This is an archive of past discussions with User:GreenLipstickLesbian. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Ipigott: Ahh, thank you- but I'm really just translating a bunch of articles. The real credit goes to whoever is gathering up all the sources and doing the heavy lifting over at the Spanish Wiki. I'm just excited that I can final put my high school Spanish through some much-needed practice! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red December 2023
Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292
Thanks for fixing the attribution I think most of it has been covered. So the reason why all the edits are cactus is because I went through and organized all the names so they comply with the modern classification, added pics on all the genus pages so people can see them making it easier to id them. It is now more consistent. --Cs california (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red January 2024
Women in Red| January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296
Hi GreenLipstickLesbian, thanks for your work at CCI. A minor note about template syntax; the "start" and "end" parameters in the template requesting RD1 revdel are more useful if you paste in the revision ID of the relevant versions, rather than their complete url. It allows the reviewing admin to go to the history with revisions pre-selected, which isn't possible otherwise. Thanks again and happy editing, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Because the page was created before the accounts were blocked, I don't think it qualifies for a G5, unfortunately- unless you know something I don't? But thank you for the advice! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agree that G5 does not apply. GLL, I've listed this one too at WP:CP, as you've seen. In general I think this is probably the better way of dealing with these older articles – speedy works well for recent creations and obvious cases, less well when a mass of research is needed to determine whether it is applicable (in this particular case I failed to track down the government of Aragon source, which just conceivably might be PD). Anyway, many thanks for working on the CCI! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, @Justlettersandnumbers! Yes, I saw you moved it to the copyright problems page, and thank you for doing that. I'm definitely still learning about the exact nuances of when to rewrite something & ask for a revdel or G12. (I'd like to think I'm learning quickly though!) I did managae to find the government of Aragon source, however, if you're interested. (And yes, it seems to be public domain! Thank you, Spanish copyright law!) Unfortunately, only one line in our current article remains from that source. I think Vvven may have taken an paragraph or so for the original article, but mistranslated it so poorly that somebody took it out. If somebody wants to re-write the article, actually, this source is probably the best place to start. All it needs is translating & modifying. Is it okay if I put that as a reply on it's WP:CP entry, or would that be more appropriate for a talk-page entry on the actual article?
Also, while I have you- I was recently fixing the Old Spanish Pointer article. I just rewrote it, because the machine translation (and subsequent well meaning copyedits) had rendered the article a lovely mix of partial copyright violations and incorrect statements/assumptions. Also, somebody fixed the citation of a quote- but I found a copy of the original book online, and I couldn't find the quote anywhere. I didn't request a revdel for it, though, because I was having a really hard time figuring out exactly where the copyright violations ended and original prose began. Also, if a quote is purported to be from a public domain source, but doesn't seem to appear in that source, does the quote gain copyright protections? Would it be okay if you looked it over, or I asked you for your opinion on a few revisions? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Nice work! You're free to comment in the WP:CP listing if you like. You're also free to stub the page – remove all running text, save, write a sentence or two from the sources, and request revdel. In this case you've identified the source of the copying, but you can do that even if you haven't managed to find it – any and all text by the user under investigation can (should?) just be presumptively removed unless it can be clearly shown to be copyvio-free. You can also presumptively blank and list articles with few or no contributions from other editors at WP:CP, just giving the CCI as your reason – some people have listed in batches of ten a day. It gives people a chance to rewrite, and provides a reason for deletion if no-one does so.
I'll look at the Spanish Pointer page tomorrow – that's a page I've already edited a good deal. I'll restore the quote from Alonso Martínez de Espinar (an article I wrote), it's here (took a bit of finding, even though I think I probably checked it in 2020). Foreign-language quotes are tricky: there can be two copyrights, one for the quote itself (definitely OK in this case) and another for the translation; here I would guess we're OK, the translation is probably by the Wikipedia editor himself. As for questions, yes, ask away! – I'll try to answer if and as best I can. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red February 2024
Women in Red| February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298
I made two changes to the page for the Second Battle of Fallujah. Only the second (a single sentence) was a minor edit.
Yet you deleted both.
The first, which definitely changes the meaning of the article, was not marked minor edit.
It included a source that shows that the whole chapter is hogwash, and the name of the applicable treaty, as well as a quote of the applicable treaty which again shows that the whole chapter is hogwash.
By removing that, complaining of ”minor edit”, is vandalizing.
The second change was made, marked minor edit, and I apologize for that.
So right now, the wiki page is in error and needs correcting.
@UlfRSamuelsson I didn't revert the edits because one of them was improperly marked as minor- I reverted them because Wikipedia is not the place for original research or righting great wrongs. If you want to add material into a Wikipedia page, it has to be based upon reliable sources, written from a neutral point of view, and, if you do want to quote something, you have to mark it within quotes, even if the material is in the public domain. When you don't clearly mark material in quotes or a blockquote, it becomes a question of plagiarism because it makes it seem as if the work is your own. If you have any further questions, the volunteers over at the teahouse will be happy to assist you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
The treaty governing the use of Incendiary Weapons is the authoritative source on the use of Smoke Shells.
So the whole chapter is wrong, and the authoritative source confirms that.
If you want to discuss the content of an article, you can open a discussion on that article's talk page. Alternately, you go to the talkpage, see what Wikiprojects the article falls under, and start a discussion there. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@Braithwc Hi, and thank you for double checking. Unfortunately, in that link, it also states that "However, authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License". Wikipedia publishes everything under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, which isn't compatible with the CC-BY-NC licenses. (You can read more on what licenses are ok here) Can you find evidence that this individual article was published under the CC-BY 3 license and not a CC-BY-NC? If you do, you can revert my edit, and I'll be happy to show you how to attribute the text to make sure it doesn't get removed again, and we don't accidentally plagiarise. However, if we can't find evidence of a compatible license, you're still free to re-insert the information back into the article- just not the text! I've never heard of Tanka poetry before, and it would be lovely if the article was more in depth than it is now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for getting back to me! I'll definitely look into that later! Follow up question, did you mean to undo the other things I did? Like the image I added and the person to the list of poets. If that wasn't intentional, could you put it back? Thank you! Braithwc (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Braithwc Sorry about that. No, those things should be fine. Apologies- I was moving a little quickly yesterday, and I didn't see the image or the entry. I've gone ahead and added them back in for you. Let me know if that looks okay! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Fuchsia glazoviana description Copyvivo
How do you want me to rewrite these facts so it is not an copyvivo? It is from here [1] which got the description from here
here is my attempt to rewrite it again:
Fuchsia glazioviana is a shrub that can grow 0.5 - 4 meters tall, often climbing trees or bushes. Its branches can spread up to 6 meters long, densely packed, and may have a purplish color with detachable small hairs. The leaves are usually in pairs or groups of three, oval to narrow oval, 15 - 40 mm long and 8 - 15 mm wide, dark green and smooth on top, paler and mostly smooth below, with small glandular teeth on the edges, and 4 - 6 with secondary veins on each side. Leaf stems are short, 3 - 6 mm, purplish with sparse hairs, and spaced 3 - 12 mm apart. Stipules are broadly triangular, 0.6 - 1.2 mm long and wide, purplish, and easily fall off.
Flowers are usually solitary in upper leaf axils, with thin, sparsely hairy stems, 12 - 26 mm long. The ovary is oblong, 4 - 5 mm long and 2.5 mm wide. The flower tube is cylindrical, 5 - 7 mm long and 2.5 - 4 mm wide, with few hairs outside and smooth inside. Sepals are 17 - 22 mm long, lance-shaped, joined at the base for 4 - 5 mm, with free lobes 3 - 4 mm wide. Petals are purple, oval, 9 - 12 mm long and 6 to 9 mm wide. Filaments are red-purple, 22 - 32 mm and 16 to 28 mm long. Anthers are oblong, 2.5 - 3.5 mm long and 1.1 - 1.6 mm wide. Style is red, smooth or somewhat hairy, with a club-shaped stigma 2 to 3 mm long and 1 to 1.4 mm wide, extending out 5 - 20 mm beyond the anthers. The fruit is a shiny dark purple berry, narrow cylinder, 10 - 16 mm long and 5 - 8 mm wide. Seeds are oblong, 2 - 4 mm long and 1 - 1.5 mm wide.
Well, for starters- what are the most important details about the plant? Things like height, colour, and flower shape. We're an encyclopedia, we don't need every detail. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we include it- and we especially don't include it if it would mean our article is just going to regurgitate the source. Even in the word of species taxonomy, if your description is only superficially different from a previous description, you just refer the reader to the older description and make note of what you found that was different. I think you'll notice that even the Smithsonian page isn't a closely-paraphrased version of the Berry article.
If I was going to write a description for the plant based on that source, here is what I would write:
The Fuchsia glazioviana has purple, cylindrical, flowers that produce dark purple berries. The plant itself has dense branches, sometimes tinged purple along with the leaf stems. It has dark green leaves, and has been known to climb small trees or shrubs. In their description of the plant, AUTHOR NAME(S) HERE reported that specimens were usually between one-half and four metres tall, with branches up to 6 metres long. [citation here]
Yes, there's a lot less. Some editors might make it a little longer, and some might just settle for the fact it's a plant with purple flowers. Ideally, both of those editors will *also* be taking from more than one source. But, well- that's normal? Nobody's out there paraphrasing the entirety of a Ken Burns documentary into a history article.
And that's it. If you have any more questions- go to the teahouse or the help desks or experienced editors in the plant-article-sphere or whoever you want, really. You told me that if I cared about the links so much, I could add them- so I'm going to go back and continue doing that. I'm going to leave you with one question though- but there's no pressure to respond.
Why, when I and several other editors over the years asked you to start adding the attribution links, didn't you? And then, when you realized you forgot so much, and where even told where, did you not go back and fix them yourself? Why do I have to do it? Why is your writing, and your contributions, so important that I have to spend over a hundred hours combing through your edits, fixing them one-by-one, while you sit back and can't even bring yourself to say "I'm sorry I made I mistake. Thank you for helping me fix it?"
I am sorry for making a mistake thanks for the fixes. But I did thank you several times on the edit when you added the info on several pages did you not see that? I am just asking you as a courtesy so there is less work for the both of us. That is really sufficient because purple berries are in the whole section Quelusia has the similar features, and the whole genus has cylindrical flowers so that is why I try to add everything so it can be compared. There is not much other content that can be added on some of these pages. Feature pages like zebra put more measurements in. The measurements are free data we can use. I just think adding more information distinguishes it from Simple english wikpedia otherwise it would be a pretty empty page. But If you think less information will prevent copyvivo issues. I am ok with adding less as long as the page is past the point of being a stub. I just don't want to spend lots of time rewriting stuff and then have it blanked. The reason I tell users they can add links and edits if they want is because there are instances when people disagree with my changes and I want them to make it themselves instead of having me do it and then telling me I did it wrong. But if you are interpreting that the wrong way I am sorry I got you worked up. --Cs california (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to Women in Red
Hi there, GreenLipstickLesbian. I see you have been following the activities of Women in Red for some time and am pleased to see you have finally registered officially. Thanks for all your biographies of Spanish wome. I hope there will be many more. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For persistence and diligence in tracking down copyvios, especially those of Dmitry Dzhagarov. Nthep (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nthep thank you! <3 And thank you so much for handling all the RD1 requests I've been throwing you way for the past year, and being patient as I've learnt the nuances of when or when not to file them. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
Women in Red | June 2024, Volume 10, Issue 6, Numbers 293, 294, 308, 309, 310
Over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DreamRimmer, you asked, "What is your interpretation of the attribution policy when it relates to copying from public-domain sources". I'm curious to know what your own interpretation is. The context of this is so I personally can better understand. If it came up right now, I'd just defer to editors with more experience dealing with copyvios, though obviously I'd have objections if someone falsely claimed they created the material. No problem if you don't want to answer (to avoid biasing DreamRimmer's answer, perhaps) or wish to do so privately by emailing me. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
@Yamla It's okay, I don't mind answering here! I wouldn't even mind if DreamRimmer asked me. I don't want to play a game of "Got-cha" on finer policy points, I want admins who understand them.
While not technically a copyright violation, copying and pasting public domain material into an article without clearly marking that it's not your own work is a straight forward example of plagiarism. Even if you don't explicitly claim the work as your own, it's still plagiarism because when you save an edit, there's an expectation that everything you wrote in your edit is exactly that-something you wrote. It's not the type of error you get sued over, but it is the type you can loose your degree for. The the easiest way to fix public domain plagiarism is to add something like the {{source attribution}} template to the reference and the {{uw-plagiarism}} template to the user's talk.
On a similar note, if the work is copyrighted, but under a compatible license (such as CC-BY-SA 4 or CC-BY-4), then the lack attribution does technically make it a copyright violation. It's most CCI people's favourite type, because it's the easiest to fix. You just add the creative commons text attribution template, or make a dummy edit for copying within Wikipedia stuff, and make it clear in your edit summary when the material entered the article. Adding an attribution template to the talk page is a good idea (I use the deputy script for this), but not required. I see translators get this backwards a lot. It's actually made me wish that our translation templates were better built to support multiple revision ID's and notes, so we could maybe make their use a viable alternative. But I think I got off topic a long time ago, so I'll cut myself off here. I hope this helped! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks so much for the detailed response! In particular, you helped me with the understanding around falsely claiming ownership. Also veering off-topic, it really annoys me when other sites attribute "Wikipedia" for, say, an image licensed under CC-BY-SA 4, thinking "Wikipedia" is sufficient attribution. :( Thanks for taking the time here, I appreciate it. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
That's good because I'm an utter failure when it comes to baking cookies. I'm much better at other domestic skills like knitting. But cookies? Somehow I've failed literally every time. In all seriousness though, I continue to be amazed every time someone talks about how much they look up to me. So thank you for that. :) Clovermoss🍀(talk)04:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Clovermoss @GreenLipstickLesbian, talk page stalker here to report that I'm a big admirer of both of you. Thanks for bringing such care and warmth to this occasionally-humdrum website! I forget all sorts of things on Wikipedia — the acronyms, the wikitext, pretty much all of the topic-specific guidelines about when to capitalize the word "the" (surprisingly complicated), etc — but I always manage to remember the people who make this place feel human. Thank you! I am excited that we are all in the Usernames-That-Depict-Green-Things Club (or is it capitalized "The"??) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Source of content is all CC BY. I am still working on it and will add the final template. Thanks for the patience... Anthere (talk)
@Anthere: If you can show that, then brilliant. But I noticed on your talk page that you don't always choose to add the attribution. That's a bad idea. Adding CC - BY or CC BY SA content without a proper attribution is still a copyright violation (since you're ignoring the terms of the license), and it creates more work for the editors monitoring WP:Copypatrol. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes...it is true I sometimes tend to forget that last bit... I only put it when the text copied gets long... and I do not always plan to do long when I start. I did not plan long in this case. And as I was fixing... I thought the article was really too short, vague and unhelpful. So I improved it... By the time I was done... I forgot... I was not disconnected yet... I was busy translating them in French...
but it stays a rare occurence ! my eyes are crossing, I will stop now. Getting tired. I hope I forgot nothing now. If you notice I forget again, ping me and it will be great !
for your reference, the terms of use are here : https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html. And I am 200% sure they are good because I actually made them change their TOU. Their published texts/reports were in 3.0 IGO initially. But the website terms were unclear. Now the TOU are clear about the CC BY 4.0 for both reports and online content (a good part of their Flickr images are ok as well). Good night and thanks for the little chat. Anthere (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Anthere Okay, it's good to know that we're (literally) on the same page. Here's my sticking point.
Except for some content published under more restrictive terms, new WIPO online publications and other online content are issued under an Attribution 4.0 International CC license (CC BY 4.0).
Given that this page is about their Open Access policy that they implemented in 2016, I'm taking "new" to mean "published after Nov. 2016". As this text was available, on the same webpage, prior to that date, it cannot be classified as a new online content. But I see your point- I suppose it depends whether or not the adjective "new" applies strictly to "WIPO online publications" or whether it applies to "other online content" as well. I believe it applies to "other online content" as well. The addition of another adjective in front of "online content" does complicate its interpretation, however, so I see how it could be taken to mean "new WIPO online publications" and then the completely unrelated set of all "other online publications".
I don't like assuming that something is CC BY 4 licensed under a technicality, but thanks to your explanation, I feel much more confident that that your interpretation of their TOU is in line with what organization intends. On top of all the great work you've done, getting them to release so much under the CC BY 4 license, would it be possible for you also get them to swap the order of the sentence so that it reads "online content and new Wipo online publications"? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Nod. That might be an interesting change that would make our life easier. That clarity could be worth it. I am going to share that thought with them. Might take a few months... but would be worth it if they agree. Anthere (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and review about my additions to the article Ann Marshall.
I write a great deal, and try very hard to change the contents of online sources I use as carefully as possible, but sometimes things slip through as I write relatively long wiki articles.
I've added two sources for Marshall's 4 x 100-meter freestyle world record. Actually, I believe we can quote Wiki as a source if we quote the source used by wiki (though I could be wrong about this) instead of wiki itself. I couldn't find the wiki source on the wiki page article for the record. The information on Marshall's 4 x 100 freestyle world relay record I provided was accurate according to the two new sources I've found to support Marshalls 4x100-meter freestyle relay world record. As the meet was with East Germany, the dual match in 1974 was significant and prophetic. As you may know, East Germany, also known than as the GDR was the American Women's team closest rival in the 1976 Montreal Olympics. The East German women's team was later found to have been using steroids, though they won nearly all the Gold medals, and the American team performed below expectations as a result. Shirley Babashoff wrote a book about the 1976 Olympics and her belief that the East German women's team had been using steroids, which has since been verified. The Olympic committee never changed the official results, though they tried to make certain ammends to the American team. Jim Montgomery, an American 1976 Olympian swam in this meet, as well as in the 1976 Montreal Olympics, in fact he competed against American Olympian Jack Babashoff, Shirley Babashoff's brother. I've since known him as a Master's swimming coach.
Hi, @Demosthenes1999! Absolutely no problem! Let me know if you need any more help. I can't say I'm an expert in historical family articles, but it seems like a really interesting topic. My best piece of advice is to look at other, similiar articles which have passed a Good Article Review or a Featured Article Review, and see how they're structured, what sort of information they include, what kind of sources they cite, etcetera. Good luck! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll definitely take a look at the good article review and featured article review! It's hard to fit in the time outside of work, and my wife has told me to stop working on the article so much! LOL. It does get very addictive! It might just be me but, I think the bar for getting an article up is actually a lot higher than most people realise. lol. Thanks again. :) Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red August 2024
Women in Red | July 2024, Volume 10, Issue 7, Numbers 293, 294, 311, 312, 313
Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!
Hi, @Sirberus, it's no problem! Once I saw that the article was under a GAR, I decided I was going to do my best to remove all the close paraphrasing and blatant copyvios as quickly as possible. (Although I do have to thank @Nikkimaria for doing a very comprehensive first pass- and for discovering the issue in the first place). Tensions tend to run really high with CCI investigations, where you have one side frustrated that all their hard work is being damaged because somebody couldn't follow the rules, and the other side frustrated that they have to spend hours to days cleaning up after somebody who should have known better, and neither side gets access to the standard Wikipedia content dispute cycles and procedures such as WP:BRD. I figured the least I could do was try and eliminate as much of the copyright angle as I could. We're all in this thing together, right? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we are! I cannot express how much I appreciate your culling out the suspected material. I have spent months (years?) researching sources and then trying to write something useful which meets standard and then edits appear over time which are copy-paste entries. I'll keep chipping away, but thank you for the hard work!Sirberus (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your work on CCI. I have a couple of the pages on my watchlist, and I'm constantly impressed by your work. Thank you! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me!02:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@ARandomName123 😊 thank you so much! And right back at you- I have some CCI pages on my watchlist as well, and it's always a relief to see your name show up because a) I'm not alone in these! and b)I know you've done a good job and the case has just gotten that much easier to work through. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I knew it must have been something I was doing wrong! Thank you for telling me, 2804:F1. <3 You know, as much as I'm sure we'd all be happier and more productive if ANI got vanished occasionally, I'd at least like to be doing it intentionally, lol. 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Well watch this space if you want to find any more- one of my only compsci classes ended with all three TA's hunched around my laptop, murmuring in hushed tones "But how did she do that?" But seriously, it nice to know I'm not the only one trying to surreptitiously hide half of all Wikipedia pages. Thank you for being on hand to explain what's going on! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent helpful Teahouse responses. When I moused-over your username, I spotted a tiny error in your profile text that popped up which you might not have noticed. Instead of saying you "like to create biographies of various woman.", I'm sure you meant to write that you "like to create biographies of various women." I hope you don't mind me flagging this up. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Ahaha yep, that doesn't....make any sense in context. Lol- thanks for pointing it out! Every day, my existence moves close and closer to being considered soley a make-work project for the typo team and GOCE, I'm sure. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:
Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.
Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.
Copyright violation in Agriculture in Haiti article
You removed a lot of copyrighted text from the article. Fine, no problem, good job. But where did that wall of text come from? I didn't put it there and I don't find any record of it in the list of edits and editors. I don't want to be blamed for it, and since you've omitted the material, why do we need the tag reporting the copyright violation? That tag seems to point the finger at me as the offending party. Why not remove the tag? The situation is resolved. Smallchief (talk)
Never mind. Somebody deleted the tag. But, frankly, I don't see that the tag was necessary in the first place. It casts aspersions without identifying the guilty editor.Smallchief (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Smallchief: Okay, please don't worry! It looked like you pasted the entire article into the url parameter. It got flagged on an automated system (WP:COPYPATROL) - so I went to investigate. Once I saw what had happened, and how you immediately self-corrected, I decided to just ask an admin to revdel (wipe) the text from the article history. (You never know which revision web-scrapers are picking from, and it stops anybody from accidentally reverting to the "bad" revision). I didn't warn you, because I could see it was an accident. That copyright violation tag (which has already been removed from the article) wasn't a way of assigning blame, but rather a way of alerting an admin that I needed one of them to delete that very particular revision. It's not casting aspersions- trust me, if I or anybody else thought you'd done it intentionally, I'd have warned you formally, on your talk page, like I've done for many other users.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I was disturbed when I saw that tag and wondered what I had done wrong. It makes sense what you've done, so thank you. Smallchief (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Smallchief Yeah, it's a pretty scary-looking tag, isn't it? But, while you're here, I really like the work you've been doing on the article. It's already starting to look in much better condition. I especially enjoyed reading the facts about Vetiver you added- I'd never even heard of it before, but it's super interesting! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, my recent reply to you at RFA was probably a bit too snappy. I guess I just don't like IAR very much because it goes against community consensus. I feel like we spend all this time and effort on RFCs, so we should follow them. There are lots of RFCs that close against my preferred outcome and I always suck it up. For example, I didn't try to vote on day 1 at this RFA even though I have decided I am not a fan of the 2 day waiting period. Anyway, I could have been nicer in my reply to you, so I apologize.
I am calibrating on the issue of striking non-EC votes at RFAs. In the future, I am considering do something different than striking them. Something that is less bitey such as moving them to the discussion section. Let's see how the discussion at WT:RFA shakes out.
@Novem Linguae For the past few hours, my mind has been very much in a state rapid-fire looping between "I shouldn't have posted that", "I feel like this is straying too close to an argument" and "I'm not behaving in a way I'm proud of". I don't like disagreement, I find it stressful and judgement-clouding, but I should have expressed myself in a less snappish way as well. I'm sorry. Truce?
And, for what it's worth, I can't say I'm a fan of IAR either. I've only ever seen it be used successfully once, when I found a page covered with copyright violations. They weren't blatant enough for the page to be G12-ed, but I needed to trim and re-write the entirety of a page. Then, about thirty minutes later, I found out the page was created by a blocked sockpuppet of the dubiously-notable company the page was about. It was no longer eligible for any speedy deletion criteria, I'd made sure of that- but a nameless rogue admin G5ed the page anyway and saved us all a week in AfD. But it's the only time I've used it successfully - every single other time I've seen somebody try and claim an IAR exemption, it's exactly what you'd expect. But when you see a rule being applied in a way that you don't think even anybody who supported it, or even the person enforcing it, agrees with- it's hard, and I've never been the best at the soft skills needed to deal with situations like that. Give me the binary of black-and-white thinking or give me nothing, I guess. So IAR is not a policy I like either. I'm also hoping that the community finds consensus for the proposal to move non-valid votes to the discussion area. Actually, I think I know what we're both hoping for (lol), but I think that would be a great move and I'm really happy it was proposed. And, tbh, it's going to be way more effective than what I've done. And I see that theleekycauldron has re-instated the vote- so I suppose we can both move on.
It's all good. Yes, definitely a truce :) Yeah, my first instinct was to be snappy, but when I calmed down and thought about it, it's obvious that we're both acting in good faith and just trying to do what we think is best. Improving the environment for newcomers is important so I totally get where you're coming from.
IAR is tricky because I think it's left over from the early days of Wikipedia. I think as organizations grow and get more complex, they tend to become more bureaucratic, so IAR stops being a particularly good fit. Some might say, "oh, bureaucracy is really bad", but I think it has its place. When an organization gets too big for everyone to know everyone and for any one person to wrap their head around everything, then bureaucracy (rules) can help communicate what other parts of the organization have found to be good practices. In the end I think it can help harmonize things. Although of course it is a tradeoff and it has its downsides.
But enough of me extolling the virtues of bureaucracy. The "virtues of bureaucracy"... what an oxymoron. lol. I'll stop rambling now :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae Trust me, I don't think the thought that you could ever have been acting in bad or even neutral faith ever crossed my mind- and I think I would have done what I did regardless of who actually had performed the original strike, and still knowing full well that somebody was likely to undo my action because I was, according to a literal reading, in the wrong. And, under nromal circumstances, I could have stricken the vote myself. For example, if anybody participating in the RfC had brought up old accounts without enough edits, and still decided not to accept their !votes, I would have accepted community consensus and kept my disagreements to the talk. Actually- you were active during that RfC. It's a long way back in internet terms, but do you remember anybody discussing that, or bringing up older accounts with maybe 300 to 400 edits? I'm not seeing anything on the actual discussion, but we all know that discussions fragment. No worries if you don't- I was just curious.
And, no, feel free to ramble away! I'm typically very pedantic when in comes to rules, and I get how the landscape of Wikipedia has changed. I've been flitting around on various IP addresses and the odd account (long abandoned due to accidentally doxing myself) since 2010/2011 or so. I've watched how we've gone from an encylopaedia anybody can edit, built around egalitarian ideals where everybody is treated seriously, to one where we eye unregistered and new accounts with distrust. Which I get, to a certain extent. I've dealt with enough COI editors and spammers to tell that not everybody is acting in good faith all the time- but I actually registered this account, after a long stretch of sporadic IP editing, because I wanted to write stuff, and I knew I couldn't do that as an IP. And I was getting more than a little tired of the way I'd remove some weasel words, or a minor child's name from their parent's article, or some promo sourced directly to the company, only to be hit by some newbie vandal hunter with a "rvv" edit summary. But, you know- I'm not perfect- and my experience at that point was still pretty limited to minor tweaks, WP:CLAIM, and what I thought was common sense . Maybe, after discussion, we might have ended up deciding that what I thought were weasel words were actually ok, and the newbie vandal hunters were just learning the process. And, I knew from experience that if I, unregistered IP, brought it up, the newbie would go on the defensive, bring up LOUTSOCKING or block evading (because IP's never know any Wikipolicy), and nobody would learn anything or leave the conversation with anything more than a bad taste in their mouth.
But that brings me to last year. Due to accidentally spotting an experienced editor committing extensive copyright violations, I started working in CCI. On once CCI in particular - the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ChowderRulez CCI- I ended up pdelling everything I couldn't prove was copyvio due to the fact that nearly nothing they wrote was sourced, verifiable, or usable. But, despite how obviously crap their edits were, about 50% or something of their edits were still live by the time I got to them? Which, I mean, TV and cartoon articles can be a mess. Probably nobody was monitoring them. But then, purely by accident, I discovered an old IP address of theirs. Same quality of edits, same number in total, same ratio of copyvio, same usefulness to the project. Obviously, something I as a CCI volunteer, needed to deal with. Or did I? Looking closer at the IP's edits revealed that something like five or six were still live. Actually, no. I mean, they were live, but the more precise way of putting it is that two or three edits hadn't been reverted instantly. The area was being monitored after all, it seems.
So yeah. That's probably more of my Wiki-philosophy than you or anybody else ever wanted to know. And I'm fully aware most people wouldn't see "crap IP edits being reverted wholesale" as a bad thing. Without the context of the fact that we let two 2k to 3k EC accounts get away, for years, the exact same behaviour, I'd actually say that was a good thing. But you're right- we are a bureaucracy and so many of our early Wiki-ideals no longer hold up or have community consensus needed to back them up. And there are some advantages to this system- because you're right, we no longer operate in an environment where everybody knows everybody, and so we do need well-written guidelines, policies, and rules so everybody knows where they're at, and also to prevent chaos and bad actors from hurting the project. I'm just not entirely comfortable with the way some of these policies, especially the ones even the closer, proposer, and !voters concede was chosen for convenience and consistency rather than because anybody thought it would prevent abuse, are being enforced. That's what my IAR un-strike was really about. Because, I think it's clear from this point- the fact than an non-EC editor gets their vote struck in a way nobody agrees with (the only justification I've seen anybody offer is that biting them is worth it if it means keeping out socks) while I, editor who discovered a couple of automated tools and backlog, gets a personalized message isn't something I'm OK with. (Does the editor even know their vote has been moved? Nobody pinged them, or left a message on their talk). The only thing I genuinely regret there was the words I used to express that, once the conversation got heated. Again, apologies. (And I apologise for my apology- I'm no expert, but "I'm sorry- but here's a diatribe on why I'd still do some of what I did again" doesn't feel like the the best example in history! But you can skim over the middle sections if you even feel like reading them- like all wall of texts, it was mostly written for myself). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your experiences as an IP editor. Not sure I can relate fully since I've had an account for a very long time, and another account before this. The last time I edited as an IP I probably didn't know about the history tab or talk pages, or care much if I was reverted.
I think I've seen one or two power user-ish IPs handle the situations you've described well. There's no doubt they get improperly reverted more often than logged in users, but I think they usually just start a discussion with the editor. And like most discussions on Wikipedia, either things get hashed out, or other experienced editors get involved in the discussion and nudge things in the right direction.
All this talk of IPs and their treatment makes me want to try some logged out editing for a week or two and see what it's like. It would probably be pretty difficult to work efficiently with no watchlist and no pings/notifications. Too bad that logged out editing would probably be a bad idea for an experienced user due to the risk of violating WP:LOUTSOCK by editing the same talk pages as your logged in account. Not worth the risk.
There's also the obfuscation aspect of it, which reduces accountability, and which makes it harder for people to figure out who you are. Those also seem like minuses. Although the obfuscation aspect fits well with the open source ethos of pro-privacy. Which is another interesting Wikipedia dichotomy: we value both privacy and transparency at the same time. How is that supposed to work? That's kind of like having IAR yet being a giant bureaucracy at the same time. Lol.
IPs are an interesting mix of positive and negative. They do a lot of vandalism and poor editing, but they also do a lot of content writing too. Pros and cons. I guess the fact that it's so easy to edit is good for editor recruitment too. The barrier to entry is practically non-existent. WP:BEBOLD.
The IP edits on my watchlist definitely get checked by me more since they vandalize more. I have WP:POPUPS installed, so if I see that an IP or a brand new user made an edit, I hover over the diff and it shows me in a popup what the changes were. Whereas if it's an edit by an experienced user, and I'm not interested in checking it, I'll click it open in a new tab to mark it as read on my watchlist, without checking its contents. That's just how things are I guess. IP edits contain more vandalism so need more checking.
I also find my user highlighter script indispensable. Certain behaviors just correlate really strongly to experience level, so for me it's super useful to see that. Like, my user highlighter shows me that you're an NPP, so that gives me useful information about your experience level. Like, you're far enough along on your Wikipedia journey to have started cracking our byzantine notability guidelines. I suspect the proud of editing as an IP folks and egalitarian folks would dislike the idea of a user highlighter script, since that is inherently hierarchical.
WMF is going to roll out IP masking in the next 6–12 months, I think. That is going to give IPs more stable usernames and pings/notifications, but not watchlists. That will be an interesting change that will alter the current dynamics of IP editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
DCWC September update
The Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months, and we've seen tremendous improvement in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas from a wide range of editors! The coordinators would like to highlght some of the newer faces who have been making notable contributions in the contest, including but by no means limited to:
Only one month remains until the end of the contest, so it's time to make your remaining nominations! Please consider answering some review requests, particularly the older entries, as a way of helping out your fellow participants and moving up the leaderboard. Good luck!
