kidding' me!!! Thanks for all your great help on the petunia article... it would have taken me another two days!!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

A pleasure to help out with an article starting out like that!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Restoring musical.ly page

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I wanted to create a page for the app muscial.ly, and I saw that the page for the app was deleted this past July for lack of significance. Since that time, the popularity and significance of the application has been mentioned in a number of news articles published by credible sources such as the Miami Herald , The Guardian , and Billboard . Specifically mentioned in these articles is that the app has become a platform for up and coming musicians to promote their songs to the app’s large user base, as well as being one of the faster growing and more popular free apps out there.

Given this press coverage, as well as the app’s successful performance on both the Apple App Store as well as the Google Play store, I was hoping you could help me out in restoring the page. If there is something else I need to demonstrate the apps significance, let me know and I'd be more than happy to oblige. Thanks for your time and I hope to hear back from you soon!

Workingasianguy (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Hi Workingasianguy. The version I deleted was very promotional. All other versions were just one sentence sub-stubs, with no markup and no sourcing. In short, to re-create what was there in any of its various versions should take you all of two minutes—and what you should be creating would properly look much different than what was there before anyway. The page is not protected from creation, so if you were to recreate this, it can just be done anew. However, I suggest you do not try to create anything.

Forgive me if this is inaccurate but I believe it very likely you are connected with this product—which is your motivation for wanting to create an article on it. It's possible it's otherwise, but it's usually the case when someone seeks to create an article on something commercial, new, very specific and seemingly non-notable (in the special sense Wikipedia uses that word). Where this applies, the person has a conflict of interest, is usually incapable of writing in a manner suitable for Wikipedia, has all the wrong motivations, and is manifestly here for promotional purposes. Also note the mandatory disclosure requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use for anyone who is receiving compensation for their edits, broadly construed, to disclose their employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page with the template {{Paid}}.

Anyway, the sources you've raised here are worth very little. The first and third are mere passing mentions – not detailed write-ups that demonstrate notability and on which an article with verifiable content could be based. The second is the only one that's useful at all, and it's just a small blurb. I don't think any article can be sustained, and it would be a disservice to you to not tell you so, so you don't waste your own valuable time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit!

Thank you for your copyedit of forensic anthropology! I appreciate the help. For the "today" issue regarding Todd's skeleton collection, I was trying to get across that his collection is still studied by anthropologists as a way of learning the potential differences between individuals. Also, the measurements and general formulas he created are still in use (if not updated for the modern age). So even, today, his contributions continue to make an impact in the field. As for the other comment, the source made it seem like an exact number. He collected 3,300 skulls, etc., before his death in 1938. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Stabila711: Anytime. Please feel free to remove any commented out notes. I only meant them for you as the person actively shepherding it, and once read, they've served their purpose. As always when I do so, I am only hoping they will inform and help. The issue of using language that will date can be hard to deal with. Well, it's sometimes easy – when you can just say "as of 2015" instead – but that sometimes doesn't fit. It didn't seem to here, which is why I switched it to "in the modern era" though I don't really like that either. The problem with "today" is that it's true only from the perspective of ... well ... today. The problem is that it may very well not be true in ten years when that word is still in an article. I had only just begun the copyedit and will be going back to take a look at the balance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Simon Dinnerstein Article

Thank you for your response in regards to the images. I apologize for posting this request in the wrong section. I did not realize that a discussion of this article had closed. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and unfortunately, I do not understand all the protocol regarding administration, where to post requests, who to get in touch with, etc. I am not even sure that I am writing this request in the right place. If there is an administrator I should contact directly, please let me know the name and how I can reach him or her. Jupiter3000 (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jupiter3000. The administrator who closed the discussion was Peripitus whose name I also linked in my message to you at the requests for undeletions post. Not only can you contact him or her by clicking that link and leaving a post on the talk page, just as you did here for me, but they have been pinged by my linking of their username both here and there (just as you will get a ping in this response, because I linked your name at the beginning of this post). However, I'm not sure what further there is to do here. I agree with the people in the discussion and the close of that discussion. As I stated more fully at the undeletion page, there is no way we could host all these images here and include them in the article without violating copyright. Fair use cannot sustain this. It does not appear to be a close call at all. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Thanks for your kind help. I've learned much from you in these two days. All the best to you also!Jupiter3000 (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome Jupiter. Believe me I understand the hurdle copyright presents in frustrating an article from having the content it might in a perfect world.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It certainly was a beautiful page when the images were up. But I understand so much more now about fair use. And now I know how to communicate on Wikipedia with other users. So the experience has, in it's own way, been a positive one.Jupiter3000 (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for completing edits to Brown Brothers Harriman Wikipedia page

Fuhghettaboutit, many thanks for your recent edits to the Brown Brothers Harriman Wikipedia page. It is extremely helpful to set the record straight regarding who has (and has not) worked for the firm. Thank you also for your guidance regarding the need for more secondary sources supporting the information regarding the service of various BBHers during World War II. Working with Wikipedia is very new for me, so I will work to ensure more secondary information is used when suggesting new information for a page. Nicholas C Schmid 17:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Research4Insight

@Research4Insight: Anytime Nicholas. As you can see there's a tension here, a sort of delicate balancing act between getting it right, making sure content to be added is verifiable in reliable published sources (or removed because it is not), mining the reservoir of people who actually know a subject intimately so they can immediately recognize wrong content, but who also may have a conflict of interest in editing directly, and so on. Fortunately you did exactly what was needed. Please feel free to drop a note here directly to alert me to any more suggestions on the talk page. However, the page may not have a lot of watchers so if you do make more suggestions there, you can attempt to draw a person to it by posting the template {{Request edit}} (just copy that and place it right above any post on the talk page seeking a response). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Very helpful guidance - much appreciated!! Nicholas C Schmid 13:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Research4Insight

Pelva Naik

Hello. On May 10, 2015, you deleted the page on Pelva Naik. She has performed at some rather well known venues for Indian classical music, such as the Darbar Festival in London earlier this month. The festival brochure <ref>http://darbar.org/uploads/pdf_file/Darbar-Festival-2015-Broucher.pdf</ref> gives information about her performance on page 14. I don't know anything about her except that I came across a video of her on YouTube and was impressed enough to want to learn more. I was surprised to discover that her Wikipedia page was deleted. She is certainly accomplished enough to warrant one, and if she has performed at Darbar, she's well known enough too. Please undelete the page.

Psurajit (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Psurajit. You misunderstand. The speedy deletion of the page here was in no wise an assessment of whether an appropriate article could be created, or whether the topic warrants an eventual article, but only that what was posted was not appropriate. This will not be undeleted because it was not the content of a proper article. In particular it failed to indicate the topic had any significance in the manner it was written, and much more importantly, was an illegal copyright violation. Again, that does not mean a proper article on her cannot be created, but this wasn't it. That potential proper article, if it's possible, would not infringe on copyright, would naturally state significance, and would demonstrate notability and verifiability by citing to reliable sources that are secondary in nature and entirely unconnected to her and be written in a neutral manner and contain no original research.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ranviir The Marshal

Hi, Thankyou for your help. But i dont understand how it is a 'copyright infringement'. What do you suggest i do?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankita Petiwale (talk • contribs)

Copy no one else's writing. Write in your own words only.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou! Will Do!Anki 13:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Cant find 'New Section' tab

Thankyou Fuhghettaboutit for your help. But I cant find the 'New Section' Tab in the bar above. The 'edit' tab simply allows you to add more text to the already existing section in the article. However I want to create a new section within the article not just add more text. How do I do that? Please help. Anki 13:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankita Petiwale (talk • contribs)

@Ankita Petiwale: Click edit at the top of the page. New sections are just headings, which are created by enclosing some text in sentence case in (typically) doubled equal signs. Lower level headings are created by additonal equal signs. So, for example, if I wanted to make a new section header below, I would type

== Name of section (note how only the first word is capitalized ==

If, say, I wanted to create a section with lower level subsections, I might do something like this:

== Name of overarching section ==

=== Subsection name ===

I think you would get a lot of benefit by taking a tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. See also the cheatsheet. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Figured it out yesterday but thanks anyway. Will go through the tutorial. Still dont know why the tab is hidden though.Anki 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

A Gentle Reminder

Just wanted to let you know that I added "-helped" to the end of Template:Admin help for you here. Please ping me if you need to reach me. --JustBerry (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I realize that the discussion may be on-going. --JustBerry (talk) 02:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

photos of Scottsdale Museum of the West

I responded in media commons but am not sure if I followed correct protocol. To reiterate: the sculpture outside the museum is an example of public art. Public art is treated as nature: open/free to the public to enjoy, take photos of, sometimes even climb upon. There is no copyright violation in shooting public art. In fact, public art often becomes a major tourist attraction. The museum allowed photography indoors with no flash so I assumed I could post my photo of the buffalo head. I am persuaded that this photo infringes on copyright so do not request its return to the page.PamMcP (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pam. I've responded to you at the deletion discussion. In short, that is not at all correct, unfortunately.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Look over my new article?

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I'm seeking you out because you have been so helpful to me in the past. Check over my latest article User:Eagledj/Kye Fleming, if you will. In my research, I found a book reference that clearly stated my (female) subject and this book author (also female and openly gay) were "in love" and went on to tell about it freely. I put this in my article and clearly attributed it. I read the Wiki guidelines on defamation, etc. and got cold feet, even though I feel I am on solid ground. Anyway, I removed the reference. Please look at the revision history to see the 2 versions. Look in the 4th section entitled "Branching Out" (second sentence) and reference #11. Your thoughts? I am ready to move the article to draft status, depending on your answer. Eagledj (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj. I'm a bit torn on this. I'll get to that. Let me first just clear up some citation issues.

Mainly, after you name a citation on its first use, say <ref name=cmhof>{{cite web|last1=McCall|first1=... etc. etc. etc.}}</ref>, the next time you want to use it it's just <ref name=cmhof /> – just that – Not "<ref name=cmhof>{{cite web}}</ref>".

If that cite has a date associated with it, it's |date=, not |archivedate=. The archivedate parameter is for websites that have actually been archived – where you're referencing the date that the URL of an archived copy of a web page was created, such as at the Internet Archive.

Paper citations, such as a books, don't take |accessdate=

Back to the issue. Ian is very famous and I do think it's a notable detail, from a public, published work. If we found this same thing about her relationship at a time with a famous male artist, we would not hesitate. But I think we both recognize that even though society has become much more open about these matters, many, many people are stigmatized by gay relationships and are closeted because of it. You would not be "outing" in any true sense, because it's already "out" by that published book by a famous person. So it can't be a deep dark secret. But it may very well be something most people don't know and that she'd very much rather not be made much better known. A Wikipedia article has much greater power to publicize it. It's the go-to place to look up anyone. It would publicize that detail many times more effectively by being in an article here, directly about her, than it does as a mention in the far interior of someone else's book. If we knew she was openly gay, then we would not be having this conversation. So, even though I agree that you would be on solid ground in including it, since we don't know, it's best to keep it out. We should bend over backwards when its comes to living persons, where we perceive even a potential for harm. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

RE Arlene Francis

Thanks. Quis separabit? 23:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In case you are online

Recently, I was preparing to re-write some sections of WP:Copyvio and WP:CWW concerning emphasis being placed on copying outside of Wikipedia on the one hand, and on the other hand copying within Wikipedia which never mentions G12 violation. My examination of the various Noticeboards was that many editors and administrators were using the term "copyvio" interchangably to apply to both. I read the following text in WP:Copyvio: Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. This seems to suggest that there is an exclusion for re-using old Wikipedia material in new Wikipedia articles from the use of the "copyright" phrase as it is largely applied at Wikipedia. My question is, is "copyvio" being used as a term-of-art at Wikipiedia to describe the re-use or forking of old Wikipedia articles into new Wikipedia articles, or is this a misapplication of the legal code understanding of the phrase which recurs in the day-to-day usage of the term among many Wikipedia editors and administrators? (I am asking this about the Wikipedia side of things and not the legal code side of this question.) It seems that since G12 is currently not discussed on WP:CWW, then it should be edited and added into the discussion on the page about WP:CWW for completeness. Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The text to which you refer, User:MusicAngels, is describing instances of what we call a "{{backwardscopy}}" - when content that already exists in Article A is mirrored on Website B, leading for Article A to be marked as copy of Website B. This comes up routinely at WP:CP. This is not an exclusion for using content from one Wikipedia article in another, which is a copyvio (a violation of copyright policy), but one that can be repaired through the process described at WP:CWW. Cases of copying within Wikipedia will generally not meet WP:CSD#G12 because the resultant articles are not generally going to be "unsalvageably corrupt" and the license is inherently compatible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl; The question above comes with some history from a very generous offer made by User:Fuhghettaboutit to me which I hope he recalls, for him to answer the question below. MusicAngels (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey MusicAngels. I agree with what Moonriddengirl has said (thank you!), which I actually addressed in the deletion discussion to an extent. (Moon: see here for context.) In short, it is not a term of art, not a special Wikipedia use of the phrase, but such copying from article to article without attribution really is a "copyright violation" and is "copyright infringement" of other's work. And comparing this to backwards copyvios is pure apples and oranges. That is simply a recognition that what was thought to be a copyright violation of an outside source, was not, because it was them copying us.

Anyway, G12 is usually inapplicable; rarely applied to copying within Wikipedia, because the attribution can be fixed on site, and it's also usually not all that difficult. I'm stressing "usually/rare[ly]" for a reason. What I think is partly motivating you is that you actually had content deleted under CSD G12 when it was "just" a copying-within-Wikipedia issue. But it was not the usual situation. The problem there was that the copying was from many different articles, and it was intertwined over numerous edits, such that fixing it in the normal manner presented a serious hurdle.

Why is that important? Because we don't generally contour our guidelines and policies to address the rare or one-off situation – and I'm telling you that in my experience, this comes up very rarely indeed. So, maybe there's a place in policy or guideline to mention this. Something like "While copying within Wikipedia without proper attribution is a copyright violation, it can usually be fixed easily, so CSD G12 is generally considered inapplicable. Rare cases may arise where the edits are so intertwined that attribution is too difficult and deletion as a copyright violation is warranted", but maybe it's just too rare a situation to take up guideline/policy real estate. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit; Your answer above is really a comprehensive answer. User:DGG also had the thought that those three articles may have been deleted because they were merely "C"-class articles; and even though they were designated as "High Importance" by WikiProjects Poetry, it is a truism at Wikipedia that peer review articles get more attention and more respect than "C"-class articles. My question is really very simple. After your very gracious offer at Drv, and before the Drv was suddenly closed, I actually did compile the full list of edits which you asked for and which were used to construct the articles. I was about to type them all in, when the Drv discussion was unexpectedly and suddenly closed. My concern for WP:CWW is that I did fully identify the material used by linking in the Lead section which is the actual minimum requirement on the current version of WP:CWW for valid forking of Wikipedia material; the other notifications and dummy edits indicated on WP:CWW are presented as optional and "nice to have". Anyway, the fork in the road now is; Option A -- alter/revise the current WP:CWW wording to indicate what the real minimum requirements for CWW are in order to avoid G12 violations, and do it concisely in so many words, or, Option B -- @Moonriddengirl: suggestion is actually very strong commenting that since the license is inherently compatible for all three articles, and since I have already compiled the complete CWW lists which you had originally requested, is it worth getting all three (3) High Importance articles back into Wikipedia all at once. @Fuhghettaboutit, if this was only one article then I see your point about it just being so much water under the bridge. However, since I already have compiled the complete CWW lists for all three High Importance articles, then is it worth it to get all three High Importance articles back at once since the license is inherently compatible? MusicAngels (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Responding only to your comment about doing the minimal, MusicAngels, I need to note that a link from within the article is not sufficient under WP:CWW. I can link to apple here, but it would not tell people if I have copied content from that article; the page's history function is used for this. This is why WP:CWW requires that a note be made in edit summary. It's the only way to get attribution into the history. There have been cases where I have deleted content from articles that has been copied from other Wikipedia pages - especially where it is not possible to provide attribution for everything. If the terms of the license aren't met, it's a violation of copyright policy and likely a copyright infringement even if the license is compatible. If there are too many sources to identify, then the history of the page becomes unsalvageably corrupt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

MusicAngels, since you're trying to figure out a method of copying chunks of other articles into new articles while complying with copyright, let me offer you a simple piece of advice: don't waste your time. This isn't some dictate from on high, or some statement of "do this and you'll be blocked"; this is just advice from someone who's been here a while. If you're using chunks of other articles and you attribute everything properly, the attribution list will be extremely large and complicated, and proper attribution will require a ton of work. You will have a significantly easier time if you don't copy text from other articles; find the text you'd like to copy, use its sources to rewrite it in your own words, and dump the resulting new text into the page you're creating. No attribution list is needed, no requirement that reusers include the attribution history of other pages, no "oops I forgot to include something", no risk of deletion as a copyvio. These topics were obviously encyclopedic; if not for the copyright concerns, there wouldn't have been any reason to delete them, so written-in-your-own-words editions of these poetry articles will be quite helpful. Nyttend (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Nyttend and @Moonriddengirl:, Much appreciated for that comment which I will give you a partially unexpected answer to. First, if it was an "extremely large and complicated" list then I would not do it or request it in any way. It is, however, only 13 names for the Poetry in the early 21st century article: Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Gwedolyn Brooks, James Dickey, W. S. Merwin, Anne Carson, Henri Cole, Rosanna Warren, John Ashberry, Seamus Heaney, Geoffrey Hill, Mark Strand, and Jay Wright. Period. Same for the other two deleted companion articles with their poets. But more to the point is, second option, that if an administrator asks me on my Talk page to do the written-in-your-own-words version, as you very aptly call it, then I'll likely agree to it, following all the respective advantages you just pointed out. It would be nice to hear, however, from User:Fuhghettaboutit about whether a 13-item list is excessive, and if he thinks that it is still in the realm of being practical rather than "extremely large and complex". The nice thing about keeping the 13-item list option is that we get all three High Importance articles back all-at-once without waiting, rather than the written-in-your-own-words option requiring weeks-and-weeks. Is it worth getting all three High Importance encyclopedic articles back with 13-item lists all at once, since the license is inherently compatible and the "support" list is only 13-items? MusicAngels (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay so we're on another issue:-) Restoring the article, with me providing the attribution. I really feel like we're missing each other on a number of issues in order for me to do this. I wish to be very clear. Please don't take this as harsh, but I feel in order to lay it out I need to explore some misunderstandings I think you must have based on what you've said.

Providing a list of the names of the article you copied from is not what I want to fix the attribution in full, and not what I asked for at the deletion discussion to do so. You say you had already prepared the list and were just about to post it when the discussion was closed. That's appears impossible – if you understood what I actually asked for, because compiling the list for me to fix it required you to have access to the page history, and the article was deleted at that time, so I don't see how you could have done that. Coupling this with your misunderstanding above of what is needed for minimum attribution****, makes me think that you think all you need is to provide me the names of the articles copied from. I am not willing to provide such an undetailed fix. Let me quote myself, from the deletion discussion:

If you agree you have the ability and will provide to me a comprehensive and detailed list of where every line that comes from another article came from (listed by each revision in the page history, e.g., "In this diff I took the first sentence from X, and the rest of the paragraph from Y, and the next paragraph from Z; and in this diff, I took...), and will do so upon a conditional overturn within a short time period, I am offering to undertake providing the attribution fixes.

I then later said:

That's a start but not what I need and asked for (see where I wrote about the need for diffs, with you stating exactly what parts of the content were taken from where). I know you can't provide that now because you can't access the diffs while it's deleted, but I would need you to state that you understand what I will need and that you will provide it, were it deleted. More specifically, proper attribution would not be provided by dummy edits stating "some content came from link". It would be multiple dummy edits, with edit summaries in a form like "Copyright attribution note: the revision as of 16:46, April 18, 2015 included content from the existing article on Octavio Paz, from this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Octavio_Paz&oldid=664470227; see its history for attribution."

Do you now understand what I would have needed and would still need if the article is undeleted, and why I am thinking you must not have understood what I asked for, since you could not provide this material without access to the page history?

Since the article was not undeleted, the only way it could be fixed is if it were undeleted, and then you dug through the diffs and provides the list, in the detailed form I've asked for it.

But it's more complicated now because the page was not conditionally undeleted. It would have to be for you to access the diffs, provide me the list based upon them, only after which could I fix the attribution—but it's deletion was upheld.

If User:Nyttend agreed, as the deleting admin, for me to undelete this and userfy it in my userspace, pending MusicAngels providing me the list (within a relatively short time period), that might work. Otherwise, I don't see any way forward.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

****Please read what Moonriddengirl wrote above about minimum attribution. When you say "My concern for WP:CWW is that I did fully identify the material used by linking in the Lead section..." WP:CWW says nothing of the sort. What it does say is that "At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page" (emphasis added). Linking things in the interior of an article in no wise meets this standard. (You might also note that my offer, conditioned on you providing the detail so I can, in turn, provide detailed dummy edits attribution, means I am not satisfied with the bare minimum.)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit; This is the list as you've requested it of the diffs for each one of the WP:CWW edits for your approach. These were all summarized in the Edit history comment field as well. Please note that I have tried to be completely accurate here and that this is well beyond the minimum requirement, but that is the only way you prefer for it. Also, I cannot link directly to the articles which were deleted from Drv, although these are accessible from your account for further verification. I would have done this myself but I just cannot access them from my own account as you can. Here is the list of diffs:

[1]: Paz

[2]: Dickey

[3]: Brooks

[4]: Ashbery

[5]: Merwin

[6]: Walcott

[7]: Hill

[8]: Strand

[9]: Wright

[10]: Carson

[11]: Heaney

[12]: Cole

[13]: Warren

Please note that alot of these were only start and stub articles in their original form for WP:CWW and that it often took me extra time to adapt them for the High Importance article "Poetry in the early 21st century". If anything needs even further information then I'll provide what you list for me. MusicAngels (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels:. Aha, I see. You you worked up the first content at your user talk page, and then pasted it into the article. That is not a problem, though it requires a selective history merge (which I'm experienced in). Only then would I be able to refer to prior version and where it came from. But once again, I cannot do this unless and until it is undeleted. And I cannot do that without dispensation from Nyttend since he was the deleting admin. Nyttend, if you say nay, I'll abide by that. If you say yay, I'll take care of the attribution, in detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Please go ahead and do what you think best. I'm not saying yea or nay; I'm saying "I'm on the road and don't have enough time to review this stuff carefully, so I'll trust that you'll do the right thing." Of course, I won't re-delete these pages if I think it's not been done well; doing so would be approaching a WP:INVOLVED violation at best and an outright violation at worst. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for responding! MusicAngels, I will work on it in a few days when I have a chunk of time to do it right. As the deleted version has additional edits, I may need to ask you for information (I'll do so at your talk page).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@MusicAngels: Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

MusicAngels has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing. It happened yesterday, between the time they asked for your help and the time the page got restored. [14]. Please please please please don't let MusicAngels use the restored page as an argument for getting unblocked in order to work on it. User:Nyttend knows all about the history of all this. Please please please please. || AvianObserver (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey. AvianObserver I'll have to go look at the block basis but even before I do so I can say that I have never seen a block reason (and my imagination fails when trying to think of any theoretical block basis) that would be properly lifted because of such a restoration.---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Okay I've looked. AFAICT the restoration interfaces not at all with the block grounds, and asking for it to be lifted on its basis would be not just ineffective but a non sequitur.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you thank you thank you thank you! I was getting really worried that we would see a sequel to the horror movie that you read about at the Administrators' Noticeboard. A sequel would--as you said--be a blockbuster non sequitur! So thank you thank you thank you thank you. || AvianObserver (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Magic pipes &c.

I just wanted to thank you for your thoroughly-detailed explanation of piping in category tags (and the purpose of DEFAULTSORT metadata) at the Teahouse the other day. By the time I saw it, ithe edit was too far back in the edit history for me to be arsed to find it and thank you that way. I hadn't known most of that. Thanks for making me a better editor! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 22:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! A post like yours makes my day. Thanks for telling me and for being a great new voice here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

And thank you for the compliment. It's nice to feel appreciated. By the way, I apologize if my "talk erudite to me" comment the other day was out of line. As an autist I sometimes struggle with appropriateness. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 12:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft Bell State Bank & Trust Page

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I'm new to Wikipedia so hopefully this is the proper way to contact you. Anyways, I've been struggling to get the Bell State Bank & Trust page approved and noticed that you deleted it. I thought it was doing well once other people started pitching in and correcting some of the issues with it but I guess it wasn't up to par yet. I'd still like to create this page, can you let me know what I should do differently so that I can rewrite and resubmit? Thank you!

Impala66 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Impala66. I deleted the draft article as a blatant copyright violation under section G12 of the Criteria for speedy deletion. In short, you cannot take previously written, copyrighted text and paste it here. As we often tell people: "You may use external websites or other writings as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." Specifically, you copied and pasted content that appeared in this draft (from its very first revision) from here and here if not from other places. Being a copy of the Bank's own material, it also read as extremely promotional. Yes, you still can create it, but you will have to do so anew, this time writing only in your own words (to be clear, you can use short quotes, marked as such with quote marks, cited using an inline citation and in-text attribution). However, please be aware that such a draft will never be accepted if you do not cite to sufficient reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the bank. You can read more about that standard at Wikipedia:Notability. At the time of deletion, it had been rejected on that basis, though no one had yet noticed it was a copyright violation (though they should have). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback Fuhghettaboutit. I'll use it in when I work on the rewrite.

Impala66 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks

For helping with Ronen Shilo BC1278 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)BC1278 BC1278 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Anytime!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Creating new article which was previously deleted ( Akshay Agrawal )

Hi I am re writing a page which was previosuly deleted and rightly so. It read like an advert. Ill be done with itsoon and ill send it in for submission. I am writing this only because other similar have a Wikipedia Page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddharth_Shetty) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrhad_Acidwalla) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varun_Agarwal)

So let me know if theres something that needs to be chnged when the page is done.

Cheers. Space.mountain9 (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Space.mountain9. A few things. As a draft in the draft namespace, this was deleted by me just as abandoned, i.e., a page marked for Articles for creation review, which had not been accepted, and had not been edited in over six months. See CSD G13. But looking at the history of what you pasted, that content comes from Akshay Agrawal (which is a copyright problem, by the way; you did not create that text, others did but it's falsely credited to you in the page history), and that older content was deleted multiple times, and significantly, after discussion – on the merits – at an articles for deletion debate, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akshay Agrawal. That means that the content has already been found wanting. I see you've added a few sources but it's really not significantly different from when it was deleted, and could be subject to WP:CSD#G4 – a repost of an article that there was consensus to delete after a deletion debate. Finally, note that pointing to other articles as a basis for the existence of another is generally a flawed argument. Please see WP:WAX. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your user page toolbox

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I just wanted to let you know I'm using a modified version of the T O O L B O X on your user page on my own user page — if you don't mind. I left the HTML comment intact in the code, but if you want a visible credit, or for me not to use it at all, I'll be happy to comply with your wishes. Thanks for building such a useful and attractive table! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 23:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Great. Hope you find it useful. It certainly could do with some updating (I'll probably get around to that eventually). Need I say of course, with a foolish number of exclamation points after it, you are welcome to use it. In fact, if you click edit on my userpage, look at the commented out note above it. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how I possibly missed the note above it in the code. Pobody's nerfect, I guess... Thanks again, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 02:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Claude "Pop" Laval

RM still ongoing; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Aun or Anu ?

Greetings,

First of all thanks for your recent support edits to article Ceremonial pole. Please do refere to your this edit after sentence part, "tree and pole reverence to" you have added word " Aun in ancient Babylonia-Assyria"; please do confirm that what is intended change and not Anu .

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey Mahitgar. Of course that's a typo!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Fuhghettaboutit:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.

Thanks North!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks once again for "Tree of Transmission" chart

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit, just wanted to quickly express my thanks once again for your creation of the chart used in this article section. It would've taken me a long time to figure out how to make one on my own! -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 04:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Some coder will probably come along and think of some more elegant way to do it, but it does the job.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What to do about a nonconstructive editor

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I've been talking with a new editor who came to my attention at the Teahouse, BlusteryBlowers. I initially went to their talk page at the end of October because their signature seemingly includes stub templates and winds up being three lines long. I explained the issue and pointed them to help fixing it, and they replied "ok" seeming to indicate that they would fix the signature. It remains three lines long.

The following day, in checking back, I checked BlusteryBlowers's contribution history, where I learned that on all five of the articles they have edited, their edits had been reverted as unconstructive by other editors. None of those editors had followed up with an unconstructive-editing warning on BlusteryBlowers's talk page, however, so I added one.

I next discovered that they were making inappropriate claims on their user page, including claiming to be an administrator. I listed all the problems with the user page as it then existed and asked them to make changes. They again replied "ok" and I gave them some time to complete their revisions. That was October 31.

A week passed without any changes to the page, so I left another message saying that if the claims were not removed within 24 hours, I would do it myself. This did get a response, and the claims have been removed. My message on their talk page outlining what the problems with the page were has also been edited by BlusteryBlowers, completely changing the sense of what I actually said. I have now left a message thanking them for editing their user page but warning them against editing other users' comments in a way that changes the meaning. I've left their changes to my comments in place for now.

I'm concerned that I may be coming across to BlusteryBlowers as a lone bully trying to hassle them rather than a concerned editor wanting to help them understand and comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. On the other hand I'm starting to wonder if I haven't been too soft-hearted and gentle with BlusteryBlowers, considering this exchange at the Teahouse. Do you think I should take this to AN/I, solicit other editors to talk to BlusteryBlowers, let it drop, or do something else? Thanks in advance for your advice. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 14:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey GR! I'll take a look tonight as I am in the salt mines right now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for following up, Fuhghettaboutit. I guess we'll see whether there has really been reform in coming days, though the fact that BlusteryBlowers has fixed their signature already is an encouraging sign. (Incidentally, I used {{noping}} earlier, though maybe I shouldn't have?) As a side note, I'm actually not a "he" and prefer to be referred to with gender-neutral pronouns, but I'm not grievously offended by what I'm sure was an honest mistake. Thanks again! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 05:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@GrammarFascist: Anytime. Didn't realize you'd used noping. Yes, probably not. Transparency when talking about others is good IMO. I've fixed the pronouns:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My thought had been to spare you from potentially being targeted for comment revision or other shenanigans, since I was only asking for advice (not that I mind you intervening, especially as your approach yielded such good results), but you're right: transparency is best. I'll prioritize transparency in similar situations in the future. Thanks again! —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 21:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the edits, it just seemed like an easy place for me to step in. Often having been issued a final warning is a necessary step for a next stage escalation. I do hope the user'll just fly right from now on, but if not, now there can be no claim of insufficient notice before blocking/ topic banning etc. if taken to ANI of wherever. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Template protections

See [15] (scroll down). Were you aware of the cascading protection and going to adjust it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

?needs additional citations for verification?

Howdy, Fuhghettaboutit. The heading above refers to this article: Laurier Brantford which was totally inadequate. However, I spent a lot of time on it today and turned it into a decent article with lots of valid citations. How/when will Wikipedia ever find out that citations are no longer needed? (P.S. Yes, I still need to fix some of my raw URL citations, using the templates you kindly provided ... I did fix some but will also fix the others tomorrow. Otherwise it looks like a finished product to me.) Cheers! Peter K Burian 00:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Peter. Maintenance tags like {{refimprove}} in articles are not automatically removed, but are removed by editors like you or me when the issues they flag have been addressed. However, there's still swaths of unsourced text in the article so that tag still belongs. Another issue is that most of the sources cited are primary sources (rather than secondary sources). Third, you're still using naked links in citations, which I hoped you would not be doing after the discussions of that issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Userified pages

I figure let's discuss it here. Since most userified pages would be named the original title, we could possibly have a bot pull up all userpages in Category:Stale userspace drafts (ignore "sandbox" and "write your article here"), check if a blue Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/... page exists and then create a list of those? It would save a mountain of time as there's plenty that were also created separately, not just userified backwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ricky. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. That sounds like a good idea but it would only cover a small part of the problem in my view.

The first limitation is that I'm guessing that even if we're focused only on AfD'd articles, a large number of them that were userfied were never tagged with {{Userspace draft}}. This would also miss all those where the userfied basepagename does not exactly match the mainspace name when taken to AfD.

More fundamentally, while I agree that AfD'd articles that were userfied and then sat forever are of particular concern, don't you think speedied/prodded articles, and even those just considered inappropriate for the mainspace but never tagged for deletion under any process, are of concern too? I hate poking holes if I don't have an offer of a solution (part of the reason I did not respond quickly is that I've been hoping a brilliant ray of light would strike me as to a comprehensive and feasible way to find the broader class I thought we were talking about).

The other day, preliminary to responding (and because I was wondering how many others I should do something about), I attempted to find all my userfications. I hope I've found most of them (I searched my edit summaries for "userf"). I've culled those that are still userfied: here, and just starting looking at them to see what needs doing. The thing is, it appears many of them a) did not result from an AfD impetus, and b) are not tagged with Userspace draft (even if that's my fault). Thoughts?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We can only take on bits at a time. We're talking maybe thousands of pages out there for all admins (which may be high) and that's ignoring the pages that were userified to active users (even if not worked on, people will dispute deletion on that basis). I've gotten through just roughly 3% at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Stale drafts so any angles that help cull it is helpful. People create pages all the time: there's a host of pages from around 2009 about small video games when those were up for deletion, I had to MFD five separate user's articles on Spider Man 4 when it was made into a redirect, this is all typical. Unless someone plans on just going through userspace on its own, we'll never find it all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Okay, perspective. This would be a first bite and a fine place to start. I suppose the bot should ignore any pages tagged with AfC templates, since they're going to end up G13ed anyway? Want to work on a joint bot request here?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Some initial language thoughts:

After an Articles for Deletion debate results in delete, it is not uncommon for there to be a granted request for userfication of the page and its history to allow further work to address the deletion basis, i.e., make the topic no longer subject to CSD G4 upon a move back to the mainspace. However, many such requests are made and lie fallow – for years – often with the requesting user having long since become inactive. There is no easy way to track userfied articles that have this condition. While there may be a larger question of uncounted userfied articles originally deleted through other processes, formerly Afd'd articles are of particular concern. We are looking for a bot to:

1. Look at all articles in Category:Stale userspace drafts by their {{SUBPAGENAME}}, i.e., without the "user:" "user talk:", "sandbox/" "draft:", etc.; and
2. Match them against all AfD targets.
3. It would also be good if the bot ignored pages that are tagged with {{AFC submission}}, as these will be subject to CSD G13;
4. ???

There shouldn't be any AFC submissions on those anyways. I think if it can just look to see if an AFD page exists and post a table of the draft page and blue-linked AFD pages, that would be a start. There's already a bot page for old draftspace articles without AFC submissions, the project on stale drafts, G13s, old dated AFC wizard drafts and a host of other ways of finding old userpages. It's just a matter of figuring out an efficient way to do all this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Tonight's the Night (1934 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tonight's the Night (1934 film). Since you had some involvement with the Tonight's the Night (1934 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: User:Bullettunion

see Special:Contributions/Bullettunion. Did it again at List оf dесеаsеd hiр hор аrtists and Тhе Gаmе (rарреr). Ignatzmice•talk 15:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

PS how in hell are they doing it? If I open up both pages as separate tabs and go back and forth, the titles don't change at all but the URL in the browser bar seems to change size slightly. Crazy. Ignatzmice•talk 15:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ignatz. Thanks for the heads up. As I'm sure you saw, JamesBWatson took care of it. Real life intervened for me. As for how this was being done, I am assuming one or more of the letters is some kind of different character that looks just like the regular character to the naked eye but not to a program looking at ones and zeros. As I'm curious just what it is, and how to examine it, I've asked: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing#Disguised characters? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ignatzmice: The editor was using a couple of letters from the Cyrillic alphabet mixed in with the Latin alphabet. A few Cyrillic letters look the same as Latin ones, such as capital Т = T (but not lower case т ≠ t) and both capital and lower case Е = E and е = e. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please critique my article

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit, I have written a new article, my third, and I’d like you to look it over before I put it up: User:Eagledj/sandbox/Tom Collins The subject has a common name, and there will be disambiguation issues. Should I title it "Tom Collins (music publisher/producer)"? Also I'm having trouble with reference #24, which is from Billboard Magazine. The article is found in a Billboard insert called "A Billboard Spotlight: The World of Country Music". The page numbers are WOCM 1, WOCM 2...etc. so it is unusual. Your thoughts? And finally, after you review it can I skip draft and go to mainspace? You have been great help in the past . Best regards Eagledj (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj. Looks good! I've fixed most of what I might have critiqued. My initial comment is that there are a few sources that are possibly questionable. What makes slipcue.com a reliable source – a high quality reference with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? (and not some random website by some random person)? There are a few specific issues to note, just for future reference, and one that you should take action on. Let's start there.

• You must produce quotations with exacting fidelity. You can fix truly ministerial typos but other than that, must be true to the original. The quote I fixed about Mandrell was not true to the original in a number of ways, the most important of which is that all omissions must be indicated with ellipses. Please check whether there are any other quotes that similarly need fixing.
• After you give a citation a name, the next time you use it, it's just <ref name="Name" /> (i.e., not: <ref name="name"></ref> nor <ref name="name"{{cite web}}></ref> both of which I found).
• Be careful of statements that will age or that are meta-references – that break the fourth wall, in the vein of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid.
• No need for |accessdate= for paper sources. Their purpose is for sources that can change – so if they change or 'go dark', we have a date reference point for when it purported to verify information. A true paper source is not subject to this. For quasi-paper sources, like a magazine's electronic version of an article that probably appeared in paper form but there's no sure way to know (unlike a scan of a paper article from 1979, or of a book image from Google Books), you should probably keep them in—which is why I did not remove the accessdate from Rolling Stone, for example.
• You can usually use just the first part of any Google Books URL: up to where the page number is listed, and that is preferable to a search URL, e.g., just https://books.google.com/books?id=tLZz02EzmBYC&pg=PA96
• Yeah, sometimes it's not easy to figure out the URL to the page in the interior of a Goole Book source you find. The trick I used here was to go to the page of the Billboard source, find a short quote from that page, then go back to Google books and search for that in quotes together with Billboard as part of the search but outside the quotes. That found a different link to the actual interior page.

As to your other issues, since Tom Collins is the primary topic, you should name this Tom Collins (producer). Parenthetical disambiguators are not supposed to list every possible thing a person is know for, but to allow someone trying to reach a topic to land on their topic – so just enough for them to pick the article they're looking for from a list is what we want, and he's mainly known as a producer. As for how they would find it, at the top of the article on Tom Collins is a hatnote to Tom Collins (disambiguation). As soon as this hits the mainspace, this article should be added to that DAB page (do not pipe the link to "Tom Collins", keep the disambiguator showing there). Yes I think this is certainly good enough to go directly to the mainspace, do not pass go. Have you considered nominating this for the did you know... section of the mainpage? I am glad to help. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. As I'm sure you saw, I broke up the entire article into paragraphs of relatively equal length. I don't think you need much explanation for why that is what we normally do and how giant blocks of text are difficult for readers:-)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks & I don't get it

Hi Fugeddaboutit, 1)Thanks a lot for the edit of the Pepi Litman article in my Sandbox but I don't see what you changed. I compared the top two edits in the history & couldn't see any difference. 2)Just to clarify, I typed in that long section from google books for my own reference, so I can use it in writing the article. That's why i headed it "Notes." 3)Also, sadly, I had copied a lot of other info from the YIVO online encyclopedia into the sandbox for the same purpose, but forgot to save. Any way to retrieve? It was done between 7-9am PST today, Dec 7, 2015. 4) I hope this appears at the bottom of your Talk page, as you requested. Not sure how to make that happen. Again, thanks for your patience with my rather steep learning curve. Nadnie (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nadnie. You must not have looked at the diff view correctly. The first edit was this, the second this. No, there's no way to retrieve it, sorry. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! Nadnie (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Trying to fix this article

Hi Fughettaboutit, I have found a poorly written article about a notable subject who deserves a decent Wiki article, Steve Buckingham. I am cleaning it up and adding references, but I suspect copyvio, where copies of the Wiki article appear elsewhere. My question is about what is going on with "Project Gutenberg Self Publishing Press, "http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/steve_buckingham_(record_producer). I also found it at "Blair School of Music", http://blair.vanderbilt.edu/bio/steve-buckingham. Is he handing out copies of his Wiki article as as a resume or vice versa ? Thanks for your help as always, Eagledj (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj The World Heritage Encyclopedia is largely a Wikipedia Mirror., i.e., what you find there generally is taken from here. It does look like the article is a copyright violation and plagiarism of http://blair.vanderbilt.edu/bio/steve-buckingham not because I found a pre-dating version in the Internet Archive a/k/a the Wayback Machine, which only goes back to 2012 for this page but because of other hallmarks. And a bit deeper, it looks like the real source is this. Almost the entire article needs to go. If it wasn't for your interest I would delete it entirely. It you want to pursue this then the best option is to do a complete rewrite (brutally pare it down and rewrite anything pre-existing), tell me when your done with the initial phase of tearing it down, and I will hide all revisions in the history up to your last edit. Then start building it up again. Or, of course, tell me that you have saved your recent additions offline, and maybe some of the skeleton, e.g., categories, and I will just delete and you can start from scratch. Probably even better but I'm open to whatever you think.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, Fughettaboutit, I have brutally pared the Buckingham article, ready for re-write without copyvio. Offline, I have saved my own edits and references. I am ready to tackle the task from scratch, which as you said may be easier than fighting through the muck. Thanks, Eagledj (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eagledj: Done! Edit away!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I have rewritten the Steve Buckingham article. I'm discouraged to find that, even before it's finished, it's already been stolen HERE. Please go through it and do what you can to help it. Does it need some subheadings or paragraph breaks? Please copy to my talk page. Best regards and thanks, Eagledj (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Eagledj: As usual, it looks great. I've made some minor changes. Since you personally own the copyright (we each own the copyright to what we write on Wikipedia, even though it's under certain free copyright licenses), you could send a violation letter, and ultimately a DMCA takedown notice, but this is one of those opaque sites, with no contact information I can find (and it would not surprise me if they were outside the U.S. and would not care one bit). Life in the twenty first century. If you can be bothered, I'm sure those at the computing reference desk know many times over how to track down their information than I do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013

Many thanks for your help. I will try to continue!

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Balquhidder2013 (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The teahouse is probably not the right place to continue this

My firm impression, which is always subject to correction, is that a copyvio which is broadly up to 50% of an article, with the remainder redeemable, may be flagged as such, with the copyvio remaining visible for a reasonable time, by which is meant a short time. Editors like Diannaa tend to arrive if one does that, "as if by magic" and revdel the offending material whether or not it has been removed by the contributing editor.

On that basis I consider that, on balance of probabilities, my custom of flagging and leaving these particular items is right. I am content simply to disagree, more content still be to shown either to be correct or incorrect. One of the two of us is more right than the other, probably. At this stage I think we both think it is ourselves. Fiddle Faddle 20:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

What we don't want to have happen is for drafts with copyvio material that is visible to the public to be left languishing in Category:AfC submissions declined as copyright violations for any period of time. When Fuhghettaboutit made this post at WP:AN back in August, there were still 232 articles left to be cleaned up. After months of daily effort (mostly by me), we now have only four, three of which I am pretty sure are copied from PD material and the fourth where we're no longer able to access the source (which was never scanned into the wayback machine) and thus I am unable to prove it's copyvio any more. There's nothing magical about these drafts disappearing from the cat; it's the result of daily checking and work on my part. The best way to handle copyvio drafts (in my opinion) is for people like yourself, Timtrent, to (1) decline the draft as copyvio and (2) if you think the article is salvageable and could be made mainspace-worthy, immediately remove the violating material from the article, mark it as cv-cleaned, and add a {{copyvio-revdel}} request; or if the copyvio is total and there's nothing that can be salvaged, tagging immediately for G12 deletion. I routinely check the Category:Requested RD1 redactions and clean it out as soon as we have 5 or 10, or at a minimum once a week. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that approach. I undertake to do my best to implement it with drafts I review from now on. Thank you Diannaa Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Tim. I am not trying to convince you I'm right. The only reason I followed-up as I did was that your response was was directed at the speedy deletion, and read as you thinking I was saying you should have tagged it under G12, which I wasn't saying at all; I was clarifying that that wasn't the basis for my post, but was the issue of leaving them visible, rather than following the cleanup procedures at the quick fail instructions. There are generally no hidebound rules, you don't have to follow anything. It is true I don't agree with you but that's where we can leave it. Just so you know, earlier this year there were ... at this point I previewed my post and realized I was going to edit conflict with Diannaa (and her post makes the rest of what I was going to say incredibly redundant). Thank you Diannaa, for all your great hard work on these copyvio matters! And now I see I was going to edit conflict a second time; Tim, again, thank you for all your hard work at AfC!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Heavens, I never mind learning something new I thought I was right, and found I was wrong. At the teahouse we were at cross purposes. All is fine. I came here because the teahouse became the wrong venue . Latterly I have been less hard working at AfC, for the same reason that I had to withdraw from the ArbCom elections (There was a genuine chance that I might poll sufficient to be appointed). My time has become unexpectedly limited. So I am trying a rifle target approach on a limited pool of "stuff". Fiddle Faddle 21:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Fuhghettaboutit: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays!

Season's Greetings and Happy New Year!

Wishing you a happy holiday season and a Merry Christmas. May your new year be happy and prosperous. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Questia note

As of right now, you cannot renew an existing account. So you will have to sign up again with a different email. Sorry, but that is something that has been a concern of mine for some time, but it is how Questia has it set up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Randy Barlow image file deleted

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, you recently deleted my uploaded image Randy-Barlow-country-music-singer.jpg. An image of the singer would greatly enhance his Randy Barlow entry page. Please help me understand why my rationale for fair use of a copyrighted publicity photo image was not acceptable. A free use image of Randy is not available, and a free-use photo of him at the time of his popularity is not able to be taken. How would I go about getting this image accepted? I did do my research on rationales, but apparently not well enough. Any assistance or light you could shed would be extremely helpful. I am not terribly proficient, and had a hard enough time with the upload wizard, so please give "for dummies" explanation. Thanks in advance!A2Ypsi (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey A2Ypsi. Not a distinction that I suspect will matter to you much here, but just so you're aware, I didn't actually delete the image. I tagged the image for deletion, and another administrator agreed and actually deleted it. Unfortunately, photographs of living persons are generally disallowed under interpretation of the fair use policy. The issue is that we strive for free content, and only allow use of copyrighted images under the fair use exception to copyright protection, if the images meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. For images of living persons, since a photograph can always be snapped while a person is alive, they are disallowed under WP:NFCC#1, replaceability – a free equivalent is always possible. This is the reason there are so many articles here, even of very famous people, with no image, or some crappy candid taken somewhere. I understand your pain on this, and when I was a new user ran afoul of the same issue. It's a balancing act. On the one hand, we very much want articles improved with great images. On the other, we are very protective of having only public domain or suitably free and reusable content and make any exception to that very strict. Sometimes it's possible to try to contact the living person directly and ask them to provide an image. See for example, Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. But it can get complicated to explain to them the method for providing the picture (and now that I've glanced at them, many of those request letters are unworkable IMO because they don't spell out what the person would need to do to, where they need to send the picture and exactly how to provide the rel4ase by a verifiable method).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit , for your thoughtful and informative reply. I went and read the RFP letters page, and would certainly be able to get Randy Barlow to take and send me a snapshot, and could certainly then send him an RFP email, to which he would happily reply via email, "Hell, yeah!" but, then what? As you noted, it isn't very clear. I guess my best next step would be to explore the Creative Commons upload Wizard to see what proofs it asks for, in what form, so I know what to get from Randy. We'd certainly rather use a snazzy old publicity photo (like Glenn Campbell managed to do, but then he's got lawyers and a publicity team.) But if it's gotta be a snapshot, I'll work on that. I guess I could also read the image file source code, syntax or template code, whatever its called, of some sample images that are approved, too. Sound like a good approach?A2Ypsi (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Jews for Jesus Wikipedia: Opinionated or Not Opinionated

So it was you who deleted all my edits? Not Mr. Swordfish?Messianicmatt (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

No, you were correct the first time. Mr swordfish reverted your edits. What I did was hide the revisions of your edits in the page history (you can see they are now struck through). I did this because your edits included clearly copyrighted material – in fact specifically marked as such on Jews For Jesus' website. That is: "Copyright © 2016 Jews for Jesus. All Rights Reserved" (though under law writing is assumed fully non-free copyrighted even if it is not so-marked). You cannot copy and paste copyrighted writing except for very limited quotes, clearly marked as such using quote marks and cited to the source using an inline citation to meet the fair use use exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright. And so you understand how it works, on many other websites, an organization can simply give permission to use their copyrighted work; a "one-time license". But we can't do so here, because our content is given a free license to our end-users. For that reason, outside of fair use, we can only include copyrighted material here that is released under a suitably free copyright license – one that is at least as non-restrictive as the license of our material. That means copyright owners have to give up their right to content like this to the world for it to be posted here. Understandably, giving up rights like that is something many people and organizations would not want to do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision log deletion request

A revision log on an page is revealing personal information which I'm not comfortable with. Please help me remove it, and reply on my talk page. Rollingcontributor (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rollingcontributor. You need to advise me of the identity of the revision, e.g., the url of the revision, or the name of the article and which revision by date and time, and so forth. If you don't want to reveal that on Wikipedia – clearly, that could to an extent defeat the purpose of the request, you can email me using the "Email this user" feature from the tools menu to the left (to do so you must have your email enabled in preferences, and note that here's a problem with Yahoo email addresses b/c of a security protocol they use). Note also the existence of Wikipedia:Oversight. As an administrator I can do a revision deletion, if it meets certain criteria, but only an oversighter can do a true suppression – an enhanced type of deletion which expunges the information from any form of usual access even by administrators (it's not done lightly). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. I have checked out Oversight, as you've mentioned it. They have solved my problem. Once again, thank you for your time and your willingness to help! Rollingcontributor (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jack Mackenroth

Hi, I am trying to figure out how to place the material on Jack Mackenroth's page. He sent it to me and wanted to update it because it us outdated and he wanted to include more information. how do I add the material correctly? Winterschild11 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Winterschild11. The first issue, the one I left you a message about, is copyright. The material you added cannot be pasted into the article because it is non-free copyrighted. The only way it could be added is if its owner released the copyright under a compatible free license. Who the owner of the material is is unclear, a direct claim of ownership is at the website and appears to be UT Dallas, though it may be Mackenroth himself. In any event, I can refer you to a page explaining how a release might work, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, but this material could not be used in the form it was pasted anyway. Besides being unsourced, it is blatantly promotional material, and so is unacceptable for reasons other than copyright. Properly, articles are written by locating high quality reliable, secondary sources entirely independent of a topic, then writing material in your own words, with the information verified in those sources, and the sources cited to show that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so I need to rewrite it so the pov is neutral and make sure it's not promotional? Sorry, this is the first time I've tried anything like this and I really want to be able to help him out. I can provide the email showing he is giving me consent to do this. Thank you Winterschild11 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey again Winterschild11. Well, sort of; that's part of it. In addition to maintaining a neutral point of view, avoiding promotional language, buzz words, empty market speak, hype, peacockery, etc.

• It would have to be a true rewrite, to avoid copyright problems. You can't just change the former copyrighted text in surface ways. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing;
• and it needs to be cited to reliable, secondary, independent sources; and
• no, the fact he gave you consent to do this does not need to be proven because it only shows you have a conflict of interest in doing so – it is not a positive that needs to be proven, it is a negative that needs to be overcome. Ideally, the article would be expanded by someone with no connection whatever to him. In fact, we often tell people who have a close connection to a subject to not even edit an article directly but to post suggestions on the talk page.

Note that if you are being compensated in any way for your edits, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Fuhghettaboutit|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I only know him from Twitter and he asked if anyone has every edited anything on Wikipedia. I told him I have and he asked if I could make the edits, and I told him I would try. I am not being compensated for anything, just trying to do a favour for a twitter friend. I will attempt to rewrite it from a writer's viewpoint and lose any promotional material. Or, would you recommend that I ask someone form here to do it? Winterschild11 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Compensated editing:answer

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I am not being paid for my editings. I am new and I am learning how to use wikipedia so I mistake a lot and edit constantly to see results and mistakes. My first language is Spanish, no english, so I repeatedly go over and over to find new mistakes or things to change (I wrote the entire article in english). I am using the sandbox since as I understand it is specially for practicing. Thank you for your observation Sofiaarangoe (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sofiaarangoe. I'm sorry, I do not understand. You disclosed at the Teahouse question forum in this post, and without solicitation, that:

"I work for Paolo De Grandis, President of PDG Arte Communications and I have the task to write his history as art curator and organizer in wikipedia as Paolo De Grandis".

Although I used a template regarding compensated editing that asked the question of whether the person was being compensated, here, I already knew you were, because you stated you were as I quote you above. I used the template anyway, because it details the mandatory disclosure requirements of compensated editing. I expected you to just comply, and cannot imagine why you are denying it now when, not only have you admitted it, but all you need to do to take care of the issue is post some simple information to you userpage – which the template at your talk page describes how to do.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Congrats... You gave an awesome answer in the Teahouse!

	Great Answer Badge
	Awarded to those who have given a great answer on the Teahouse Question Forum. A good answer is one that fits in with the Teahouse expectations of proper conduct: polite, patient, simple, relies on explanations not links, and leaves a talkback notification. Earn more badges at: Teahouse Badges
Great working finding that birth date! Clear case of going above and beyond! LukeSurl t c 13:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks much Luke. It's funny that it turned out here it was nevertheless a false-positive!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Read the tutorials!

Thanks again Fuhghettaboutit, I have now read the tutorials and can see how Talk works. the lesson as ever, do the spadework and read the tutorials! Best jama myth.

@Jama myth: Great you figured it out! By the way, your signature needs fixing (it must contain a link to your user, user talk or contributions but does not). Go to your preferences (← click there); in the middle of the page you should see a signature section. There, make sure the field next to "Signature:" is blank, and then below that, take the check mark out of the tick box for "Treat the above as wiki markup." That should fix the issue by returning your signature to the default. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Loss of images

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, I have been working on my first article in my sandbox. Everything has been going well, I am learning as I go. However, just about 10 minutes ago, I saved some "Picture edits" and when I saved I found that three images had disappeared. These were not the image I was editing. I then went back into edit source and checked to find that everything was there, it was, so I saved again but still the same problem. Then back into edit source and I find that the text for the first image has now completely disappeared. The text for the other two images which have "disappeared" from the page is still there.

I then try to upload again the first image (making the reasonable assumption that I have done something wrong and need to start again) and on trying to upload I am presented with a dialogue box which tells me that there was an image with that name on the server but it has been deleted.

As I was not working on that image, indeed it has been stable in the edit for nearly 24 hours now, I am wondering what is happening. I would be grateful if you could provide any pointers.Jama myth (talk) 14:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jama myth: Hey great, you fixed your signature! I'm going to go into a bit of detail here so bear with me.

Every page has a page history. In it, you can see every (non-hidden, non-deleted) revision ever made to a page, who made each edit, and see the "diff" view (short for difference) between any given revision and another. Trying to figure out what happened without checking the page history is like searching for something by feel with your eyes closed. The history tab is at the top of the page. Look above, at the top of this page, click on history and you will see all the edits to this page. You should see that the edit before this one is by you, when you made it, and you could click on the date of your revision to see the state of the page at that time, or use the radio buttons to choose two particular edits to compare by clicking compare selected revision to see a diff.

Now go to your sandbox and look at the page history. You will see that a robot (User:CommonsDelinker) has remove the links to three of the images: File:Walls_of_culture.png, File:The_Age_of_Oil_.png and File:Akane_Takayama_30.png – because they were deleted from the Commons. See also the warning messages left at your Commons talk page, and the deletion log entries for them here, here and here. Please note that there is now a discussion, still underway, here to delete other files you've uploaded, nominated by User:Yann. Be aware also of the warning on your talk page there stating that if you continue to violate copyright, you may be blocked.

Copyright is very important and many users get lost in it, violating it without realizing they can't do what they've been doing. I haven't looked in any depth, but it appears you are uploading images claiming they are your own work and yourself as the author when it appears you did not take these images yourself, and certainly did not place the type of details to make it clear if you did. A common misunderstanding about copyright is in thinking if you find an image and do something with it, you can claim it as your own.

Oversimplifying, you do not become the copyright owner of an image simply because you screenshotted it, scanned it and so forth, and then uploaded it – any more than you would become the copyright owner of a book by retyping it, or could claim yourself as the author of a painting because you took a photograph of it. Essentially, stating something is your "own work" and that you are the "author" is equivalent to saying "I took this photograph with my own camera". Be aware also that if you take a photograph yourself, and part of the photograph includes already copyrighted work, that is often also a problem. For example, you snap a photo and in the background is a billboard, a statue, a poster, etc. (and that background is not just a trivial component). You may own the copyright to the photograph but the billboard image has its own copyright. And if the image is something static and basically is a photo of an entirely already copyrighted image and there is little creative originallity involved, say a photo by you but of two-dimensional painting, you may create no secondary copyright at all by photographing that. I don't want to get into too much esoterica, but just give you a flavor of the complexity that can be involved. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit for the explanation. Jama myth: If you know the copyright owner, you may request a formal written permission for a free license. Please see c:COM:OTRS for the procedure. Please ask if you need help about that. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for the work you are putting in here. The situation with this appears to be a question of the copyright of the images and those are all held by the artist who I am profiling. That artist has given me permission to use the images for this purpose. I very much appreciate that this is about my own inadequacy in the learning curve. My main misunderstanding here is that I thought that in working in the sandbox I was preparing everything for submission and not that it was being reviewed as I try to work my way through "the rules". Being a writer by nature, rather than an editor, I was laying down my text and images, building my references within the sandbox before honing it all to publishable standards. I wasn't using images without permission, I just didn't realise that I had to cite that copyright before I tried to publish.

I will work through what is being said here and try to get onto the right track. I would be grateful if Yann will accept that i am not using images illicitly but abusing process through my own ignorance. Jama myth (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

William Hill (bookmaker)

Hello, sorry to bother you but I can't get the ask question button to work on the teahouse.The question is: at the above site is it acceptable for the external link to link to live gambling?Atlantic306 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Atlantic306. When you tried at the Teahouse through the ask a question button, did you attempt to sign your post by placing four tildes (~~~~) at the end? You can't post unless you do. If you did do that, and it still did not work, that's important to know. It that's the case, what did you try and how did it fail?

No that external link should be removed. It adds nothing and fails multiple parts of Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, including 1, 4 and 5. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S., when removing material from pages, it's a really good idea to cite the policy backing it in you edit summary, e.g., something like "remove promotional external link, per ¶¶s 1, 4 and 5 of [[WP:ELNO]]"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do that, but what should be done if they immediately revert? (thats what happened when I tried to delete the external link of Spotlight 29 casino). Regarding the Teahouse I do sign but it won't work on my ipad or phone but it does work in the library.ThanksAtlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to capitalize the edit summaryAtlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: It would depend on the edit summary they left but if just a revert with no commentary, I would revert again but only that second time, saying something in the edit summary like "this clearly does not meet the external links guideline. Please explain your reason for replacing this content on the talk page". If that doesn't work, try posting to the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, at William Hill I deleted the link and cited policy but Toohol has reverted it ( he also reverted the casino one) he gave the reason that the link complies with the first sentance of part 1 of WP:ELNOAtlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were talking about the second link labeled "Corporate site", not the first (in fact they lead to the same place). Sorry if I led you down the wrong path. After I clicked on it and saw it met your description, I assumed the that was what you were talking about. The first meets the exception as the official link. In any event, there's no reason for two links to the same promotional site or really two links to the same site in an external links section regardless of the type of site. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll leave it then but perhaps Wikipedia should make an exception to stop external links to gambling or pornAtlantic306 (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Global Intelligence (magazine)

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I am an avid wikipedia user, but new to editing. I want to help create content, and I want to get it right. I am starting by trying to create a page for a publication produced locally (which I have some personal contact with). You deleted my previous draft (linked above) for lack of third-party sources, if I understand correctly. I have since found third party sources and would like to try again. Any tips? Or should I just go for it? Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadrx (talk • contribs) --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Sadrx. That draft was declined from publication to the mainspace by someone else as not yet demonstrating the notability of the topic. As shown in its deletion log entry, I deleted it not on that basis at all, but as an "abandoned" articles for creation draft. That is, uncontroversial deletion under section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as it had been rejected and there were no edits made to it for more than six months. Since this is an uncontroversial deletion basis, undeletion is also considered uncontroversial and I see you had already requested that and that it was granted. As to whether you should try again, it really very much depends on the type and nature of the sources you've found and how in depth they go on the topic. Remember that what we are looking for is citation to sufficient reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic and which discuss it substantively, i.e., not just passing mentions of it. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Albert Kitson

Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale and North Melbourne Thanks for your help. I hope I have made my concerns for both the North Melbourne page and the Albert Kitson, 2nd Baron Airedale pages clearer. Please fix up the little problems on both pages. accent for the Albert Kitson page - it is now a new and different word to Pathe - I need to get an accent on the word 'nee' in the notes/quote for ref. number 10 on the Albert Kitson page. And the ref. number 1 in the Demographics section of the North Melb. page. Thanks.Srbernadette (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft Robert Naorem

Hi thanks for your valuable reply . I have made the correction of the copy right . And written in my own words already and there Eid no similar information about it now . Need to help to go up with this article Rk1985 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please help me to publish this article . I m Not that good in editing , need your support

Rk1985 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Rk1985. You say you made the corrections but where? Either you did it under another account (or by your IP address), or you mean not on Wikipedia. If the former, point me where it is and I will take a look. If you mean the latter, you need to start the draft anew, this time including no copyrighted content (but, of course, for short quotes marked as such with quotation marks and cited to the sources using inline citations and often in text attribution). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Draft Semantic Folding

Thanks for taking the time to review my draft. I would like to correct the questioned text and/or add the copyright release on the author website -but do I have to begin the article from scratch or can I adapt the version you deleted? If so, where do I find it? Mpgarnier io (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mpgarnier io. If you point me to the location where a suitable release is posted under a compatible free copyright license and where it is released shows you have authority over Cortical.io, I will gladly undelete the draft immediately (well, as soon as I am back online, see your message, and look at where you point me). If you haven't already, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. We can't host copyright violations and the entire draft seems to be taken from the paper Semantic Folding Theory And its Application in Semantic Fingerprinting so I cant just undelete it for you to work on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

TB

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing#Multi_links_not_working.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Draft: Heavy Vehicle Use Tax - Declined

Hi,

You have declined the The Draft: Heavy vehicle Use Tax stating copyright violations. But this is an important article I felt should be there on Wiki which will guide millions truckers in The United states of America. If copyright is the problem, is it OK I get a written permission from the Authorised sites and re-submit the draft. Will that be ok. Please advise. Ifabi2016 (talk)

Hi Ifabi2016. It would not be permission for use here. It would have to be an irrevocable release of their copyright to the world under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain). See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Gale

You should have received an email from me with a linked form to complete - could you please either complete it or email me if you didn't get it? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ping. (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking now. Thank you Nikkimaria.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Completed, form sent. Sorry for the delay and thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A new Good Article!

Hi there Fuhghettaboutit! It's been such a long time since we last spoke, even if it's here on your talk page I'm really happy to stop by here once again. I'm here to inform you of the news that our little article I've been working on, Dilek Peninsula-Büyük Menderes Delta National Park, is finally a good article! This was in the midst of its initial, long-awaited review in January, which had failed due to prose inconsistencies and reviewed again in March after me and a fellow editor had fixed them. It was put on hold for cite problems and then passed just yesterday after I fixed them. I came here, mostly to simply say hello, and in part to let you know that I'm about to nominate the Özdere article for GA, so if there's anything you'd like to do to help me advance its progress (improve, review, offer advice, etc.) I more than welcome you to do so. Take care, friend! Coderenius (☎) 01:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Coderenius. Congratulations! I was glad to help. I've started a copyedit of Özdere. Please see the commented out note in the text section containing "...these are no longer intact and there are no..." – there's something missing there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm wondering at the many uses of {{lang-tr}}. It seems to me to break the flow of the text. Readers are surely aware the words being used are Turkish, right?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a bit of overlinking going on in the draft. I suggest going through it looking for that issue. I'm not saying it should not have many links but remove the ones to truly prosaic items. For example, no one needs a link to understand further "winter", "meat" or "chicken".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Could use your expertise

Can you please provide your expertise, at Template_talk:Citation#Does_Template:Citation_have_all_the_same_output_parameters_as_Cite_news_and_Cite_web_.3F ?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

JSTOR

You should have received an email from me with a link to a form to complete; could you please either complete it, or email me if you didn't get it? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping. Please respond if you are still interested in getting access. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

• Op-ed: Should prison inmates be permitted to edit Wikipedia?

• News and notes: Denny Vrandečić resigns from Wikimedia Foundation board

• In the media: Wikimedia Sweden loses copyright case; Tex Watson; AI assistants; David Jolly biography

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A welcome return to pop culture and death

• Arbitration report: The first case of 2016—Wikicology

• Gallery: A history lesson

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Great idea for the help page, you deserve special recognition for thinking it up, working on it & hopefully it will make a difference throughout the wiki. Nice work! Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Hopefully it will make a difference.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Also needs hiding

I think this edit also needs hiding. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Luke! .--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak. Since you had some involvement with the Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Hj Abd Razak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 03:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Mahanidhi Swami

Hi, i saw you deleted the article. I want to rewrite the article and change the tone of voice, and make some adjustments to the content. I got a notice to contact you first.Muukifar (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC) I wrote this to you on 23 may and I still haven't received a reply. I start meanwhile.Muukifar (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It (a template) Happened One Night

Hi, and thanks for all of your good work on film directors. I've expanded the Frank Capra template to include his major war work and related data, such as adding his son and his science documentary work. Probably missed some items. Maybe the other template on his war work can be deleted after a merge. Please take a look. And since I'm here, and see that you do a lot of tech work on templates, it seems to me that the new additional line on many templates 'Learn how you can remove this...' (paraphrase) just adds clutter and additional space to the templates and pages. Was that something discussed somewhere, or did someone just add those? Thanks again. Randy Kryn 14:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Randy. Stealing a moment while at work. I will look at the first issue tonight. Thanks for stopping by! As to the second, rather than just add clutter, I think it's one of the most important improvements we've made in years – a crucial issue that's been languishing.

From what you said, I guess it's just serendipity you asked me about it, but it's my proposal, and yes, it has been discussed and has near unanimous support. Before you enter any opposition, please just consider some issues you may not be aware of that this goes a long way to help solve – like that we constantly get questions from people at various places showing they do not understand they can boldly fix issues flagged by templates; do not understand how the templates are placed are removed; think they are removed by some automated bot or only by elite users; do not roll up there sleeves and give us the desperate help we need because it's not clear how the process of removal occurs and more. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and yikes (/walks away whistling), didn't know you came up with that. I'll probably appreciate them more after reading the discussion. Only reason I didn't like them is I come across soooo many of the templates put on pages six, eight, years ago, and the templates sit there marring (in my opinion) good pages. Worse when someone comes along and puts up four or five templates on one page, probably without trying to fix any of problems they see. I take many notability templates off, most of them quite old. So yes, I can imagine more people working on the pages because of the extra line, I'm just complaining that it's an extra line and on the vast majority of pages they will probably still be sitting there in eight more years. Yet on the pages that do get worked on because of that extra line I can only say 'nice work' for creatively thinking of the solution and working to enact it. Randy Kryn 20:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Certainly a great improvement, thanks! I agree that the Why We Fight template is now fairly redundant. However, two things make me think it should not be deleted – and which would require more work anyway. First, it looks to me like what you did was a merge of its content into the Frank Capra template without copyright attribution (which is easily remedied) – unless you did it entirely independently and only then realized there was an existing template. If so, you need to credit the contributors to the template, which means it cannot be deleted because it is the source of merged content. Second, redirects are cheap, and redirecting it is much easier than seeking its deletion. So what I suggest to take care of everything:

1. redirect {{Why We Fight}} to the Frank Capra template, also placing {{R from merge}} on the page and leave an edit summary when you do so like: "Content has been merged to [[Template:Frank Capra]];
2. remove all instances of its use (10 locations per what links here) and add in the Frank Capra template to any locations where both weren't already in use;
3. make a dummy edit to the Frank Capra template and leave a copyright attribution edit summary like: Note: prior edits by me merged content from [[Template:Why We Fight]]; see that page's history for attribution.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'll get to those fixes in a bit. On the notice, I see that when there is a multiple problem template the new notice you created isn't visible. How about adding it to that one. It now reads This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page with a link to 'improve it' which leads to the article's edit box. Maybe add in a (see how) which links to the see how page, This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it (see how) or discuss these issues on the talk page. That might expand the work and concept on the many pages which have multiple templates. (added: noticed that the "learn how" sentence isn't on the "BLP sources" template as yet. Yes, looks like I've become a fan of the concept) Thanks again, Randy Kryn 11:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Randy you don't even know how much that helps. You know how you can get stuck in a conceptual framework and can't see past it? I was meaning to add it into multiple issues – doing so as one of the first templates was part of the proposal, but it would not work well with the language that was composed for the other templates, and the only reason I had not added it in, was because I was struggling with how to modify the longer statement and add it in as a separate stateement on the page – mired in that paradigm. Your suggestion which integrates it into the existing text there is perfect!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad the suggestions seems okay. I checked the page views on your connected article and it looks like they're up to 2,500. So if even one percent a day who look at it are actually inspired to improve an article, that's 25 newly engaged worker bees, ah, I mean Wikipedians, buzzing away. Enjoying the hive. Again, nice work. Randy Kryn 13:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Steel-cut oats

Thank you very much for your insightful & thoughtful input. I appreciate your comments on the matter. The reason I went through that circuitous path of dispute resolution, is that I received no guidance on the matter, I was stumbling along till I can find the help I needed.

By the way, what do you call that "floating cube" that is floating on your page that links to the "rail". Also, when I saw your user name I thought you were cursing me out :)

MrX2077 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Earl Wilson, Jr.

In regard these items, which I edited, and copyright issues on the following:

!. Let My People Come, Village Gate poster and 2. Photo of Earl Wilson, Jr. and Earl Wilson, Sr.

These two items relate to Earl Wilson, Jr. who is a personal friend and a colleague.

These items were given to me by Wilson in order to complete the edits.

Certainly they can be removed if necessary, but if there is another way to deal with maintaining them, please let me know.

I'm a Wikipedia newbie, as you know!

Wordmasternewyork Wordmasternewyork (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

thanks for answers and new questions

Thanks for your Tea House answers and pointing out my copyright violation. This raises new questions.

1) Can you point me to the copyright rules which I apparently violated?

2) Can you further explain the steps needed to correct my errors?

3) Can you explain the conditions in which one may drastically rewrite an existing article?

Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Zappos.com

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Zappos.com, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. →The Pancake of Heaven! (T  • C  • E) 14:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Stever Draft

Hello Fuhghettaboutit,

Apologies if I've missed your response, but I'd like to tie up the loose ends on the Michael Stever draft in order to achieve its publication.

As mentioned, Stever himself provided the information that was deleted. So, do I rewrite or get a formal permission from him?

When this is clarified I can also attend to formatting the references.

Thanks! wordmasternewyorkWordmasternewyork (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

rejoin discussion

Sir or madam: I hope you will rejoin the discussion after answering my question in Tea House. Please see my newer question "changing title, infringing copyright.TBR-qed (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Michael Stever Edit

Hello fuhghettaboutit,

FYI I've rewritten the Michael Stever entry, provided inline citations and submitted a new photo, which I do own the copyright to since it was taken by me.

I believe the article is within Wiki parameters (to the best of my ability as a newbie).

Thanks,

wordmasternewyork ````

Clean up templates

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, would you please take a look at Template_talk:Multiple_issues#Template-protected_edit_request_on_3_June_2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you.

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for starting Help:Maintenance template removal. You contributed significantly to this powerful concept and I think it will guide Wikipedia community culture. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

PUPHAM-RCG DELETITION

Hi, the wiki page PUPHAM-RCG shouldn't be deleted because it does not violate any copyright infringement from pupham.webs.com since I am the owner of that site and it is my content that is shared there. Of any documents or proofs needed I would be glad to present. BTW im new to Wikipedia style wiki's so please excuse me if I have done anything wrong. Thanks! Mpuria (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mpuria. The fact you are the owner of the website and the author of the material means you have the ability to make its content legally usable here by releasing the copyright under a free copyright license. It does not mean you did not violate copyright – because you cannot retain non-free copyright and use that content here. Note that text is automatically non-free copyrighted by default (no notice on the website is required to make it copyrighted).

Other than short quotes, marked as such using quotation marks and cited using an inline citation, to be used here all text must either be affirmatively released into the public domain, or under a suitably free copyright license. There are a few ways to release the content, but it must be done in a verifiable way, such as i) posting the release of the content at the external website, or demonstrating you are the owner by sending a suitable release from an email address associated with the domain name and it being archived through the OTRS system.

For details on the exact methods you might use and instructions, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and specifically the subsection of that page known by the shortcut WP:DONATETEXT.

All that being said, Wikipedia is not a place for promotion (yes, that includes of non-profits, charities and other "noble causes"), and all articles must demonstrate the notability of the topic by citation to reliable, secondary sources, entirely independent of the topic, that treat it in substantive detail (not just mere mentions). So, even if you go through the effort of releasing this material, that is no guarantee that the subject will meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for inclusion of an article on PUPHAM-RCG. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I have already edited the content of the website and also noted that all contents are copyrighted under CC-BY-SA 3.0

Also could I have access to the content of the deleted page or if possible to restore it so I could edit some other portions of it to make it inline to the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Regards Mpuria (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mpuria: Good job. I feel obliged to tell you that (as I intimated above) I don't think this is a notable subject and the article is likely a good target for deletion on the merits on that basis, but the copyright issue is taken care of and I have undeleted. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Tonight's the Night (1934 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tonight's the Night (1934 film). Since you had some involvement with the Tonight's the Night (1934 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Floating cube

I do no know if you remember me, we spoke on the steel-cut oats article, I been meaning to ask you what is this floating cube on your page & I would make one for myself

MrX2077 (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey MrX2077. The cube is billiard chalk -- I am a serious player. To adapt this for your own uses, click edit at the top of my [this] talk page you will see some code starting with

<div style="position: </div> 

and ending with

</div>
</div>
</div>

Copy that and paste at your talk page. In the code you will see in the mix both the name of a file and the name of a Wikipedia page. The file supplies what image will be floating. The link is what that image links to when clicked on. So, choose a file you want to float (it must be a free file, e.g., one from the Wikimedia Commons) and replace the one I used in the code; choose what article you want that image to link to and replace that as well—and you should be good to go. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

New article on Phila Hach-need critique

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I have a new article, my fifth. If you have time, please look it over look over it before I move it to mainspace. User:Eagledj/sandbox/Phila Hach I know not to use access dates for paper sources, but the paper is not really paper– it is online. I also have some doubts about my pronunciation using the IPA (I have tried my best)- - - also questioning whether to italicize names of self-published cookbooks. As always, I appreciate your opinion greatly. Thanks for helping me in the “Did You Know. . . “ with my article Tom Collins(producer). Best regards— eagledj Eagledj (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj! I'll take a look soon. You will have to turn elsewhere for your IPA to be checked though. I am hopeless at it. I would ask for help with that at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fuhghettaboutit- Thanks for the edits, as always. I have moved the article to mainspace. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey Fuhghettaboutit- A tag has been placed on the Phila Hach article. The article may sound like a personal reflection, but I never met Hach or any of her family and I have ample sources for the statements I made. Nevertheless, I have subsequently made several edits to correct incidences of puffy or non-neutral language that had sneaked in. The "opinion essay" criticism may be for the "anecdote" section, but these are labeled as ANECDOTES. If you will, please weigh in and remove this tag unless you have further thoughts. Your edits were spot-on and really helped the article. Later, Eagledj (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Phila Hach

Great job with the article. I was just wondering: is it really "File-ah Hah" (is there possibly a source?). Silent cs like that seem really unusual. I popped her name into YouTube to see if I could hear someone in the know pronouncing it and came upon an interview with her (apparently from Southern Foodways Alliance [which I won't link since it looks like a copyright violation, since not uploaded by them]) but she never said the name. Hmm. Maybe I should just say "nevermind"—I just realized, you wrote in the article that "Hachland" is pronounced like "Holland", which is absolutely consistent.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

: Dear Fuhghettaboutit, Yes, of course I'm sure about the pronunciation. Everybody knows her around Nashville. My problem was "Hachland". While writing the article, I knew I had read somewhere that "Hachland" was pronounced "Holland", but I couldn't find the source again, so I picked up the phone and called the venue, and they answered, "Holland Hill". I was satisfied. I never would have written that unless I was sure of it. My best Eagledj (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

An Apology

I am sorry and apologize for my disruptive and uncivil behavior on the Wikipedia Teahouse a year and a quarter ago. I am sorry for all the rude things that I said to the Wikipedia community and about falsely accusing you of having an agenda against hate groups, pseudoscience promoters, and pedophiles. I wasn't thinking clearly then. To be clear, I do not support or advocate these group's ideologies, especially those of pedophiles who view adult-child sexual relationships as healthy and safe, on-or-off Wikipedia. Editors who hold viewpoints that support the ideologies of hate groups, pedophiles who promote pedophilia, or edit articles to support their views must not be allowed on Wikipedia. Please forgive me. Frogger48 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Renaming

Template:Renaming has been nominated for merging with Template:HD/move. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Pppery (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Creation

Template:Creation has been nominated for merging with Template:HD/new. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Pppery (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

References

There are some wiki pages where I would like to add some references. I was wondering if I could do that. Could you guide me? Tom (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Movepagetext

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I've made an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Movepagetext#Protected edit request on 13 August 2016 regarding a change you proposed for it in 2010, but should be modified per WP:R#SUPPRESS. May you take a look? It's essentially replacing the large paragraph with what's been suggested. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I was going to post this on the Teahouse below your response but I copy-pasted and posted here to avoid fighting in an edit conflict...

What does it mean to be worthy of notice? How do we know that the Aerican Empire is worthy of notice while the Kingdom of North Sudan is not? This is subjective; Bob may think that the Banana Republic is worthy of notice while Joe thinks it is not. Joe may think that his hometown is worthy of notice, but Bob may disagree. That may be a conflict of interest. How do we know if anything is worthy of notice or not? Someone might say 'Hey! I claim my backyard as my own country!' That did happen. It's called Molossia. If the majority of people think that something is worthy or unworthy of notice, then Wikipedia can be subject to bias. The majority of human beings can be biased towards one thing and against something else. If almost everyone has a negative POV against former president Nixon, that shouldn't mean that by consensus Wikipedia should allow editors to write about Richard Nixon from a negative POV, even if an insignificant minority doesn't share that POV against Nixon. That wouldn't make Wikipedia NPOV anymore. I believe that NPOV should mean NPOV. I don't want Wikipedia to be written from the perspective shared by a dominant majority, because the majority's POV is obviously still biased. I may be taking Wikipedia's neutralist philosophy too far, am I? --Turkeybutt (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You're conflating different concepts. Notability has very little to do with NPOV. As to notability, we don't employ any such vague, subjective standard as you're talking about. We determine notability by whether there exists reliable secondary sources treating a topic in substantive detail. If you read the deletion debate on Kingdom of North Sudan, as linked at the Teahouse by me to give your initial post context, then you'll see that the debate as to notability resolved on the existence, or not, of those sources. That debate does have a second component in that part of the issue focused on whether WP:ONEEVENT applied, which defines special treatment of topics that are single events, but the issue still resolves on existence or not of sources. So, to answer the question from your first sentence: we don't compare Kingdom of North Sudan with Aerican Empire, we look at each separately to see if the type and depth of sourcing to demnstrate notability exists, and if it does we keep it, and if we decide they don't we delete.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Page Help

Hi there,

You had edited/deleted a page I created for Frank E. Celli. Before trying to recreate the page again, I wanted to make sure I understood why you deleted it in the first place. I saw you mentioned the copyright infringment issue and we are paraphrasing/reworking the text so that it is not a direct copy from our website. Secondly, you mentioned Unambiguous advertising or promotion, we are not trying to advertise for BioHiTech, we just wanted to create a page with more info on Frank and his company. We can supply additional press pieces and events that Frank has participated in to show that he is a leader in the waste management industry as well as a thought leader for sustainability and food waste disposal. We plan to include both new text and more references to press, etc, but just wanted to check if this is correct and if the page will then be okay. Please let me know. Thanks! Ccioffe (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ccioffe. As to copyright, as we often tell people: "You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words." Even if a person owns the copyrighted text they can't use it here while retaining non-free ownership of that material. The way Wikipedia's licensing works is that to use all of Wikipedia's content (outside of fair use material and some exceptions not germane here), is promised to its readers, the public at large, as bearing very unrestrictive free copyright licenses, that allows our readers to take the content and modify it and re-use even for commercial purposes, with the only restriction being suitable attribution to Wikipedia's contributors as the source and posting of the license. This, in turn, means that Wikipedia cannot use non-free copyrighted content under a one-time license offered by an owner. Rather, we need copyright owners to provide an affirmative copyright release of their content to the world (permanently and irrevocably) into the public domain or under a suitably free copyright license.

While the license can be released to make it usable on Wikipedia, most people are not willing to give up most rights to their writing used elsewhere, and in any event, the content was not suitable for use here, as written, for other reasons (I'll get to that below). Lastly as to copyright, you say you are "paraphrasing/reworking the text so that it is not a direct copy". Please be aware that close paraphrasing – superficial modification by changing a word here and there – is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement.

As to promotion, while I've read more blatant panegyrics, it still read much more like a commercial, extolling the virtues of the subject, quite unlike what the proper content of an encyclopedia article. Some examples: "Frank has leveraged his knowledge of the traditional waste industry to facilitate..." that is blatant, empty, puffery ad-speak. More of the same "BioHiTech is committed to providing transparency ... delivers reliable, manageable, and secure reporting data..." – unrepetant advertising language, hawking the company. This is not surprising given that the content came from the company's website and that you are obviously a party with a conflict of interest in writing it.

In that regard unless I am very wrong about that, you are a paid advociate for the topic and are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User talk:Ccioffe. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ccioffe|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}.

Finally, even if a second effort avoids any copyright issue, and is written in a far more neutral manner, that does not mean an article on the topic is warranted. I don't know if one is, but the prior content failed to demonstrate any notability of the subject. An encyclopedia only properly contains articles on topics of knowledge. Wikipedia employs the concept of notability to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics by attempting to ensure that the subjects of articles are "worthy of notice" – by only including articles on topics that the world has taken note of by substantively treating them in reliable sources unconnected with the topic. Notability is the predominant content inclusion standard, though it works hand in glove with verifiability. The general notability standard thus presumes that topics are notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources written by third parties that are unconnected with the topic. The prior article used exactly the types of sources that do not meet these standard – primary, insider sources, like the company's website, press releases, LinkedIn and so forth. That will not be acceptable. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

John Love (scientist)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, please can you undelete John Love (scientist) as he meets WP:NPROF 1 and 2 (at least) and [16]. Thanks, regards Widefox; talk 16:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Widefox. As I'm sure you know, A7 is not at a test of notability – the merits of the topic to warrant an article – but rather is based on the failure of the content to even assert any importance or significance. Still, you might be thinking there was some real content here that might save some work in attempting a real write up – but there wasn't. It was just what looks like a drive-by copy and paste from the middle of a résumé: a list of a few publications (and therefore not unlikely that it was a copyvio), with no prose provided and not even the context of something like "John Love is a scientist..." So there's nothing worthwhile to undelete. Be bold and create a real article. I'll gladly help if you'd like.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with you then, although a list of publications would be useful and don't think we have to worry about copyvio as it's just facts not creative content so copyright doesn't apply. One of his publications is a classic used in another article, so the publications are important. Anyhow, I will recreate and I'd appreciate if you can put the publications list on the talk page (always difficult when I can't see what's been deleted). Widefox; talk 21:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

hey why you deleted the page can you please explain me ?? TaqdeerDaFakeer (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi TaqdeerDaFakeer. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, only contained properly containing articles on topics of knowledge. It is not a social networking sites. It doesn't have articles about people unless they are notable, in the special way we mean that word to mean topics that the world has taken note of by third parties writing about them in reliable, secondary sources that are unconnected to the topic. With that background, we have certain criteria for speedy deletion of articles that are created. In this case, the article was deleted under section A7 of those criteria, which is for articles that do not even indicate the importance or significance of the article topic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Readers contributions

Hello, did you check the conversation around readers contributions here, your input is appreciated :). Thanks --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your support of the Hallet Davis Piano Draft! HS188EP (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you come back and review for final submission? HS188EP (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind reviewing again. I appreciate your feedback the most since it has the most validity, and you also provided suggestions with changes. Thank you

Lego: The Adventures of Andre and Wally B.

My objection to Lego: The Adventures of Andre and Wally B. was the Lego parts added to a copy of the existing The Adventures of André and Wally B. article; not that the original film never existed. Trivialist (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Trivialist. That does give rise to two separate valid speedy deletion criteria you might have used. First, this was a copy without copyright attribution and thus was technically subject to G12, but the most common tagging basis for a page like this would be A10 - for recently created articles that duplicate an existing topic. But what this very much wasn't, on its face, was a hoax. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Theatre

I just noticed this. What a mess. Where do we go from here? Jonathunder (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Jonathunder. I'm hoping to learn more when I get a response from Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_31#Copyright violation investigation assistance. If it turns out the site did not copy from the book, then it can be cleared up. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion Request for User:Paulbenhaim

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

The page User:Peaulbenhaim was speedily deleted by you. Please release the content of the page to me so I can work on it to be in line with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you --Paulbenhaim (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I have emailed you the content. Please understand that it is unsalvageably promotional for use anywhere on Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Theatre

I think we are both working on this; hopefully we are not at cross purposes. I seem to be locked out at the moment. I will check back in later. Thank you. KIRTIS (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi KIRTIS. See my response two posts above. Hopefully, this can be cleared up soon. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm still a bit daunted trying to understand what might be in question. If it is a concern about copyrighted material from the book Images of America: Robbinsdale by Peter James Ward Richie (which is cited) I think I can help clear it up. I am in touch with the author. He contributed much of the text on Wiki as Nokohaha. I recently reviewed the text in the book and edited the section about Midco to more accurately reflect what Pete states in the book (but in my own words).

I also added a citation that may or may not be acceptable. I just watched video of the July 5 Special Meeting of the Robbinsdale Economic Development Association, in which Kent Carlson of Inland Development Partners states the current ownership of the building. Is that a proper source to cite? If not I will try to do more research as to the current ownership.

Thank you very much for your help and patience with me, a new user!

KIRTIS (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

ESS

Hi, Concerning page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ksiarkiewicz/European_Society_of_Surgery).

I've just fixed some sentences and changed words due to keep copyright. I updated also few information. I hope that it should be ok now. This article is shortened but it contains most important data about society. If you don't find more issues, please give me permission to publish it. I appreciate your help. Ksiarkiewicz (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ksiarkiewicz. I only acted as to the copyright infringement, I was not assessing the article. What you need to do is place {{subst:submit}} at the top of the page, then click save changes. That will submit the article for review by an articles for creation reviewer. However, I can tell you that the sourcing in the article is not so great. I think you should add further content citing to reliable, secondary independent sources. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Sukuk

Hi, thanks for your note on my talk page recently. Can you please look here & tell me if it is ok in terms of copyright? Thanks much in advance (same source). 47.17.18.64 (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Terrace Theatre (Minnesota)

Dear Fuhgettaboutit,

Thank you for your help with the Terrace Theatre (Minnesota) article. Someone named BirdtownBovine appears to have filed a copyright violation based on this sentence:

When the 1,300 seat Terrace Theater opened in 1951, the spectacular venue was the most up-to-date, luxurious, and comfortable theater in America.

I am happy to cite this source, (presumably Twin Cities Picture Show) but I do not have a copy of the book in order to check to be certain that's where the sentence came from. I am adding "considered" to the sentence to make it more neutral. Should I cite the source here or not?

Also, it seems like the "References" list has disappeared? Or perhaps it is automatically generated. Again, sorry, my ignorance is showing.

KIRTIS (talk) 11:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ann Dunham

You added Talk:Ann Dunham#Copyright problem removed. That would normally be the right thing to do, but is it appropriate in this case? I'm not going to spend significant time investigating the issue, but it looks like a conspiracy-theory website peddling something which may have no resemblance with reality. At any rate, the IP is not going to take any notice of the talk page (I reverted another edit), so I don't see why the dubious external link should be retained, even on the talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Johnuniq. You have my approval to remove it; please go ahead. But I think the template serves an important (if not critical) function, and don't see how this use materially differs from others uses. Whether the person placing it is likely to see it is not a significant calculus in why its placement is useful, and the relative reliability of the source that was copied has even less bearing on that purpose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The only reason I mentioned the issue is that I think the link is pushing conspiracy theory nonsense about Obama and, in this case, Obama's mother. Such links are often removed when they serve no purpose other than some kind of off-wiki campaign or promotion of the external website. Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: We are ever a target for that offal. I'm glad people like you are out there being vigilant because I start to feel so disgusted and frustrated even interacting with purveyors with it, that I try to avoid areas where it crops up often. After once wading through the conspiracy theory arguments on our 911 article talk page I felt like I needed a shower.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Quantum Energy

Hi there, I note that a page previously existed for this company and was deleted by you as an attack page. I never saw that page, I don't think, so you were likely right about that, although in my opinion we're currently overdoing caution where he's concerned. In any event though, the topic is more notable than it might seem, mostly as detail about government corruption in Angola. I'm wondering whether you salted it and also whether you had any specific ccncerns that I should address if, as seems likely, we need an article on this. If it was the part about using the sovereign wealth find of Angola in his personal real estate projects, this is highly reference-able Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Quantum Global Group Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the Rebekah Radice page

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. How is the Rebekah Radice page any different than this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Kawasaki ? They are peers and the same type of content appears there. Please explain. Also, the page was edited and there was no longer any copyright issues.Pnnduvall

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Thank you for clarifying. Not sure why you are so rude. I've never posted anything on WIkipedia so i'm learning as I go. I hope your mood improves (or at least you stop being rude to strangers). --Pnnduvall (talk)

Block of Cduggan4

I saw that you blocked this editor for copyright concerns. The material in question was from the US Department of Justice website, specifically at [17]. Since they're a federal government entity, their work is normally in the public domain. The copyright policy for the usdoj.gov site is "Unless otherwise indicated, information on Department of Justice websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the Department of Justice as source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. The use of any Department of Justice seals, however, is protected and requires advance authorization, as described below." [18]. The PDF cited does not "otherwise indicate" that it is not in the public domain, so I do not believe that this editor was violating copyright. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Seraphimblade. Right – that was sloppy. I should have noticed the URL rather than just at the page which contains no indication where it's from. That does not mean it's not a copyright violation – only if it was created by a federal government employee in the course of their work and not licensed from the subject. And I am not at all sure the DOJ page is the original source of the second two paragraphs; the first paragraph, duplicated in the DOJ material, preexists: found here. I can't access that link but the Google preview shown here, indicates it's from 2011. Of course, even if it was all from the DOJ source, and we knew it was not provided under license, it would still be plagiarism unless the user proved it was their own writing. If after I posted to the talk page some actual discussion and disclosure was started before just reposting... but that happens only once in a blue moon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an account at that site, but I'll take your word for it. Seems it's the DOJ who's being sloppy then. If they're going to say material is in the PD on their site unless they note otherwise, they certainly should make sure to note otherwise when that doesn't apply. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Viola Group draft page deleted for alleged copyright violation & "blatantly promotional" language

You have deleted the draft page I created for Viola Group for apparently violating copyright. I don't believe that I am in violation of copyright.

I would like to point out that I have stated on my user page - as requested by "Huon" at Wikipedia - that I am an employee of the Viola Group. If I have used some language in the draft page that sounds similar to wording in our company website or blog, it's because there is no other way to say it, or saying it differently may render the statements inaccurate. In any case, I would like to know which sentences specifically were allegedly copied from "an external source", that apparently violated copyright so severely that you deemed it appropriate to delete the entire page as a result (instead of requesting that one or two sentences be rewritten, for example).

As for being "blatantly promotional", once again, I respectfully disagree. The text in my draft was completely devoid of adjectives, superlatives or any sales or promotional language, and I made a special effort to make sure of it. The draft was purely informational in nature. Please point out the exact bits that you deemed to be promotional.

Nlizor (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nizor. The text in your draft contained corporate ad-speak language, which is not surprising since much of the prose was illegally copied from Viola Group's website—yes, indeed, word-for-word copied or bearing some minor surface modification, which is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement. Even if you own the content or have the authority over the entity owner to release it, you cannot post it here and retain non-free copyright ownership of it elsewhere (and few commercial ventures would want to to give up the rights to their content, even if suitable for use here).

Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising and self-promotion. We have a mandatory requirement that people disclose their conflict of interest, paid editing. We tolerate such editing – most if us with our noses held, while rightfully viewing and treating such edits with suspicion, given the incompatible aims of such editing with most of our inclusion standards. It's good that you provided paid editing disclosure (though apparently only complied with after you were told by Huon to do so, as you note above, rather than done voluntarily without prompting; it must have been when you were using a different account or editing by your IP address, since I don't see that in this account's history). I'm not sure why you're mentioning it though, seemingly offered as if to say that somehow minimizes or excuses some issue here. We do not 'give out gold stars' for complying with mandatory policies. As to the copying:

http://www.seekerurls.com/www.violape.com & http://www.viola-group.com/#/About:

"viola group is backed by leading global institutional investors from all over the world"

Draft:

"The group is backed by leading global institutional investors from all over the world"

(As an example, this copied statement is one that no neutral encyclopedia article would properly ever contain; blatant corporate ad-speak puffery)

Website:

"technology focused growth capital and buyout fund; and viola partners – an exclusive investment fund mainly for private investors"

Draft:

"technology-focused growth capital and buyout fund; and Viola Partners – an exclusive investment fund mainly for private investors"

Website:

"with over $2.5 billion under management, is israel’s premier technology oriented private equity investment group"

Draft:

"Israeli technology oriented private equity investment group with over $2.5 Billion under management"

This is followed by short résumés for each founder (which, by the way, is also a copyright violation – it's copied from a prior version of Carmel Ventures, without attribution when copied over by you; see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), followed by the unencylopedic listing of "Active Portfolio Companies" and "Exits". Promotion is not tone and adjectives alone, but the way things are said and what is chosen to be included (and avoided)—in what is supposed to be a neutral write-up on something in which you have no stake.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page patrol

Thank you for your recent edits to improve the text of the COPYVIO section, they really are very welcome but don't kick the efforts of those who have done most of the work before you turned up. I would appreciate therefore if you could be less condescending and patronisising in the tone of your edit summaries. Some of us are working literally day and night to improve this, to find ways of reducing the monumental backlog, travelled round the world to meet with the developers, started the project at WP:NPPAFC, and finally gotten the whole WMF running round in circles to help us. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You know, I'm burnt out, no excuse but I am. I feel like mostly what I interact with now is editors here to promote there businesses. All I do is deal with copyright violations and commercials, and all the time I've spent here trying to fix it (yeah, I'm one of those whose worked day and night – for over ten years) the thousands and thousands of deletions I've done, the attempts to reform policy for pragmatic solutions knocked down on an altar of using kid gloves with spammers; yet we are drowning in them, worse than ever; and when I saw that NPP page said so little about copyvios – those edit summaries are me venting that building frustration in finding our first line of defense said so little.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If as I do, you understand that NPP is indeed our first (and practically only) line of defence, then if you have not already done so, you could help by commenting in the RfCs about what can be done to improve it. RfC have a tendency these days to fail because our weird democracy allows all kinds of people to join in who genuinely don't have a clue what it's all about, or who just come along to have a jab at the proposers.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I've spent another five hours at Wikipedia:New pages patrol getting it right before the new user group is created. Your recent edits created a lot of redundant text which I have removed, but I have kept yours as they are much better, and moved things around a bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Klaus Mietusch

I did not see the rev-del... Could this be looked into? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey K.e.coffman. I'm looking into it now. I try to be careful but when I do these I always have many tabs open, so I might have gotten confused somewhere. I'll report back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Okay, so this was a bit of you and a bit of me:-) I had seen the copyvio was by Joep01 but didn't check that the oldid you used in the copyvio-revdel template was the correct revision by that user; you placed oldid 457507009, which targets the revision "16:15, October 26, 2011‎ Joep01", when the copoyvio was added in oldid 457510304 which targets the revision "6:36, October 26, 2011‎ Joep01" It's corrected now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. In similar cases, I've seen all revs deleted up to the first clean version. For example, I can still see the copyvio text in this earlier revision: link. Compare with Günther Seeger, where the none of the copyvio revisions are visible. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: You know I really think we need to have a community discussion about this issue. Let's back up. When you are using {{copyvio-revdel}} you can specify what single revision you want RevDeleted, or what span of revisions. In this instance you only specified one revision, But you're absolutely correct that that we sometimes delete all revisions containing the copyvio, so that it is entirely hidden from access – deleting the revision that added the infringement and through the revision immediately preceding the removal.

The problem comes in when there are many other edits by other users spanning the dates that will necessarily also be hidden. Those additions are also copyright protected (they are in fact personally owned by each user, so long as they were sufficiently substantive to enjoy copyright protection). The way our copyright licenses work, copyright attribution to the users is provided by the page history, which does not work when the edits have been hidden. So we have these competing concerns: One the one hand, removing infringements from view (which is important), but on the other, providing copyright attribution to our contributors (which is important).

I usually treat it as a balancing act: if there are numerous edits in between the infringement and its discovery and reversion, I will usually just hide the edit that added the copyvio, even though the text of the infringement can still be seen in the history. And if there are not numerous edits by others (or they are superficial) I will hide all in between. I know of no guideline that directly addresses the issue though, or whether it's ever been discussed directly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see that a range can be specified, which I missed. This was one of the first ones I placed a rev-del request on, so I'll keep it in mind. In this particular case, if possible, I'd prefer the revisions up to the first clean version be removed from view. The content is essentially unreliably sourced "fancruft" and does not add value to the project. The revdel would prevent restoration of this dubious material. If you'd rather not do that, I could ask another admin. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: No, it's okay, I've RevDeleted the intervening dates, since there really was little original content betwixt and between.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrace theatre (Minnesota)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I pinged you, but am also posting here as a courtesy. You did some pretty major cleanup on Terrace theatre (Minnesota) back in September. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Terrace Theatre (Minnesota)#Copyvio when you get a spare moment or two? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(Replied there)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Resnick images

Hi again Fuhghettaboutit. Since you've already posted at User talk:Michaelphmccarty#Return of images to Arron Resnick, I am wondering if you might also not mind taking a look at User talk:Michaelphmccarty#File:Resnick and Wright.jpg. A new local version of the same file has been just uploaded by the editor so there are now three versions of it floating around on Wikipedia and Commons. The Commons' version has been tagged with OTRS permission and if verified there will be no need for the two local versions. The same editor has also uploaded other duplicate files so they might not quite understand how OTRS works and that verification sometimes takes time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly. I'll look soon. Sorry for the delay.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. Just for reference the editor posted an explanation for the duplicate uploads at User talk:Marchjuly#Resnick photos. I think they mean well and just might be a little frustrated by the whole image approval process, but even so I'm still not sure if triplicates of the same file are needed. I guess we can wait to see what Commons OTRS does. If they approve the files uploaded there, then the duplicates on Wikipedia can probably be tagged per WP:F8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Molly Nilsson

Hola (disculpa que te escribo en español, pero mi nivel de inglés es bajisimo, y creo que si traducis este mensaje vas a entender mejor todo, gracias).

Quería saber porque borraste el artículo de Molly Nilsson en esta Wikipedia. Si fue por un simple plagio, te tengo que informar que casi el 75% del artículo era copia de su versión al español de mí autoría, que lo hicimos en el contexto de un Wikiproyecto que hace artículos de biografías o sobre mujeres, para cerrar la brecha de género que hay en la WP, o por lo menos en la versión en español.

Un saludo afectuoso : ) --Gelpgim22 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gelpgim22. Like you, but the opposite direction, I am much more comfortable writing in English – and even a machine translation would likely be better than me attempting to write it directly in Spanish (I am posting that machine translation below).

Since you indicate the deleted article was written by you, and that article was created and every edit to it was by User:Synpathic, can you please advise why you are using multiple accounts?

Regarding the deletion, please see the message I left at User talk:Synpathic. The issue is that the content of Molly Nilsson was lifted (copied and pasted) in its entirety from the pre-existing draft at Draft:Molly Nilsson, which you can see, still exists. That draft article is waiting for a review, as submitted through the Articles for Creation project (though I can tell you right now that it has a glaring problem in that the draft does not demonstrate notability well, lacking citation to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the subject in substantive detail).

We don't allow the hijacking of drafts, written by other people, nor multiple copies of the same content under different titles. Also, by taking that content without copyright attribution to its creator, Shavtay, as required by our licenses was copyright infringement and plagiarism – unless you are also Shavtay. I do see you are saying you wrote the content at the Spanish Wikipedia article, and that this was a translation of the copy. That does raise yet another copyright issue, which is very fixable. If so, that draft should mention it is a translated copy, in an edit summary linking to the Spanish article. That is easy to do using a "dummy edit". Can you please attempt to understand these issues and advise. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Máquina traductora: Hola Gelpgim22. Al igual que usted, pero la dirección opuesta, estoy mucho más cómodo escribir en Inglés - e incluso una traducción automática sería probablemente mejor que yo intentar escribir directamente en español (me anuncio que la traducción automática más adelante).

Ya que indican el artículo eliminado fue escrito por usted, y que ha sido elaborada y cada edición de Era por Usuario:Synpathic, puede usted por favor avise por qué está utilizando varias cuentas?

En cuanto a la eliminación, consulte el mensaje que dejé en User talk:Synpathic. La cuestión es que se levantó el contenido de Molly Nilsson (copiar y pegar) en su totalidad desde el proyecto preexistente al Draft:Molly Nilsson, que se puede ver, todavía existe. Que el artículo está a la espera para una revisión, cuando las envían a través de los artículos para el proyecto de la creación (aunque puedo decir ahora mismo que tiene un problema evidente de que el proyecto no demuestra [[|notabilidad bien, a falta de citación de |fuentes confiables, secundaria, independientes que tratan el tema en detalle sustantivo).

No permitimos que el secuestro de corrientes de aire, escrito por otras personas, ni las múltiples copias del mismo contenido bajo diferentes títulos. Además, mediante la adopción de ese contenido sin la atribución de derechos de autor a su creador, Shavtay, como es requerido por nuestras licencias era una infracción de copyright y el plagio - a menos que esté también Shavtay. Veo que usted está diciendo que escribió el contenido en el artículo Wikipedia en español, y que esta era una traducción de la copia. Eso plantea otra cuestión de derechos de autor, que es muy corregible. Si es así, que el proyecto debe mencionar que es una copia traducida, en un resumen de edición que une a este artículo española. Esto es fácil de hacer usando un "[[WP:DUMMY|maniquí de edición". ¿Puede por favor tratar de comprender estas cuestiones y asesorar. Gracias--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, hmm. On second thought, even though the deleted page and the draft are near identical looking, when closely examined they are slightly different. So, maybe they were actually created independently (both failing to provide mandatory copyright attribution to the Spanish source of course), and the reason they are near identical is because each dumped a machine translation. I didn't think of that b/c it's a most unusual situation. If so, I still think the draft should have its attribution fixed, and go through articles for creation (though it's fairly certain to be rejected, for good reason, as I noted above). Nevertheless, that changes matters significantly. Still, it was still a technical copyright violation, even if I was incorrect that it was a copy of the draft and even though though of the kind we usually fix rather than delete under CSD G12; might be subject to CSD A7; and currently fails to show notability.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin

Hi. For me, this edit looks strange. Do you think you could have a look at it? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ladislav Mecir. I reviewed this edit for copyright problems upon a different request; my response is here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

unusual performers
... you were recipient no. 283 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! Always a pleasure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

So that you don't fuhgett: five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

... and six! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Yana Zhdanova

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, I thank you for your suggestions in Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I made all the changes mentioned in your comments, as well as in the hidden comments within the text concerning the article tone and the quote. Furthermore, I added a source (n°6) to justify Lukashenko's negative image, and deleted the word "corrupted" from the sentence "the corrupted policy of Yulia Tymoshenko". I am sincerely for a real neutral, I would say archival tone in a Wikipedia article, leaving the reader to make up his/her mind. However, I admit that being the author of this text, I can sometimes compose a sentence that could seem not really neutral; not necessarily because I want to express my personal opinion, or to flatter the person or the event I am writing about, but simply because I try to give more information to the reader. So I would be grateful to you if you could tell me whether you find any other points in this draft that sound non-neutral. Thanks again.FRANC85 (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Badol1234

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Ever since I noticed Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 537#Help for User:Badol1234 by Robert McClenon, I've been watching the contributions by Badol1234. While I think this editor is trying to contribute in good faith, there does seem to be a bit of a WP:CIR issue developing. The editor seems to have a problem grasping WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR which is not such a big deal because articles are created/deleted all the time for a lack of notability. My real concern has more to do with their file uploads since there appear to be uploading photos of actresses, etc. that they are finding online, maybe from Facebook accounts based upon the file names. The first time around on something like this it's easy to assume good faith and write it off as inexperienced. The editor has been doing the same thing over and over again despite multiple warnings. They also seem to be recreating articles which have been previously deleted. Not sure how to best proceed here since they do seem to be able to communicate in English when they choose to do so, but do not seem to be willing to heed the advice of others. It's almost SPA-like and is starting to (unintentionally perhaps) move towrds WP:DE. Any suggestions on how best to proceed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you, User:Marchjuly. I noticed that Badol1234 just created an article on Moonmoon, who is the same as the subject of WP:Articles for deletion/MOONMOON (although the incorrect case of the original made it initially difficult for me to find - a move to correct the case would have been in order except that it was pending the AFD). That's a WP:G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, Robert McClenon: Hey guys. After a deep dive into the edits, they're not all in good faith. Regardless, I agree, the competence issue is plain. I've gone ahead and composed a detailed final warning at User talk:Badol1234#General problematic editing; a Final warning. Competence issues are so much harder to deal with than plain old vandalism (the balancing act between our normal treatment of good faith edits versus the time drain of everything needing to be removed even when not done in bad faith). Do you think I struck the right balance and tone? (Will it even matter?)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Fuhgettaboutit and taking the time to try and explain things to Badol1234. I read your post and it seems fine to me, but whether it makes a difference sort of depends upon Badol1234. I guess we'll have to just wait and see. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the deep drive and for summarizing the issues. I agree that there is a serious problem. I think that the problem has aspects of competency, but it also has aspects of sheer obstinacy, for which the usual Wikipedia phrase is tendentious editing, and tendentious editing is definitely a form of disruptive editing. Having seen all of the evidence that you (Fughettaboutit) provided, if I had seen this at WP:ANI, I would seriously consider proposing a site ban. As a result, the final warning that you provided is an entirely reasonable response. If an indefinite block does prove necessary, I would ask that it be reported at WP:AN (or WP:ANI) so that the community can have the choice to formalize the indefinite block as a ban. Thank you for giving them one last warning and five meters of rope in case it is necessary to hang them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses! Yes I likely would take this to AN to seek a ban or review my block should it come to that (probably not ANI, unless there's a specific incident), but of course, either one of you is welcome to, if the continued edits warrants it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Biography of a living criminal

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I'm working on an article about a prominent Nashville businessman who turned into a major cocaine smuggler (Breaking Bad), Russell Brothers. It is a fascinating story but I have had second thoughts about it because the subject is still alive and due to be released from prison in December of 2016. Even though his name and exploits have been on the front pages of many newspapers in here and elsewhere, something about this gives me pause. He still has an opportunity to live some more years. I'm sure he will eventually be on Wikipedia, but I'm inclined to hold the article for a while, maybe even until his death — he is 78 now. He reportedly enjoys his bad boy image. Anyway, please take a look. Your thoughts ?

Regards as always, Eagledj (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj. As always, you're doing a bang up job in composing the article! By the sources you've uncovered and cited it appears his criminal convictions were rather notorious, with a fair amount of coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. These are convictions so there's no WP:BLPCRIME issue. So I guess the question is, is he sufficiently a public figure? Is this beyond just routine news coverage (I think it is). However, you are not just using newspapers but court cases as sources to verify facts about his criminal history, which seems to be in conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. What I think you should do is ask for some more eyes, of people who are very familiar with these issues, to give you their opinion, and the forum for that appears to be the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It's true that that page's statement of purpose indicates it's more for reporting potential BLP violations, but it seems the best place to find people highly experienced in this area to take a look, and I can't imagine anyone turning you away because you're not reporting an incident but seeking advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century

Hello. Thank you for your comments on my talk page. Would you please review the following text before I change the article? Also, I how do I change the title of the article. I incorrectly have the article as "Frank L. Lautenberg" when it should be "Frank R. Lautenberg". I read some help articles and some have mentioned 'file movers' or someone with administrative rights? Thank you!

Summary text for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century: Signed by President Barack Obama on June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century amends the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, expanding the EPA's authority to protect the public from harmful chemicals (citation https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act-0). The Act mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate existing chemicals with enforceable deadlines, created a risk-based safety standard, provides for more openness for chemical data, and provides a steady source of funding for the EPA to implement these new obligations under the Act. (citation https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act).

Elizabethwhite11 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)elizabethwhite11Elizabethwhite11 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth. Page titles are changed by moving them to new titles (never by copying and pasting them). You are autoconfirmed, so you can move the page. You only need an administrator to move the page when the page title you're seeking to move a page to is already occupied (which is not the case here). As to the text, so long as you don't repeat copying (or close paraphrasing), the text is a start, though the citations need work. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1. (Wikipedia:Citing sources provides a more involved treatment.) In short, what you need are to change those citations into footnotes; you need a references section in the article with a {{Reflist}} template in it; the naked URLs you are using should be changed to provide transparent attribution to the sources (title, publisher, author, date, page, accessdate, etc. – what information you provide for a cited sourced depends on the type of source); and please be aware that primary sources, such as the ones you are have posted for the text above, though they have a role at times, have limitations on their use, and articles should be predominantly based on reliable, secondary sources, written by third parties to the topic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota

Hello Fuhghettaboutit,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I notice you are active in activities related to project page and project talk page, so I wonder if I could invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at bowen@cs.umn.edu if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,

Bowen

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 15:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Fuhghettaboutit.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-redirtypo-notice

Template:Db-redirtypo-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - Tutorial

I still have my doubts that the new New Page Reviewer right is going to have much impact on the quality of reviewing by the non-reviewer users who are still attracted to the MMORPG-style method of moderating Wikipedia. However, it's a baby step that has gotten the issues noticed.

I've bracketed out the much requested Move to Draft feature until we know more about if and when it will be implemented. listed here at Meta and mentioned many times, and listed at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#24. Tool for moving to draftspace for nearly three months. If you are not aware of the survey, you may like to add weight by commenting on it now. Actual voting starts on Nov 28. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Hello Fuhghettaboutit,

Community wishlist poll

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools for reviewing new pages: Vote here.
• Reduce the reviewer workload : Vote here

For NPP: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions re Diane Schuur article

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Forgive me for posting this on your archive page by mistake--it's a wonder you found it. I have done a near total rewrite of a stub article I found, Diane Schuur. When I started, it had a BLP tag dated June 2013 and only 4 citations. I have added a great deal to it both in research and citations and have removed the template. I would appreciate your taking a look at it to see what you think it needs. I have a couple of questions, since you have been my best Wiki teacher in the last coupe of years. QUESTION 1 — the personal life section of the article has some rather sensitive information — well-documented, but possibly embarrassing to the subject. The words came directly from her mouth if one takes the time to watch the interview. QUESTION 2: In the lead, citations 3 and 4 refer to Youtube videos of performances of the Schuur, first at "Kennedy Center Honors" for Stevie Wonder, and the second with Ray Charles. Is Youtube appropriate as a reference? The videos are certainly compelling and do support the statements made, but I do not know how to tell if there is any copyright violation. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eagledj:. I have just finished my copyedit. As usual, a wonderful job. There are a few hidden notes for you to look at. Other than that, I think it's ready for a good article nomination. I was surprised to see that none of the articles you've worked on have been taken there by you, since at least all the ones we've worked on in the past (and this one) seem worthy. Any reason you haven't? Would you want me to do the honors? As to the matters above, I think the sensitive information belongs. It's verified, certainly important to a complete biography, and not dwelled upon by you in your write-up with undue weight. I checked all the YouTube sources. Everything seems okay. The main thing to look for with videos like this is whether the source of publication likely has rights to the material they publish. So, random person posting a video of a BBC new story is a copyvio; BBC posting a video of a BBC new story is A-Okay. HoustonPBS is surely okay. As to the ones posted by Schuur, I suppose it's possible that she didn't have the right to tape or post, but we can't hamstring ourselves over unbounded copyright paranoia. Best--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, You're edits were spot on, thanks. A good collaborator really helps. I have found the three hidden notes you inserted and addressed them. I've also add a few things from a great new source just now which may be clumsily worded, but which I think really improve the article. Would you take a good look at them? Yes, I would like for you to do the honors for good article status if you will. Regards, Eagledj (talk)

Copyright question

Hi Fuhghettaboutit I though I might run this one past you as I remember you gave me my first tea-house introduction to common pitfalls in copyright and I apologise in advance in case you have to pick yourself up off the floor from laughing. If I read the copyright info at Grace's, I get the impression that as long as attribution is given, it is okay to re-use any of the content, also there is a creative commons (CC BY-SA 4.0) license link at the bottom of the page. Specifically, if I wanted to lift an image for an article here under fair use, then under the stated terms I would expect that to be okay, but I guess the onus would be on me to verify the copyright? Since the articles go back to 1856, is there a definitive point in the timeline where one could say copyright is not an issue. Regards CV9933 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey CV9933! The copyright license at the bottom of the page says that the text of the website is released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Unfortunately, then, the license is not applicable to the images. Also, be wary of websites that contain a general release, but then post other people's non-free copyrighted works, that they don't own – just like we do here when we quote copyrighted works in articles under fair use, or use copyrighted images under a claim of fair use. For example, some random website may say its text is licensed under X license, but that would not then apply to, say, a newspaper article they post there.

I see a possible confusion in your question about fair use, so let me go into that just a bit. You seem to be asking whether you might use some of the content from that website under fair use, which would be made more okay because it is released under the CC BY-SA license. That is mixing oil with vinegar. You are allowed by the free license to reuse the content, at will, so long as you comply with the license (by giving proper attribution to the authors and disclosing the license it is under). Full stop. That reuse has nothing to do with fair use. Fair use is for use of copyrighted works you could not otherwise use; it is for non-free content that you are using anyway. In other words, you are claiming the use is fair for educational purposes despite the content being non-free copyrighted (so fair use would never apply to use of free content). I hope that clears up matters a bit.

Anyway, barring a valid claim of fair use, using any of the images from that website would require you to affirmatively track down that they bear a suitably-free copyright license or enjoy public domain status – and then disclose that in some verifiable manner upon any upload. Sorry!

By the way, if you might find it useful, here's some general rules of thumb, to the best of my understanding, for figuring out public domain status of works (whose copyright has not been specifically released by their owners), with the proviso that "published" below, essentially means: "made accessible to the general public" (but that definition does not include exhibition of artwork – every copyright rule has exceptions and often there are exceptions to the exceptions, which is what makes it all so maddening). The very first of these answers your question about if there is "a definitive point in the timeline where one could say copyright is not an issue":

• Created/photographed prior to 1896 (whether published or not) = PD.
• Published before 1923 = PD.
• Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
• Published between 1978 to March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
• Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
• Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
• Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I suspected it might be a bit of a legal minefield so thanks for helping to dispel my confusion with your comprehensive answer. Regards CV9933 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yana Zhdanova

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, I thank you for your suggestions in Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I made all the changes mentioned in your comments, as well as in the hidden comments within the text concerning the article tone and the quote. Furthermore, I added a source (n°6) to justify Lukashenko's negative image, and deleted the word "corrupted" from the sentence "the corrupted policy of Yulia Tymoshenko". I am sincerely for a real neutral, I would say archival tone in a Wikipedia article, leaving the readers to make up their mind. However, I admit that being the author of this text, I can sometimes compose a sentence that could seem not really neutral; not necessarily because I want to express my personal opinion, or to flatter the person or the event I am writing about, but simply because I try to give more information to the reader. On 25 November 2016 the user SwisterTwister declined the new submission because "There's nothing currently here for actual notability in an acceptable article, the events are not inheriting any notability for an article, and ther's simply nothing else convincing."!!! In other words, the numerous articles already published on Wikipedia about the Femen organization should be deleted!!! Furthermore, Zhdanova is not only a member of the Ukrainian nucleus of the Femen group, but the activist with more protests than the others, and more media coverage. I added, in the lede part of the article, a comment about the coverage Zhdanova's protests are concerned through international, reliable, independent medias. Yet, this looks like a pleonasm to me, and I think to the reader too who will go through the article. SwisterTwister admits in the talk that he/she is semi-retired, because "quite busy with other tasks". How can Wikipedia ask to a semi-retired user to estimate the value of a submission which requires carefull reading? On the other hand, Swister-Twister's comment implies that he/she did not read the submission until its end, and the tone of this comment is suggesting a kind of personal feeling about the content of the submission, which is against Wikipedia's principles. Anyway, I would be grateful to you if you could take a look at the new submission, dated 27 November, and tell me whether you find any other points in this draft to be fixed. Thanks again, Best regards. FRANC85 (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi FRANC85. I do not do AfC reviews, though I often try to help out when a question is asked at the Teahouse about a draft by performing a copyedit to fix obvious formatting issues and text problems. I responded to your post at the Teahouse by copyediting about a third of the draft, including helping make the tone less biased sounding in parts, as Robert McClenon's review correctly noted was a problem. Though I smoothed the language and noted some problems, I did not address others, and did not even look at the balance of the draft. Looking at it now, I'm not sure if any acceptable article is possible, but I can tell you some things that might help in making it more likely to be accepted.

What you need to understand is that it all comes down to sourcing. Oh, a draft might be declined initially for improper tone, or others fixable bases, but mostly, in the end, it's about the sourcing – or the lack thereof – and sourcing issues can be of a type that is impossible to fix. Existence and use of sources show if the subject is notable, and the content verifiable, and proper citation of sources involves transparently attributing the source to make reading and reviewing them as accessible as possible. I believe what SwisterTwister is getting at when he talks about inheritance, is that when I look at some of the sources, they are not about Yana Zhdanova. They are about surrounding matters she is related to, but notability requires that the subject of the article – directly – be the subject of significant treatment in reliable and independent sources. Anyway:

• Make the citations transparent. They are naked URLs, sometimes followed by some indication of the publication and maybe a date, but they provide poor verification for the reader and reviewer. No titles, authors or other key information is provided. For example, the second citation is in the form:

http://www.straight.com/blogra/559736/bbc-newsnight-takes-viewers-inside-femen-boot-camp BBC, 31 December 2013. Retrieved 31 August 2016.

I think just showing you a more transparent presentation of this citation will explain what I mean (note that the indication in the citation you used, that the BBC is the source, was not correct):

Smith, Charlie (31 December 2013). "BBC Newsnight takes viewers inside Femen boot camp". The Georgia Straight. Retrieved 31 August 2016.

I used a citation template to do this, but you could also do it identically without, as below (see both in edit mode for how they were formatted):

Smith, Charlie (31 December 2013). "BBC Newsnight takes viewers inside Femen boot camp". The Georgia Straight. Retrieved 31 August 2016.

• Looking at this source gets at the more critical issue I was speaking about at the start: this newspaper article does not mention Zhdanova at all. That indicates a major problem, because when I look at a whole bunch of following citations, either they have no mention of her, or its just a passing mention of her name among other members, rather than being a source discussing her, directly, in any detail.

  The most important consideration of a reviewer (after checking for copyright violations), is whether the topic is notable, which then requires the reviewer to check whether the sources show in depth, and direct, independent coverage, in reliable sources. If those sources exist in this draft, you have hidden them by burying them among numerous others that are not in depth treatment of her. I think you would have been better off writing a more focused article, only containing those types of sources, and only writing information verified in those sources—that is, if they exist. It is very hard to tell right now, so I think you really need to change the draft significantly for it to have a chance of acceptance. If the sources do not exist, then stop right now. There's no point because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:FRANC85 - I will comment briefly that I can't formulate an opinion on whether Zhdanova is notable based on the draft. That is because the draft is so non-neutral and so argumentative that I can't evaluate her notability. I didn't try (as did User:Fuhgettaboutit) to review the sources, because I got tired of trying to wade through the polemical language in the draft. Maybe she is notable, but that can only be assessed by review of a neutrally written draft, not a FEMEN polemic. (As I said, many readers agree with the objectives of FEMEN, but it isn't up to Wikipedia to shove those objectives at them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fuhghettaboutit I thank you for spending some time indicating me these points! You are right about the source that was not correctly formatted. Which is not the case for the others. As for whether Zhdanova's name is the central subjet in EACH source, it cannot be: the Femen protests are a collective action and therefore newspapers and magazines relate more the protest and less the persons involved in it. Besides, the context of a Zhdanova's action can be given by a source speaking in a more general way. I give an example that has nothing to do with her: some 25 or 30 out of 197 references in Einstein's Wikipedia article are not directly about him but about other theories or about the context of the first half of the 20th century.

The answer to my question how Zhdanova cannot have a Wikipedia article, while the other Ukrainian activists have already theirs, although with less activism than her, is that my draft is badly written! So, when I find some time I will write it again, following your precious indications.

Happy Holidays! FRANC85 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Fuhghettaboutit: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Protection level request for Template:Cite comic

Can you please reduce the protection level for Template:Cite comic to template-editor protection? It has only 1,600 transclusions, and I'd like to add unknown parameter detection to it. I see that it is cascade-protected, but I don't know why such a rarely used template would be listed on that page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Europol

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, in response to your comment here, did you read the discussion I linked to in the revdel request: Special:Diff/756790117#Copyright_violations? I gave a side-by-side comparison of the copyvio, which is quite extensive. Much of it has been subsequently rewritten, but the copyvio still exists in the revision history, hence why it needs revdel. TDL (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Dan. I could have looked better but please understand that when responding to revdeletion requests, the normal way to check is to run a diff of the edits spanning the request (because only the edits that are copyvios should be included in the request). Here, the diff of the span showed no copyvio because the span was wider, and the user had removed and rewritten the copied content in subsequent edits. After looking at the talk page, per above, I did indeed find the copyvio, though it was a span of eleven edit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Do you agree that the following, which Danlaycock has removed repeatedly, isn't copyvio - because I wrote it?:

The European Network of Fugitive Active Search Teams (ENFAST) is a network of national police organisations tasked with locating and arresting fugitives. This initiative was launched in 2012 to facilitate the tracing and arresting of internationally wanted criminals who have committed serious crimes. ENFAST is funded by the European Union's programme for the Prevention of and Fight against Crime (ISEC).

The network is facilitated by the Europol's Platform for Experts (EPE). Europol also maintains a list of Europe’s Most Wanted Fugitives (EMWL), akin to the list of ten most wanted fugitives published by the American Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 2016 Europol arranged an online 'Christmas calendar' of wanted fugitives, which lead to three arrests.

-Ssolbergj (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. The reason why I requested the wider range was because the more recent revisions still retained some residual copyvio content from the original (see below), hence why I thought it was best to go back to the most recent clean version. TDL (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ssolbergj	Source
"This initiative was launched in 2012 to facilitate the tracing and arresting of internationally wanted criminals who have committed serious crimes."	"The ENFAST project aims to increase security within the European Union by improving efficiency in tracing and arresting internationally wanted criminals, who committed serious crimes."
"(ENFAST) is a network of national police organisations tasked with locating and arresting fugitives.	ENFAST is a network of police officers available 24/7 who can immediately undertake action to locate and arrest fugitives."

@Danlaycock: Ah. Hmm. I'm wondering if my vision is going (or how tired I was that night). Yup, still traces of the copyvio present; clearly close paraphrasing . I will revdelete further. Apologies.

Hi Ssolbergj. The fact you maintain that you are the owner of the material probably means you own the website, which in turn means you likely have the ability to make its content legally usable here by releasing the copyright under a suitably-free copyright license. It does not mean you did not create a copyright problem – because you cannot retain non-free copyright and use that content here. Note that text is automatically non-free copyrighted by default (no notice on the website is required to make it copyrighted, though here the website says © 2016 Europe's most wanted).

Other than short quotes, marked as such using quotation marks and cited using an inline citation, to be used here all previously written text must either be affirmatively released into the public domain, or under a suitably-free copyright license. There are a few ways to provide a release of the content, but it must be done in a verifiable way (On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog), such as:

i) posting the release of the content at the external website (i.e., replacing the current copyright notice with a suitable free license notice), or

ii) demonstrating you are the owner by sending a suitable release from an email address associated with the domain name and it being archived through the OTRS system.

For more detail on the exact methods you might use and instructions, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and specifically the subsection of that page known by the shortcut WP:DONATETEXT—but note that clearing up the copyright issue does not necessarily mean the content is appropriate for use here for other reasons (I don't know if it is or isn't; just trying to give you full disclosure). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

New article— please check it over

Happy New Year, Fughettaboutit, I have written a new article about a fellow named Bill Elliott. The guy has won a Tony Award and I couldn't believe he did not have a Wiki page. The article is in my sandbox HERE. Would you look it over do some copyedit ? If you think it is worthy, go ahead and move it to mainspace. There is another article with the identical name, so I guess we call this one "Bill Elliott (musician)"? In the article, I wanted to do an explanatory note, but I did not know how to do it. You'll find my attempt in the middle of the section "Early years". Also I need to find the subject's middle name. I am going to be out of the country for 8 days, so I may be slow in responding, but I should have Internet. Best regards,--Eagledj (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ha! looking for his middle name I know how you got onto him; he recorded Diane Schuur’s Midnight. Will do a copyedit soon:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Viral Acharya

Thanks for removing the copyrighted stuff, I must have been too tired to notice. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Anytime! Unfortunately, all day every day they get posted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Links within citations

Hi Fughettaboutit, I occasionally come across some links within citations which give a direct pdf download of such things as a complete book, a chapter of a book, or journal papers which would ordinarily have to be paid for. To mitigate any potential copyright violations I tend to use a googlebook reference, or a cite journal template to replace the "offending" pdf link using this as my rationale. Is my interpretation correct? A little clarification would certainly help, for example; a reference error here is not too difficult to fix, but the pdf does have a copyright logo and message so that would be a typical grey area connundrum for me and hence I would value any opinion you might like to share. Best regards and belated Happy New Year.CV9933 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fughettaboutit, I wonder if you missed my question.Regards.CV9933 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@CV9933: Oh, I did! What happens when you get multiple posts near the same time. Yes, there is a gray area here. I think a first thing you must do is distinguish between sites that are violating a paywall the owner of material erects, but not their copyright, and those that are doing both. The former involves wrongdoing but AFAIK has nothing to do with copyright and WP:ELNEVER is not involved. What I mean is this: if a site is providing a link to a source that the owner wants people to pay for, but the link leads to, say, the copyright owner's site through a way that bypasses the paywall, that is not a copyright violation. If on the other hand, the site has uploaded its own copy, and is linking to that, then yes, the site is violating copyright and you should re-point the link to the copyright owner paywall location (and I suggest adding |subscription=yes or other refined parameter if a citation template is involved).

The real gray area comes in when the site is clearly using copyrighted material—material that is not theirs—but which involves a judgment call as to whether their use of someone else's material is fair use by them or not. Remember that one of the exceptions listed at WP:ELNEVER is "as long as the website... uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." When you're not sure, I would err on the side of leaving it alone. Though I don't agree with everything there, see m:Avoid copyright paranoia.

However, I am ultimately confused by your question. Because the link you used as an example is very clearly no problem at all. Providing a link to someone's copyrighted material is not a problem, and is not what WP:ELNEVER addresses. It is providing a link to a website that is violating copyright that is a problem. The source of the pdf at Stock-Flow consistent model is by Levy Economics Institute and the link is to http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_745.pdf, so it could not be a better example of an unproblematic external link, since the copyright owner's domain name is in the URL, demonstrating this is an upload by the copyright owner.

So I have to ask if you are possibly under the impression I explained in the paragraph above: that there is a problem linking to copyrighted material? If so, there is none. It is linking to external sites that are themselves violating the copyright of an owner. Let me give you a classic example: If the source someone links to is a YouTube video of a BBC news report, and that video is posted at YouTube by the BBC, then there's no problem. If, on the other hand, the BBC news story is uploaded by some random person at YouTube named BBCFan67, then that is highly likely to be a copyright violation, because the video is surely owned by the BBC and very unlikely to be licensed to user BBCFan67. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks once again - Yes I was under the impression that linking to a website that provided copyright material was a problem. The majority of my (manual) edits are down in the ref section, so I probably see a lot more pdf links than the average editor. I expect semi-automated edit users live blissfully unaware so unlikely to suffer paranoia to the same degree as me! Best Regards CV9933 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft Margaret Dovaston

As you suggested I went to your 'talk' page and it said 'leave a comment for me' But there was no indication (an empty box?) of where to leave a comment. The page was full of other people's comments. I therefore clicked the 'New Section' tab to get to this page which allows me to contact you, but without the benefit of your previous reply. Is this the correct method, or am I missing something?

David HDavid hewick (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey David . You left this post exactly as you should have. I didn't tell you what to do once you reached a person's talk page but you figured it out, and of course once you left the message here, I was notified. Another way to leave a new message, instead of using the new section button, is to click edit at the top of the page and then scroll to the bottom, or click on the last side edit link on the page in a previous post, and either way, then manually create a new section header like this:

== New header ==

Your post

Of course, you could have responded to me in the original location, at the AfC help desk, but I wouldn't be notified of that post unless you pinged me, as I instructed there (and as I'm doing in this post for you). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks F. I will try pinging at sometime in the future. In the meantime I hope you get this.

David HDavid hewick (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It did David, immediately. The system really works, and once you become used to if you stick around, it will become second nature. One more tip. Our conventions are that each person responding to another indent one level further. Indents are made by colons (":") at the start of a post. So I responded to you above and indented with one colon., You then responding, so the convention would have been for you to start your post with two colons. This response would have then been made with three colons. To show you, below I have posted this arrangement. If you look at it in "edit mode" you will see the indents are created by colons.

First post.

Response post, indented with one colon.

Response to that, indented with two colons.

Response to that – three colons.

etc.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Lorenzo de Zavala-- entire article copyvio?

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit ---The Bill Elliott article is up and running. Thanks for your copyedit. Now, I have run across an article entitled Lorenzo de Zavala which contains blatant plagiarism taken from HERE. I began deleting the copyvio, only to realize that it's virtually the entire article. The whole thing may need to go. Please take a look.--your friend, --Eagledj (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See my edit summary here. I've been fooled myself by "backwards copying" many times. It's more difficult when it's backwards copyvio--the external source does not in any way indicate it's copying from us, unlike this one which did at the bottom of the page, and then use our content without aping our formatting and style. Removing copyvios is important work. Please don't let this false-positive discourage you from checking and acting on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RE:changed visibility of 3 revisions on page American and British English pronunciation differences: edit summary hidden ‎(RD3: Purely disruptive material)

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey LakeKayak. Anytime. By the way, I noticed your most recent edit to the article, where you cited a source like this: <ref>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boulevard</ref> – that is, by a naked URL. The last thing I want to do is discourage you from citing sources! However, when we cite sources we aspire to citing them in a transparent manner. See WP:CITEHOW for what we hope to see. For example, for this, you might replace that instead with:

<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boulevard|title=Entry for "Boulevard"|publisher=Merriam-Webster|accessdate=January 25, 2017}}

which will format as:

"Entry for "Boulevard"". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 25, 2017.

I used a citation template here, which I find much easier because it automatically orders and formats everything (it doesn't matter what order you place the parameters) but you could achieve the same thing manually. I think you'll agree this is much better than a lonely URL. Most cites call for more detail, for example, a book cite would normally list, in addition to title, publisher and url if available online, the author's first and last names, the year of the book, the page number and isbn number (but not the accessdate; paper sources don't need them).

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix the citations now.LakeKayak (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

LakeKayak - you can also use the reFill tool to automatically change naked URLs to the "cite web" format - https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ Justin15w (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Done.LakeKayak (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Two questions-Bill Elliott (musician) and Russell Brothers

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, two things: My article Bill Elliott (musician) is in the namespace, but it is NOINDEXed so it has to go though New pages patrol which is backlogged more than three months. Since you did the copyedit on the article, can you also go ahead and approve it, assuming you think it's worthy?

Fuhghettaboutit, Nevermind--Article reviewed, passed with a good grade, NOINDEX lifted, all OK.

Secondly, we talked before about the article Russell Brothers. You suggested HERE that I I put the article up on the BLP noticeboard which i did HERE — but so far no response. Should I just wait longer on the noticeboard, (it's been archived already), submit it to WP:AFC ? or should I just go ahead a post the article to mainspace and wait for page patrollers to review it? As always, Cheers--Eagledj (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Article reviewed and passed. All OK, Best--Eagledj (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Deseret alphabet

Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Paid editing

Somewhat over a year ago with this post you mentioned the uw you had created. I've never seen them in Twinkle so I was wondering if they ever got deployed, or if not, why not? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Please see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 37#New template addition (where you commented, agreeing that they would work better as "a single issue warning"; maybe you've changed your mind?). I think they're very important templates; really our only mechanical way to attempt to compel compliance with the ToU mandatory disclosure requirement and to set up a pragmatic route to both flushing out "everyday" paid editing, and seeking a block for the constant (numerous times per day) entries by these "lower level" type of paid editors, who ignore or are unaware of the disclosure requirements. I think you know better than most that the issue this attempts to address is not a common cold for Wikipedia, it's the plague. Without them being in Twinkle though – as you presage above – they are barely used. I'm not sure at the time that discussion took place that you or anyone there really examined how they function, because they make no sense at all that I can see as a single issue warning (nor do they accuse anyone of being the more nefarious type of paid editor like orangemoody, as someone indicated there, nor was DGG correct about there not being "much occasion to use the lower level warnings"; probably a quarter of new articles by new accounts fit the bill for the first level). The essence is:

• 1st level): (Explanation of paid editing and its ambit) – you look like a paid editor; are you a paid editor?; here's our mandatory disclosure requirements and exactly how to comply by easy method spoonfed to you; please comply or affirmatively tell us you're not before continuing to edit;
• 2nd level: you have not responded but continued to edit; explain the requirements again and how to comply, ask again to disclose or state whether they are or are not;
• 3rd level: you still have not responded; you may be blocked if you don't;
• 4th level: final warning before seeking block.

But, of course, I lost the thread and never followed up there. That was an error. Have you come around on this? If so, do you think I should revive/recapitulate that request?

By the way, thank you for the coordination nomination. I am thinking about it. I don't take obligations I enter into lightly. It seems like an all-consuming job, one that I probably don't have sufficient time to do even if I did it exclusively and would also take me away from everything I am involved in. Maybe there's some half measure, like splitting up certain tasks into groups and assigning a cadre of coordinators? To give you an example, I would expect that to do a half decent job in reviewing patrolling for accuracy and speaking with reviewers about issues would require two hours a day, every day. Note: I am leaving momentarily and will likely not be back with any time to respond until tomorrow evening. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm stepping back from all things Page Curation and I'm just trying to tie up some loose ends. Having looked at that old Twinkle thread again, I do think as before that probably one 4i warning is enough. It's what all the others except Andy suggested. Whatever, some kind of warning needs to be deployed to Twinkle because I could use it several times a day. Workload keeping NPP together is quite a lot. I've been patrolling and tweaking this and that, and designing the election today for about 14 hours. It's not like that all the time though. I do about 20 patrolls a day and that's about as much s anyone can stomach, then I spend a couple of hours on other admin stuff. Ideally at least one of the coords should be an admin because it involves looking at a lot of deleted pages to see if they were correctly tagged. Be good if you could find time to be one of the coords, but be warned, once you start, there's no let up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Avengers (film project) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Avengers (film project). Since you had some involvement with the The Avengers (film project) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Response from MaxEnt

Per our discussion on Help talk:Maintenance template removal. I've never taken the time to figure out how the "your alerts" notification system works (is it partially automated?), so I'm explicitly notifying you here. — MaxEnt 02:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful

Hello again F. I was going to send a ping thanks for your work on the hatnote but then when I saw that you had manged to fit the word persnickety into it I knew I had to leave a full fledged note saying many thanks. Cheers and enjoy the rest of you weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Ha! I loved using that word. I was grinning as a pushed save. And it gives me great pleasure that someone appreciated it (language nerds unite!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Another editor used "winsome" in a conversation last week so the language nerds are in full flow :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		The best possible words, with the best possible meaning, in the best possible order, with the best possible structure, in the best possible way. Adapted from “Defying the English Teacher” by Dan Brown Eagledj (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged Eagledj. It's is a pleasure working with you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

what are the issues you're having with giant nuthatch?

Could we help? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Thank you for asking! I will take you up on that. The specifics are little hazy in my mind, lo these many months later; I need to open the sources again and work on it and reach the same point of confusion that I can describe before I can ask for help. It has to do with their possible extinction in Myanmar, and the dates of the studies being unclear and some of them referring to other studies that I need to see, but not making it clear which study from where they are referring to to even try myself or ask for assistance with tracking down; matters like that. However, if you look in the page history, you'll see the write up is quite far along.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Earl Scruggs Article

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I'm working on an existing article, a biography of Earl Scruggs, which I have completely rewritten. I have branched out into adding sound and images which is new to me. I took a lesson from your user page where you listed uploaded movie posters, and basically used that as a guide for "fair use" of a record album cover. I also use a sound file which needs your scrutiny— of course I'd appreciate your copyedits too if you have time. Cheers----Eagledj (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eagledj: I am well familiar with Earl Scruggs. It's always ambitious to take on a project where the person is very famous, because there's the problem of an embarrassment of riches; so many sources; so much editorial judgment of what to include. Regarding the sound file, this is not something I am familiar with. Interesting that there's the debate over whether it's public domain where it apparently is viewed as such everywhere but in New York. Anyway, if you want a second opinion on your upload, you might try Commons:Village pump/Copyright. However, the use of {{PD-old}} appears incorrect on its face. It's for works in the public domain in the "country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less". Add 70 to Earl Scruggs' life = 2082. I'll take a go at a copyedit but not right away (I've got a lot of tongs in a lot of fires right now).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Glossary of bird terms

In fixing reference problems from lists over the years I've often run into articles that didn't seem to have a problem. Some I've fixed by discovering very strange problems, but I can't see anything like that on your bird items page. I fixed two reference errors that made references invisible. One of them should have generated a big red missing reference error, so I don't know what is going on. The other I fixed by using the doi to get to the publishers page, rather than the url (ends up at the same url!). But the page still shows up with the hidden category StarryGrandma (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I keep learning new things about references. The big red error messages only show in article space. See Template:Broken ref. To get them to show add span.brokenref {display: inline;} to your common.css. The problem is with reference 17. Proctor & Lynch 1998, p. 66 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Proctor66" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). StarryGrandma (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks much StarryGrandma. I'm going to look at it now. The script CV9933 linked to at the Teahouse is also really globally helpful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I did see several CS1 errors but without the brokenref script, I missed the big red stuff. I've installed it now and another bit of the jigsaw is in place for me, so thanks very much StarryGrandma. CV9933 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Loopy30 (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

'Cheers to Fuhghettaboutit for all your work in compiling the Glossary of bird terms resource page.

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 01:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request

Hi Fughettaboutit, I saw you on this list of admins willing to look at revdel requests. Would you mind looking at this edit and deciding if it should be removed? Thank you Mortee (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mortee: Done. A clear cut case for BLP intervention. Thanks for noticing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Mortee (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

follow up to teahouse

Good morning, Fuhghettaboutit . You answered a question about "puffery" a week ago and I wasn't able to follow up at the teahouse. I hope you don't mind that I am asking you a few questions directly.

You said the statement was not "puffery", but you still would have deleted the following from the "in music" section of the typewriter article: An Estonian prog-rock band features typewriters as a rhythmic instruments in their album Typewriter Concerto in D Major (1994).

It seems no different than any of the 14 other statements in that section that speak of using a typewriter as a musical instrument. Why does this one not belong with the other 14? Or are you just opposed to the entire section?

That leads to my next question: the editor who deleted this cited "challenge and delete", which you said "is for statements where you ... have checked and have not been able to find found a source." But a quick look through google books found it mentioned here: https://books.google.com/books?id=2-wyCE21VEQC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=Typewriter+Concerto+in+D+Major&source=bl&ots=u3yUlQvgce&sig=v4JB1GnajJtKDJx4L0661HQFXU4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvrs3BlejSAhVCVWMKHX_jDp44FBDoAQggMAE#v=onepage&q=Typewriter%20Concerto%20in%20D%20Major&f=false

Did the editor who deleted this have a responsibility to check for a citation before deleting if he is referencing WP:BURDEN? Phatblackmama (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Phatblackmama. No the user did not have the burden – it is the opposite (see the policy); anyone may remove unsourced content they challenge in good faith, and then it cannot be returned unless cited using an inline citation to a reliable source, that directly supports the material. The burden is always on the person seeking to return the content (however, please note WP:POINT: I am not saying you would, but it would not be okay to, say, retaliate against an editor who challenged and removed some material, by finding unsourced material they had added and removing it, which would not have been done for a legitimate challenge basis. I mention this because I've seen that play put quite a few times). The problem I had with invoking that policy section, in all but name, is that it implied that if the person met the add-back, citation requirements of the policy, then returning that material would be okay, when as I said the material does not belong for other, editorial judgment issues. Yes, there is much connective trivia in that article that I would remove if I were focused on it!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 23:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Microscope

Hi. You seem to be under the impression that I made mistakes there. I was irritated by what I felt was a condescending tone in your edit summary but maybe it's because I haven't been clear about what reaction my edits were supposed to get. I deliberately violated the WP:POINT guideline, which is something I've done many times before and which I'll do many times in the future. Had you followed the discussion down the rabbit hole to that IP editor's talk, you'd have seen I was disrupting Wikipedia because of their behavior, not their content changes, and it was because I want their edits to remain. Still skeptical? Check the timestamps. You reverted an edit I didn't want to stand, and rather than react to that, you provided me with a bunch of policy alphabet soup that you probably knew I didn't need.

I wanted that editor to stop edit warring, stop attacking others, stop getting into fights with admins at RFPP, and at long last do things the right way. I tried to redirect that person's energy from the really unhelpful rampage they were on at RFPP to accomplishing content-related things at the article's talk. You can disagree with my approach but you can't deny it got results. CityOfSilver 02:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The policy is simple, nothing alphabet soup about it. The fact it was not recognized nor followed from the get go is the problem. As far as I can tell the behavior you're speaking of is entirely proper requests being resisted outside of policy. Had I been involved from the start the IP's request would have been implemented immediately, as proper, there would have been no edit warring because such edits could not be reverted within policy, and all that would have been explained because this bedrock policy would have been at the fore.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Birth date and age and Template:Bda

Greetings, Template:Birth date and age and Template:Bda appear to be no longer cascade protected and could be put to template protection now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Glossary of bird terms

On 18 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glossary of bird terms, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the feathers of birds are considered the most complex integumentary structures found in vertebrates, and a premier example of a complex evolutionary novelty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glossary of bird terms. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Glossary of bird terms), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Radius not a carpal bone

Please check recent edit in Glossary of bird terms, I think this is wrong. Radius is one of the forearm long bones, carpals are wrist bones. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Thanks for noticing. Will look later. I was very rushed – on my way to work, where I've just arrived – the link that was there, to "radiale" was going to an article on a radio station, and when I threw it into Google with "carpal", one of the first links was radius so I jumped it seems too fast.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I just checked, radiale was correct (see Carpal_bones#In_other_animals), but the link was wrong. I will fix it. Check when you have the time. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Was having trouble making userboxes on my user page have a "word wrapped look," (rather than being above or below text, taking up huge amounts of space) so I asked how it is done on the help desk, Fuhghettaboutit, rather than just explaining it went to my user page and made it look exactly as I described, and explained the process. McSqueegee (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks McSqueegee!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision suppression in Features new to Windows 10

Hello

Thanks for attending to the matter.

However, you must still suppress revision 778991087. Yes, it is my revision. But it has copyright violations as well.

Sorry for the inconvenience. It is entirely my fault.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Done! Missed it. Thank you for the copyright tagging—it's really important work. By the way, I noticed some time back that many, many people, probably because they are so used to looking at diffs which start with the revision before the changes, will do something similar when asking for revdeletion using {{Copyvio-revdel}}, starting with the oldid of the revision just before, rather than with the revision that added the copyright violation. Because of this, I updated the documentation at the template to address this: "Template:Copyvio-revdel#Targeting the correct revision "oldids". This was the case here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

doubled up contributions

Hi there. Just letting you know out of courtesy that I'm C&P'ed my query from the helpdesk to the Village Pump, but for convenience I've also included your comment: doubled-up entries in contribution history Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

You speedy deleted an earlier iteration of Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority. Could you please graft the revision history of the earlier iteration to the current article?

Did you delete it after someone placed a speedy deletion tag on it?

I that case, please include that revision.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan. The current article is not a repost of the former but new content unrelated to the former. We do not perform history merges unless two pages have the same origin, for example, a single edit history for content that was split by a copy and paste move divorcing the attribution, and we also never undelete copyright violations, which as you can see from the deletion summary, this was. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation? I don't have all the speedy codes memorized. Okay G12 is unambiguous copyright violation. G11 is unambiguous advertizing.

It seems I created a redirect to the article. Can you please check the revision history, does it show I also made a contribution, or contributions, to the article itself?

I've found the robots that look for copyright violations to be unreliable. The wikipedia is not the only wiki I contribute to. Sometimes there is a topic I found some references to, which I want to write about, but which I don't think measures up to the wikipedia's inclusion standards. So I will start it at a non WMF wiki, with different inclusion standard. Later, when I find more references, and I think that topic then does measure up to the wikipedia's inclusion standards, when I port it here, the robots that look for copyright violations flag that recently ported article as a copyright violation.

Obviously I retain the right to contribute my own text to multiple wikis, and doing so is not a copyright violation.

WRT WP:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves -- you surprise me. Yes, a speedy deletion due to a genuine copyright violation is a different matter. But in my experience, history merges of articles deleted due to A7, or deleted at AFD, where a new version has been created, are routinely performed. Some deleting administrators decline, but, in my experience, a more helpful administrator will always merge the history, when the deleting administrator declines, when a request is made at WP:REFUND.

The deletion was some time ago. So you can't be expected to remember any details. Does this article history show you deleted it after a robot or another contributor flagged it as a copyright violation? Geo Swan (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Geo Swan. No, you never made any edits to the page at all (I would have told you in my first post if you had). The first edit to the page apparently copied from a website here, which has gone dead (the Wayback Machine has nothing; please note that the user who started the article was warned at least here, here and here about copyright problems in their edits). The next edit of any substance was a blatant and wholesale copy and paste of the content from here—word-for-word; a "true copyright violation", as you say:-). So there's nothing that can be undeleted, or would be useful if it was.

Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever deleted a page as a copyright violation without checking to see whether the report of the violation is true – and you're absolutely right, the robots are unreliable, do not understand backwards copyvios (i.e., the content started at Wikipedia, and the copying is from here), nor do they check whether the supposedly-copied-from source bears a suitable free copyright license or is in the public domain.

As to "helpful admins" doing history merges, it really depends on the situation (btw I am a regular at WP:REFUND) but engrafting page histories with different origins creates a 'Frankenstein's Monster page history', is often confusing and detrimental, and usually should not be done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My edits to the Daylight Saving Time page.

The only reference you have taken out of the Further reading section near bottom is the one by Pearce. You have left the two by Bartky and one is referred to in the text. You have also left the one by Downing and the one by Prerau and both are in the text. The books by Downing and Prerau are the ones I added back in as they seemed to fall off yesterday. I believe they had been there for ages.

You have also deleted the book by Pearce from footnote 1 for some reason.

The other edits I made, to the History section, have also been deleted for some reason.

Any reason for reversing all my edits to this page?

Thanks. chrispy52 Chrispy52 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it was Jc3s5h who deleted the edits and I have replied to him/her. thanks.

Need advise on how to edit and correct the draft

Thanks for the wonderful feedback and guiding me with respect to the post I wrote on the below link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Turnaround_time.2FSubmitting_for_review

Could you help me with how do I go about editing the draft with your suggestions, as you mentioned that the draft was deleted.Could you help me with that.

Any guidance or inputs on what I need to do to release as a public domain or release it under free copyright license?

Any help would be appreciated.I just don't want to violate any policies of the wiki.

Awaiting reply from you.Please do once you get time.

Thanks IPSid (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

carpal bar

Hi Fuhg: If you're looking for a better source for carpal bar, how about the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Eastern North America? MeegsC (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wing bars

And for wing bars, how about the National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America? MeegsC (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As always, MeegsC, thanks so much for looking and helping! My main concern was the use of that random website, SPS. I've used the Field Guide cite for the wing bars entry. I was not able to source their fading with age, that the self piublished source was used for, so I got rid of that text detail. The Smithsonian Field Guide to source carpal bars seem fine, so I didn't see a need to replace that one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, they don't "fade", per se, but they do often get narrower or disappear through feather wear. The Helm Guide to Bird Identification talks about it on page 18 under "Feather Wear". MeegsC (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Excellent,. I'll use that to add the detail back (though not quite as it was before). Maybe something about fading as feathers are abraded, or use "worn plumage"... have to see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 269#Viaden Media

Hi! Thanks for the detailed answer. Unfortunately, while I was away, I did not have time to reply. And the discussion went into the archive. If I understood correctly, now I can move the article to the main space. However, at first I incorrectly renamed the draft :( Secondly, it turned out that the name is protected from re-creation. So I need the help of an administrator in this task. --ELindas (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ELindas. Since the previous article on this topic was deleted (twice) upon community consensus at after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viaden Media (2nd nomination), you need to speak with the deleting administrator first, Courcelles. The only option I know of after that is to go to deletion review and request a review under the idea (quoting from WP:DRVPURPOSE) that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Otherwise, a move of a draft to the mainspace on a topic that was previously deleted after discussion will likely be quickly deleted as a repost under CSD G4. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello again! According to your advice, I wrote to him, but never received an answer. And this is predictable. He has been inactive for a long time in Wikipedia :( What should I do? --ELindas (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

=( --ELindas (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi ELindas. Per above: "...after that ... go to deletion review and request a review under the idea (quoting from WP:DRVPURPOSE) that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Serial copyvios

First thanks for your comment about handling a copyvio when the prior version is a dab. I like to follow the four eyes principle when possible, so I've been nominating for CSD rather than simply deleting so that someone else sees it. However, it just sunk in that this isn't the right approach when it is a new article on top of the dab, that's fundamentally no different than a copy right issue dropped into an existing article. I will amend my processes although I don't think I've run across this many times in the past. Thanks for your note about dealing with other issues from this editor. I was in copy patrol which picked up two of them. I looked at user contributions and saw how many to my dismay. I did address one of them, but I was toying with asking you to look into others and struggling to figure out how I would respond if you said I should do it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for the CSD work! Yeah, there were quite a few, as well as images uploaded for each (which I've F5'ed). (I think I got them all.) Yes, the dab is handled no differently than an article with a copyvio added. I wouldn't have turned it back on you if you'd asked! (but if I did): most of these were straightforward, G12s, plus F5s for the images. Other than the dab page, there was one more that needed revdeletion: see the page history here. If you ever want someone to take a look at a copyvio situation (or anything), please stop by anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Declinedsd

Template:Declinedsd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 15:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Bright (Record producer)—question

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I hope I haven't made a mistake here —take a look at Mark Bright (record producer). The existing article was a mess, as it's history shows: suspected vandalism, paid editing WP:COI. Rightly or wrongly, I felt the need to paste a copy of the body of the article into my sandbox to work on. I edited the sandbox copy (under a different title), got carried away, and more or less finished rewriting it HERE, not realizing that both source and target now have their own histories. The copy and paste was May 11, 2017, and it appears that no edits on the source or target page between then and now have been made by anyone but me. Since both articles have the same origin, can you replace the target article with my sandbox article preserving the histories? I did delete the categories in the the sandbox version, so I want to preserve the existing categories that are on the target page. I have some other questions about the article, but first I want to get it out of the sandbox. Thanks for helping, as always--Eagledj (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eagledj: No problem! I'll do a history merge later today. However, just be aware that when I do this, I will graft the page history of your draft into the existing article, and will delete your other edits—those you made directly to the article in between during the same time period. Otherwise, this would result in a strange shuffling of parallel edits, and a garbled history. Okay?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eagledj: History merge completed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: You're the greatest--many thanks--Eagledj (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joy Fielding, Liane Moriarty and Paula Hawkins's novels

Hello. Those articles shouldn't have been deleted. It was part of the bibliography of the New York Times bestselling and award-winning authors Joy Fielding, Liane Moriarty and Paula Hawkins. You could delete the synopses of books if you think it's a direct copy from a website and consider it as WP:G12, but removing the articles from Wikipedia is destructive for the encyclopedia and please stop calling me a 'Serial violator' and don't threaten me with blocking, I didn't do it intentionally. I was not aware of this policy that if you add the synopsis of a novel from a source that'd be considered as copyright infringement. I did not create those articles with the aim of violating the WP's rules I made the articles because they're best selling and critically-acclaimed books but there's still no information or article about them on Wikipedia. CerberaOdollam (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi CerberaOdollam. Placing copyright infringements is destructive of Wikipedia. When an article is created with only copyvio text, there is no version to revert to that is not illegal content and so deletion is what will happen. The act of creating an article is not sacrosanct. If it was we wouldn't have speedy deletion. Whether we should have an article on a topic is entirely separate from whether the one we have right now is a proper write-up, as opposed to being thoroughly tainted. These were the latter. I hear you: you did not understand what you were doing was a problem, though I always wonder how it happens that people don't understand copying other's writing is plagiarism and violates copyright (these are not just "Wikipedia rule"s, they are laws and norms of ethics essentially across most nations of the Earth). But the fact you say this means to me you are assuring me you do now, and won't repeat this behavior. So, if you want to create articles on these books, this time with proper content (which by the way, would involve, citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources to verify the content, in a transparent manner (rather than citing raw urls) is up to you. If and when you do so, you can drop me a note and I will undelete the fair use images for use in them (though be aware, fair use images must be reduced to low resolution to meet WP:NFCC#3)—I'm not saying these weren't but I never checked).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A copyright question

I'm going to take you up on your offer to discuss a copyright issue. It involves lists, one of Moonriddengirl's favorite copyright topics :) I'm looking generally at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Corkythehornetfan#Articles_1_through_20 this, specifically List of Seton Hall University people.

From MRG, I have taken away that lists can be moderately complicated when it comes to copyright issues. A list, however long, if noncreative, should not be a copyright issue. For example, if someone makes a list of the hundred largest cities in some country, even though it may take some work to compile, its noncreative. In contrast, a list of the 10 best places to eat in a location is a creative list and is subject to copyright.In this specific case, there is a site listing notable faculty and alumni of the school: Notable faculty and alumni. One question is where this falls on the creator versus noncreative spectrum and I think it's creative. That said, if I identify someone on this list, and then confirm there is an article in Wikipedia about them, I don't think I have any difficulty justifying that the name could be added to a list in Wikipedia of notable faculty and alumni of the school.

The list is not a raw list of individuals, it is grouped into categories such as business and media. One might argue that there choice of categorization show some creativity but I think that's a bit of a stretch to identify as a concern. I am somewhat more concerned about the red links, as this is clearly not a case where Wikipedia has determined that they are notable, this by definition is a case where the school has identified them as notable and we are including them in the list.

Finally, and arguably most important, is one thing to use the exact version of a person's name, hardly a copyright issue, but to use the exact description for each individual may be intruding into copyright issues.

Thus, my current conclusion is there are issues that need to be addressed, but my hope is we can do something less severe than blowing away the entire article.

I have some thoughts, but let me stop here and see what you think first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Sorry but I have to make you slap your forehead. There's no issue because the page at the Seton Hall University external site is a copy of the Wikipedia article (rather than the source of the content). See the bottom of the page: "Source Wikipedia". (It is, however, a copyright violation – by them – because they neither link the article where the page history is available, nor link the free copyright license of the Wikipedia work or reproduce the license in its entirety [and the balance of the content, outside of the list, comes from the Seton Hall University Wikipedia article]).

Back to the issue though. Since this specific one is academic, let's treat it as a hypothetical, as if this was content originally from there. If so, I think the copyright issue would not really be a close call at all – it should be deleted as a copyvio. The first overarching consideration is that we err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright. This is, for example, encapsulated in in the non-free content policy (btw, note point 4 at WP:TOP100), where we have intentionally made the criteria more strict to avoid edge cases and to err on the side of only allowing clear exceptions to the exclusive grant of copyright. Years ago the WMF lawyer(s) issued a statement on this. I simply can no longer recall where it might be, but it was to that effect.

So, as to this list, we err on the side of any creative assessment going on in creating it invalidating it – and this is no stretch, no real need to bend over backwards. Consider that the U.S. Copyright Office provides that works that are unprotected are those "consisting entirely of information that is common property and [that] contains no original authorship" (emphasis mine). Note also Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. – "The standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright."

Here, the list, as you note, is "grouped into categories", so it has creative arrangement, and there's no way the selection of who to include and who not to include has no creative selection or assessment involved—creative choice being exercised as to who is worthy of mention and who isn't. Staying with our premise that this was created elsewhere and wasn't a backwards copyvio, you also have no idea of the criteria used by the selector who originally compiled the list. Without knowing that, you may not be able to assess whether creativity, or what degree of it, was involved in its creation. One more factor is that this list also contains information next to the entries, describing the entries on the list, that, duplicated en masse, adds an additional lay of creativity to the list as a whole. So were this list copied from there, I would come down strongly on the side of removal. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm Good call. Yes, I do know to check for that but sometimes get down in the weeds and forget to check. Thanks for skipping over the simple answer and going through your thought process that would apply had it not been a copy from Wikipedia. I think what tripped me up is that the edit in question was the initial edit to a page. In retrospect, the fact that it was a list article should have been a signal that I should check to see if the material ultimately came from the school.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and Question

I was able to get rid of the redirect last night and woke up to it being implemented again. A wiki person called it pure promotion. That is not my intent. I'm trying to put it facts with backed up links and data. Below is what I put last night. I removed the link to The Base Caddy, perhaps they think this is promotion? I was just trying to show an image. Anyway, I deleted the link. Do you see any other issues or know how to remove the redirect issue?

Eric Leach (born April 19, 1965) is an American rock vocalist, lyricist and a founding member of the band Symbol Six which emerged from the early 1980s Los Angeles punk rock scene along with Social Distortion, Bad Religion, T.S.O.L., SIN 34, 45 Grave, Youth Brigade, Descendents, RF7 and Agent Orange. Symbol Six was signed to the influential independent punk record label Posh Boy and released their debut record in 1982. Eric released is first solo record, Perfect Life, in February of 2016.

Leach also fronted the band Shanghai with members of L.A. Guns, Faster Pussycat and Patrick Muzingo of Junkyard. Shanghi was managed by The Runaways creator Kim Fowley Eric Leach also was the lead singer of Stahlin, a band formed with Izzy Stradlin of Guns N' Roses.

As the singer, frontman and lyrist for Symbol Six, Eric is noted for his high energy performances and lyrics.

Between 1984 and 1987, Eric worked as a graffiti artist and went by the name EAZ. He worked with hip hop mogul Lyor Cohen and created custom logos, backdrop murals and video set design for the Run-DMC & Beastie Boys Raising Hell tour. He did the same work for Jermaine Jackson, MC Hammer, Ice-T and Paula Abdul's Straight Up video. His designs were prevalent at the infamous Radiotron, Los Angeles' first underground Hip Hop club with regulars such as Ice-T hosting as MC.

He attended the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California.

Eric is a patented inventor of "Transporter for bases for baseball and softball games", patent #USD502304 (Feb, 2005).

Thank you for your help, Thetruthtoo

Deletion of Cycnus (son of Ares)

Please refrain from deleting the page I created, it is unfair to delete a certain because of a recommendation of a trusted user. It is bias for me as I can see it because only of familiarity you just deleted a certain page, in fact that article is in the page itself and I just copied the content not copyrighting the content from an untrustworthy book that was a Wikipedia page in a pdf form. You must verify first the said source material and take a better judgment on the matter. If you did it again I will block you myself. I may be new in editing and just learning the process but I have the common sense and critical thinking in doing the right thing. Thank you. Think about it what I said. Markx121993 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please make a page pertaining the said article you just deleted. You must come up with it and find reliable sources. My suggestion on the matter.Markx121993 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Hi Markx121993. You cannot block me, because you are not an administrator:-) However, I will certainly look into the matter, You seem to be indicating this was a "backwards copyvio". I will take a look. If it turns out it was or other circumstances arise warranting it, I will undelete the page. If it turns out it wasn't, I will explain the issue to you better. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit Thank you for considering my thoughts on the matter. Please readily solve the problem at hand and verify the source material which is a copyright infringement from Wikipedia. Godspeed.Markx121993 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung, Markx121993:  Done. That 2016 "book" rips off Wikipedia's content (without any copyright attribution to the editors here I can see) from the Cycnus page dating from at least 2015 and earlier.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit Thank you for paying attention to my insights. Hope to work with you in the future. Markx121993 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)