User talk:Moneytrees/Archive 23

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Moneytrees. 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.

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Please review potential copyvio

Hi Money, can you please take a look at my edit Special:Diff/1066908307? The Great Big Book of Horrible Things: The Definitive Chronicle of History's 100 Worst Atrocities lists, as the title suggests, 100 worst atrocities, and my edit removed a table that reproduced that list. I think reproducing the list in its entirety is copyvio ... I mean, that's the "core" of the work, and it definitely would affect the market for the work, right? ... But maybe I'm wrong, so I figured a second opinion would be helpful. Thanks in advance, Levivich 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich Yes, reproducing the entire list is copyvio, see WP:TOP100 and Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. As you said, there's the argument that it would affect the market- MoonRiddenGirl talks about this at Talk:The Great Movies. Thank you for removing it. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding CW

Regarding this (complete & closed), I would like to add my interaction with CW to the record. See :

• 1) User_talk:Yug#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Illegal_gymnastic_skills
• 2) Special:diff/1023466195#Confusing
• 3) User_talk:Yug#May 2021
• 4) User_talk:Yug#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Damon_Weaver
• CW refusal to review and remove the hasty warning template would be unusual but ok. CW responded by doubling down with 4 more warnings in a week and removal of requests for slow down and improvement. A passage en force behavior previously observed in his conflicts.
• When I explicitly asked CW to stop harassing me on my talk page and as I refrained from responding, CW came back to my talk page 3 more times nevertheless, encouraging an admin he called over to block me, who nearly played along. I narrowly escaped the block by eventually (being forced to) asking the parachuted admin if he properly reviewed the 4 long exchanges involved (he admitted he did not) before blindly believing CW statements and encouragement to block me. (Section User_talk:Yug#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Damon_Weaver).

The need for CW to slow down and properly assess the situation was central to my position, with constructive solution possible. Constructive question on working process were remove. A “No complain, no problem to fix” approach.

• on CW talkpage
• again
• on my talkpage

The persistent passages en force, hounding, mischaracterisation of the other side, mislabeling of WP rules at play is more that simple copyvio problems. New users are sure to be crushed by such skills and behavior. The willingness to go fast and unwillingness to consider avenues for improvement are massive.

The draft which started it all was calmly restored and is now the short Banned gymnastics skills. Yug (talk) 🐲 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent you refered to "one editor has expressed reservations about potential harassment if you [CW] are to be unblocked". Given past experience and as a precautionary measure, I would like to know what I can do to keep CW from interacting with my talkpage or with me in the case of a return. Guidance welcome. Yug (talk) 🐲 17:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) CW's ban has not been lifted - his account is blocked, without talk page access. There is nothing further required to prevent them from interaction with you. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a case to later unban CW based on the copyvio dimension alone.

In my personal experience cited above which lasted 10 days I called for help to 5 administrators to mediate, several with close knowledge of CW profile : for some reason, they didn't answered the ping, I was left alone, for 10 days, facing a 20k edits/month user actually known for its aggressive interactions and an admin CW called over who pushed in CW's line with block warning while finally admitting not reading the relevant interactions.

I would prefer to have a safe path underhand. Yug (talk) 🐲 18:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Of they ever were to be unbanned (which I think quite unlikely at this point), it would be on the clear understanding that they not resume problematic behaviour in future. If they resumed old habits, or started picking fights with people they'd been in conflict with before, another block would follow shortly afterwards. I'm short - really, don't worry about it. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yug I have not logged onto WP for a couple of days. Forgive me for appearing to ignore you.

GS has answered this very well, and I find I have nothing to add. CW appears to have different styles of relationships with different editors. Apart from saying that I will not discuss their contributions when they have no chance to respond and it is not a formal forum for doing so.

I'm sorry you have had an unpleasant experience. That is not meant to happen here. Do not, however, rely on pings. Make direct contact with people when you wish for help. Not every editor embraces pings. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Anthony Opal

The copyright violation you revdel'ed at Anthony Opal has been reinstated. Can you take care of this (again)? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Whpq Done, thanks for reporting- I left a note for the ip that added it too. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 16:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Whpq @Moneytrees🏝️ I'm not sure why the bio for Anthony Opal has been changed back. It is incomplete as it stands. As I noted in my edits, I received permission from Opal's publisher to use his official, updated bio from their webpage. As I also noted, Opal's author photo is my own work, so I'm not sure why that was removed. Please clarify. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E20:6920:4862:2B87:416:34ED (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, there are steps you can follow at this page that detail how to release images and text under a license compatible with Wikipedia. It's not that I don't believe you got permission to copy that text; it's that Wikipedia has a creative commons license and that the content you added is currently copyrighted, and therefore not compatible with our license. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 20:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Moneytrees🏝️ Thanks for your help - and for supplying the link. I've submitted respective permission requests regarding the photo and the bio, per the instructions. Do you know if I might make the needed edits to Anthony Opal while the approvals are pending? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9E20:6920:84CB:FA28:9A3F:C4DC (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it might get removed again if it's added before it's approved, so I would wait until then. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 22:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Review request at NPP

Hi, Moneytrees, and thanks for your help at the /CCI guide. I wonder if I could enlist your help at a tangentially related topic, namely, if you could review some additions I've made to the NPP guidelines with respect to translating from other Wikipedias.

I'm not an NPP reviewer, and only know about it in passing; I came upon it by the side door, when I noticed NPP reviewers approving pages with copyright violations in the form of missing translation attribution in the edit summary of content translated from foreign Wikipedias. These approvals bothered, even shocked me, so I went to the NPP talk page to discuss adding something to their NPP guideline for reviewers, which lacked any mention of translation attribution. There was already a long section in the guideline about COPYVIO, but it was restricted to advice regarding copying of copyrighted books, websites, and so on; there was nothing about the case of permitted copy/translation from Wikimedia sister sites with missing attribution.

Surprised by a lack of interest at Talk and even some pushback, I went ahead and boldly added a new subsection to the NPP guideline, a page I'd never seen until this week. My changes are in section WP:NPP § Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO), mainly in the addition of new intro paragraph reprising the COPYRIGHT standard, and in brand new subsection WP:NPP § Wikimedia projects. (I didn't touch the preexisting content, now contained in subsection WP:NPP § Other sources; imho it could use a better segue and some cleanup, but that's a separate issue and I limited myself to the unattributed translations issue.) Anyway, I could use your help reviewing these changes and adjusting/improving as necessary, as I feel somewhat out of my element there, and a bit of an interloper. (I also made one minor, concomitant change to section WP:NPP § Drafts on that page, which is actually transcluded from Wikipedia:Drafts § During new page review.) Thanks in advance, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot I actually don't have that much involvement with NPP, but putting on my copyright hat I have no issue with what you included and commend it. Unattributed translation violations are some of the more annoying things to cleanup and like you say, even long term editors have done it without knowing there's an issue; this recent ani thread, where a long term editor got their autopatrol revoked, is an example of that. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 05:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the review, and feedback; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi it's me Chota Bheem fan I need your help

As you know that I am new to Wikipedia I don't know how to write my name date etc etc on my talk page or to elaborate my page so it's my kind request if you help me with that, thanks and have a nice day Chota Bheem Fan (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chota Bheem Fan I'm happy to help, but I'm confused about what you're asking me. Are you trying to figure out how to sign your posts? It seems you've got that down, just add four ~ after your posts. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 19:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for the pings.[1][2] I'm relieved that you and a number of other admins are concerned about the issue and are pursuing it. Initially, I was perplexed that an admin thought the notability tag needed explaining, but his follow-up edits to the article and his response to my explanation made it pretty clear that he didn't appear to understand WP:RS or WP:N at all. I would have continued the conversation with a new editor, but an admin?

I didn't participate at AN and likely won't at arbitration because (1) I think the input of his peers is most important and (2) there's nothing I could say that you didn't include in your excellent summaries of the situation. I'll watch it out of curiousity; it's a unique case (at least in my experience). Anyway, thanks again for taking the lead on this. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Arb case concerns

Hi Moneytrees. I just read your statement in an arbitration case request. I prefer not to opine on the case itself, so I wanted to address this with you here, rather than in a statement. Firstly, I think you made a mistake in this sentence: Around 10 administrators opined, all of them finding Timwi's conduct problematic, with several saying Timwi needs to resign administrative rights. The last two links in that sentence both point to the same diff. Perhaps you intended to include a different diff for your fourth link, or perhaps that link was unintentional. Secondly, concerning I believe that a motion would be better than a case, but I'm open to either. Far be it from me to lecture someone presumably more experienced on this subject matter, but if I could humbly offer an opinion from my limited experience, the current slate of arbs has shown great reticence in performing desysops by motion, without a full case – at least for non-technical and non-emergency issues. That is just to say that I suspect it will be a case rather than a motion if accepted. That's all I wanted to say. Hope you're having a great day! AlexEng^(TALK) 21:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng Yes, that a result of a copy and paste error; I fixed it now. As for case vs. motion, I think you're basing that on the recent Warsaw concentration camp, where among other motions a desysop was proposed in lieu of a case. That was kind of an unusual situation and case though, and I was basing my thinking off of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46, which happened in April 2021 and was more similar to this case. In that a case, a motion to open the case and temp. desysop was passed after Carlossuarez46 apparently retired, and it was more focused on content rather on something that happened in the case request. But maybe the committee will open a full case, I'm not sure. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 23:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting bit of history! I hadn't read that case. It looks like the motion promised to reopen the case if the retired editor returned, though. AlexEng^(TALK) 23:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

for your post at that unnameable site. I'm not sure how long it'll stay in the public area, so I'm glad I saw it. I've long felt the lack of a place to discuss meta-issues—the Village Pump ain't it, I see people in effect doing so at Arbcom case pages and that's obviously not the place, and I misused Iri's talk page for too long for that purpose—but one of the problems is that things are so interconnected. The place has indeed become overly bureaucratic, and notability rules are indeed unfair to those who want to work on many kinds of content, including non-English-speaking stuff and, crucially in this instance, internet stuff: the second time I recall hearing about the project was in a wail of anguish regarding the swathe that 2007's introduction of sourcing requirements was cutting through webcomic coverage, and it remains true that the way we define reliable sources and the evanescent quality of online coverage of online material makes it impossible for us to get most online works accepted for coverage; I created the article on TechnoViking after I forget how many deletions and extensive online coverage of how ridiculous it was that we did not have one, because I and another experienced searcher performed a major multi-linguistic deep mining operation, and notice the suggestion that the topic at issue in the recent case be shoehorned into a new article on its creators, which would further add to our imbalance toward biographies, because they are ironically easier to get over the bar. But there are shifting tides of preferences partly dependent on who's active at NPP, AfC, and AfD and their personal tastes. And different groups of editors have entirely different views on how AfC works, so that we simultaneously have editors successfully creating strings of articles through it, using it as an extra bulwark against deletion, admins draftifying articles in the belief it will act as an article incubator and the article can then return to mainspace better referenced and cleansed of puffery, and AfC reviewers refusing whole classes of articles, including those that have been draftified, and thereby causing their deletion 6 months later. Someone being a returning editor, including being a legacy admin, is not the only factor making it possible to see these things in different ways. (I had opened their talk page intending to send a message of sympathy and offering some thoughts, but I saw others had already done so.) To move closer to the main theme of your post, it's also possible there is more than one view of "the right thing", because people may genuinely disagree as to priorities and/or which ones are in play in a particular situation, and because nobody's either a 100% moral and selfless person, a perfectly intelligent and logical person, or necessarily has the identical values. One of the advantages of this project has historically been that we can keep evaluations to the "what" of an editor's contributions, rather than their motivations or their personality; but we can't, entirely, plus not everybody wants to (for the good of the community, etc.), and plus yes, there is a living, breathing person behind the edits. So anyway ... all kept distressingly vague for good reason ... thank you for complicating the issue over there. And I hope you searched the person's name and checked that they were ok. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Another person saying thanks

I'm not entirely sure if I'm supposed to or allowed to do this. But thanks for unblocking me. I don't know what else to say here. So goodbye and have a good day. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

New motions at the Timwi case request

Arbitrators have proposed two motions at the Timwi case request. You can view the motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Accept and suspend (1) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case § Motion: Accept and suspend (2). For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^talk to me | my contributions 19:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyvio problem

Hi, i am not 100% sure, but i think "User:RDKKR" is copy-pasting from internet or from Sengupta, Subodh Chandra and Bose, Anjali, Sansad Bangali Charitabhidhan (Biographical dictionary), Vol I. E.g. see [3], [4]. First i thought they are translating from bnwiki, then i saw Draft:Snehamoy_Dutt#Death "He under-took radiation therapy treatmelit both in Calcutta and UK but to no avail. He witnessed the sunrise and sunset of hope. He suffered in all its various hues. He tossed through sleepless nights and cheerless days."!! If possible, Could you please check? Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান Thank you for fixing the attribution issues you found; I've checked all their creations and fixed the remaining ones. I'm going to be keeping tabs on this user, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank you for opening the Arbitration case. I know that you think that maybe you should have waited, but I think you shouldn’t have. I think you did the right thing. I needed to be whacked over my head to get me to really take a step back and look at what I wreaked, and to realize that I was part of the problem that I lamented. This experience has changed me, hopefully for the better.

Thank you again and I hope that you will continue to do the right things that you believe in. You seem like a person who truly deeply contemplates things and I admire that a lot. — Timwi (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

A notice about the article ancient furniture

The article Ancient Furniture states that a rewrite was supposed to be reviewed on February 8th. It has not been. So I have decided to notify you. I am not sure you can do anything about it, however I suspect you can since you are an administrator, and you do a lot of copyright cleanup. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ewf9h-bg I was caught up in some other stuff, I've removed some remaining similar material and will be spot checking other sources. After I'm done with that, I'll move the rewrite into place. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 05:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Dummy page

User:Diannaa has just informed me about using User:Moneytrees/dummy to check translated copyvios and similar. Do you think this could be mentioned at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Other sources, or would that create too much work. TSventon (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon I added a note about translation copyvio, and provided a text comparison website that's useful. I decided to not add anything about pasting content into your sandbox and then using earwig to compare; some people might take issue with the page asking users to violate policy, even if it's a rationale thing to do. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 21:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a brief mention, I think it strikes the right balance. TSventon (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:NasserbinGhaith that was deleted

Hi. I started making this page and it was deleted for copyright infringement. I was wondering how I can fix this mistake or create a new page. Any help would be greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlychteh (talk • contribs) 21:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ashlychteh As long as you don't copy from your sources, your page will be safe from deletion as a copyright violation. My advice is to start off with just a few basic sentences summarizing the subject before adding more detailed information summarized from other sources. Currently, the subject you are working on is mentioned at UAE Five, which has some sources that might cover him more. You'll need more than one source if you want your draft accepted. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk🌵CCI guide 04:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

RevDel

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

(I archived the last one, it was getting too long) Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 22:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, ty. Signed,The4lines |||| ^(You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you check Kudremukh, first copyvio check I've done in a while. (And check my cont. for more that I've done, If I do anymore.) Thanks! Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^(You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 21:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Best Who? Anyways, I revdel'd it. I'll look into the user's other edits too. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 21:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Best who? What does that mean. Also thanks for revdeling it! Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^(You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 21:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I said "Best who?" because you didn't sign your comment, so there's nothing after "best," and I joked "Best who?" I guess it made more sense in my head. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 21:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh xd, I thought I signed it, ty again. Best, who Signed,The4lines |||| ^(You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 21:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Remember when we used to use this Money? Man I've been looking through all the RevDel threads. Brings me back! Signed,The4lines |||| ^(Talk) (Contributions) 04:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ruigeroeland is now fully populated

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Unfortunately there's thousands, even tens of thousands, more articles that aren't basic prose compared to the Dr. Blofeld CCI. I may have to turn up the settings somewhat, but that's only partial relief. What's the plan?

Addendum: I think I can eliminate another few thousand articles by turning up the settings. MER-C 19:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

MER-C, I'm thinking of having a survey team (there's 5 or so people on discord who could help with it) over it for a few days and then filling out my guide off of that. I'll do what I did with the Blofeld CCI guide, but won't make the mistakes I made with that one. Moneytrees🏝️^Talk/CCI guide 15:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Second pass completed, over 10000 articles removed. Ugh, I really don't want to do this again. MER-C 20:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I've released this to the regulars. It turns out the very last article in the CCI is a vio. The only thing I can think of is... have fun! MER-C 12:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)