This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rcsprinter123. 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.
Your File Uploads
There seems to be a thread running through your uploads where you claim release on a free license or files as being PD when they are obviously not on a free license and there is no evidence of this permission. Any non-free file used on wikipedia on a free license must be registered with OTRS. I have tagged a few of your images for delayed deletion but I would much prefer for you to fix them yourself without coertion. We do not use unfree images on incorrect licenses on wikipedia and any incorrectly licensed images must be removed. If you have any questions feel free to prod me on my talkpage. SpartazHumbug!12:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the gist of the blog was there but I wikified and re-wrote most of it - as well as citing it as a source. If you want to take this further take it somewhere else. Rcsprinter(talk)17:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again, do not add copypaste text or images from other places on the internet on to Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with our copyright policy. You have been here long enough, so you should know this. —SpacemanSpiff17:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
He has been blocked for it before and his talk archives are full of messages about copyright issues. I'm seriously considering whether we need to do something about this user as they either are incapable of understanding our copyright polices or are completely disinterested in complying with them. I'd be interested in RCSprinter's comments on why they think I shouldn't act. SpartazHumbug!17:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
What totally beats me is how to reconcile articles like Ian Cook (artist) and Coastliner 700, which apart from the odd unreliable source are pretty good quality, with actions like this. It would be a pity to lose future edits like this, but that's looking increasingly likely right now. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, for that edit, I had accidentally deleted the text and was just restoring it as you can see in diffs. I have never read that PDF leaflet (until a minute ago). In answer to your question, which copyright violations must I cleanup? Be specific. Rcsprinter(talk)18:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, on this one, it wasn't introduced by you. However, why did you revert the removal of the copyvio by Alzarian16? Many of your images have dubious licensing tags -- with false claims that they are PD etc as Spartaz and I have gone through today. How many more are there like the text that Alzarian16 found on High Peak (bus company) or that I found on High Peak (bus company) subsequently? —SpacemanSpiff18:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't know, but I can assure you not many. Copyright just isn't my strong point. I try to license stuff that needs it, but there are often faults. Rcsprinter(talk)18:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just discussed this briefly with Rcsprinter off-wiki, and I'm going to post some more detailed thoughts on the problems with his editing when I (hopefully) get time later this evening. (His mentor is usually not around at weekends.) In summary, Rcsprinter, adherence to copyright rules is not an optional part of Wikipedia editing that you can just say is not your strong point and hope that someone else deals with it. If you upload images then you must ensure they are not infringing; if you use sources then you must follow the rules on paraphrasing. Reverting people who suggest that there's a copyright problem, and telling people who raise issues to "take it somewhere else", is even worse. It's just not acceptable. More later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I was going to suggest a topic ban from uploading images but the incorrect reuse of text is troubling enough that it may not be sufficient in the context of an editor who has been warned so many times about not adhering to our copyright policies. I'm certainly willing to give Rcsprinter some space to fix their own mess but I think its fair to comment that their continuing participation in the project requires some significant improvements - hint better communication skills would be a lovely start. More listening and responding openly at an early stage always goes down really well, but the key has to be some way to assure us that future edits will not flagrantly ignore our policies. SpartazHumbug!19:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I've just spotted all this and sent Rcsprinter an email regarding it. Hopefully he know what needs to be done and I'm willing to lend a hand getting things sorted. WormTT· (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd suggest that since that was done in AWB, I'd hold that seperate to his other WP work - could easily have been set up prior to these discussions and all he need do is check that he's not cocking anything up. Maybe not the best response, but I wouldn't count it as ignoring the situation either... WormTT· (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Copyright
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but there aren't nicer ways of phrasing it. In no particular order;
You copied entire paragraphs, word for word, from the mancunian1001 blog. Your claim above that you "re-wrote most of it" is just obviously wrong. You cannot do this. Please read, carefully, WP:PARAPHRASE to get an idea of just how much you need to re-word something for it to be properly in your own words.
I don't believe that you have actually had responses from the BBC, the Manchester Evening News, and various bus companies giving you permission to use the images mentioned above. Even if you had permission to use their images on Wikipedia, that is not enough - they need to specifically agree to a license acceptable to Wikipedia, as explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Their agreement to do so can be confirmed by forwarding their reply to OTRS.
Company logos can usually be used under fair use; this means there would be no need for any permission or licensing, so that would have got around the problem for the logos anyway! This is easy to do, so why on earth did you decide to upload them as having a status titFormBoundaryszw5RBFrws8u0aTF
need help or advice on fair use or how to pick the right option, you have a mentor, you know where Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is, you know where the IRC help channel is, I imagine you know how to put a helpme request on your own talk page.
You've suggested that you take the view that you want to focus on editing, not spending lots of time messing around with copyright. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way - copyright rules are not optional on Wikipedia. There have been times I've had to spend months making enquiries on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and elsewhere about whether an image can be used, sometimes I've had requests refused by copyright holders, sometimes I've had to deal with copyright holders who were just incapable of understanding what sort of license they were being asked to agree to and why, sometimes they just don't reply. In those cases, it meant I could not use those images on Wikipedia. On occasion it meant an article went on the Main Page without an image. There is no shortcut way round it - if you don't want to deal with copyright rules, don't add the material.
Until you have a demonstrably good understanding of copyright rules as they affect Wikipedia, you should not ever revert someone who removes something on the basis of copyright. Instead, if you don't understand why they've removed it, you go to their talk page and ask them to help you understand it.
If someone comes to your talk page about a copyright problem, then replying "if you want to take this further take it somewhere else" is an invitation for them to block you and then the "somewhere else" will be discussion of the block at ANI. And that discussion will not go well. People are routinely blocked for violating copyright after being warned, the last person to get blocked for that was only a few hours ago. Do not go down that road.
You are obviously capable of writing decent English, so there is no need for you to copy and paste or closely paraphrase. Equally, although the logos thing seems to be a misunderstanding on your part (you didn't realise how easy it would be to upload them under fair use), image copyright is something you should be able to follow. I think you took these shortcuts because you thought it would be easier and you didn't want to go through the trouble of doing it properly. Unfortunately, it does not make editing easier to try to use these shortcuts. Yes it's annoying, but contributing to Wikipedia has to be done with care, and there are no easy ways.
OK, I am reading WP:PARAPHRASE through and will abide by it, and I shall make the images correctly licensed too. I may have some further questions, but I can ask those again if necessary. Rcsprinter(talk)15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
File:Derbyshire bus route 358 logo.JPG listed for deletion
I'm hopeful that Rcsprinter will put the time into uploading the logos properly under fair use, once he's had time to read and carefully think about all of the below (and answer some of it). The rest will most likely have to be deleted; I'm not sure if there's much he can do to assist with that process. If there are some images where contacting the copyright holder about free licenses would be beneficial, then hopefully he will do that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
That'd be good. If the logos are deleted they can be re-uploaded with suitable fair use rationales providing they meet the WP:NFCC (which they probably should if my understanding's right). Of the non-logo images, the ones of Simon Mayo and Steve Wright could be useful if the copyright status can be addressed, but the others aren't that important - the Smartcard one doesn't add all that much to any of the articles it's used on and there are plenty of free images of Trent Barton buses already available. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I will remove the wrongly licensed images from the articles, and then I will upload the logos as fair use with rationales, and then CSD the wrongly done ones. Then I can concentrate on the other images. Rcsprinter(talk)20:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
After reviewing the discussion on WP:AN, I believe that the consensus is to allow for modifications of your ban. Specifically:
You may nominate articles for GA review, but only if you are a primary contributor on that article. You still may not nominate articles on which you are not a primary contributor. There is no strict definition of primary contributor, but I recommend that you err on the conservative side. I am willing to personally advise on this point if you are unsure (just drop me a line on my talk page).
You may conduct one (only 1) GA Review. You must get a second, more experienced GA reviewer to also conduct a review. After you do that, the two of you can go back to WP:AN to discuss whether or not further modification of your ban is appropriate.
Also, as my closing statement noted, several people expressed concerns about your understanding of copyright policy. Let me say, this is a very serious aspect of Wikipedia rules--it's one of only 2 policies that really has potential, real-world legal consequences for Wikipedia (the other being WP:BLP). Copyright is bad. Always. Removing copyrighted materials (except those covered under fair use, like images that fall under WP:NFCC, or short, attributed quotations from printed texts) is always the right approach. This makes it quite different from other WP problems; for example, it's technically okay (though not best practice) to through up a big block of text onto an article that isn't well-written, doesn't have wikilinks, has badly formatted references, etc., and then gradually edit it down to something useful (or even ask others to do that). Putting up any amount of copyrighted text and then saying that you or someone else should paraphrase it afterward is a definite no-no. Remember, too, that copyright review is one of the big parts of a GA review. The main policy on copyrights can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright violations, but I also find that the Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright helps me a lot. And, of course, asking questions.
Good luck. While I don't do GA reviews and have only been through one myself and so won't be too much help there, I am happy to help answer other questions you might have. If I don't know what to do, I'll try to help track down someone who does. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou for participating in my request for adminship. Now I've got lots of extra buttons to try and avoid pressing by mistake... Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The image accompanying the Henry Wellcome wiki is not that of Wellcome but of the neurologist Henry Head. If proof needed, here it is. RMacF (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
To merge to articles The Breeze (Bristol) with The Breeze (Bridgwater & West Somerset to create The Breeze (South West)
At first I heared that Celador purchased the previous owners of Thomahawke Radio in Bristol that owned Star 107.2 and Jack FM. In February 2011 Star 107.2 became The Breeze. One Gold Radio Group sold Total Star Somerset to Celador also became the Breeze 100.8, 102.4 and 107.4 in Bridgwater & West Somerset in August in the same year. Former radio station Total Star Bath was also owned by One Gold Radio Ltd and after it ended its partnership with Storm Radio Ltd that owns Total Star Gloucestershire. One Gold then later became More Radio Ltd and Total Star Wiltshire & Bath became as More Radio 107.7 in Swindon, 107.5 in West Wiltshire and 107.9 in Bath. In Bath More 107.9 did not renew the licence, so there for it was up for sale, and was awarded to Celador. In September it began broadcasting as The Breeze 107.9 with all the same presenters and the same shows which includes The Donny Osmond Show. Only the Breakfast Show and Drive time Shows may have a different presenter in the South West which is separate in the South. So that is the reason why now I do feel that the two articles The Breeze (Bristol and The Breeze (Bridgwater & West Somerset should now be redirected to a new name "The Breeze (South West)." So I wonder if you could please make it possible? Many Thanks. Steveojavano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveojavano (talk • contribs) --22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
I have completed a copyedit on the article. Good luck with continuing it, perhaps more to the history section about the five generations and how the company started? Chaosdruid (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
by the "Category:The Order of Shadows" vandal. Your additions have all been reverted. Now tag the lame empty cat for speedy deletion yourself. Uʔ (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters.
Or to be more specific; did you get Foundation permission? I'm asking as an official action now, not as a volunteer. I'm going to go with "no", since there's no way in hell Geoff would authorise a survey that claims to be "completely anonymous" but is run on SurveyMonkey, which logs the respondent's IP address. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I have now rolled back all your survey invitations. Explain, immediately, who authorised you to do this - and do so before inviting any more users. If you invite more users without explaining, I will block you until such time as you complete this request. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I am curious about why you were inviting only administrators to participate and what you planned to do with the logged information. —DoRD (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
A little bit of an over-reaction, don't you think, gents? I din't know "Wikimedia Surveys" was some kind of official entity, so I doubt Rcsprinter did, and once that's taken out of the equation, it's just a harmless survey that folks can choose to respond to or not as they wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
HJ, claiming complete anonymity while logging IP addresses - and claiming some sense of authority while doing it - makes this an issue. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, mate. I would be inclined to assume he didn't know IPs were logged (though they are on most websites where you input information), and surely the website rather than Rcsprinter himself would be collecting that information? I really think we're reading more into his intentions than is there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
HJ, I've used that precise survey system to gather data on the Foundation's behalf. The IP data is shared with the person who holds the survey account, and can be exported ad infinitum. He was not blocked because we believe he intended to extort data from users, or because we believe he knew the data would be saved and still claimed anonymity. He was blocked because his actions constituted (admittedly poor) WMF impersonation, or some attempt to claim official sanction. Check the block log. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to mention, what Rcsprinter said elsewhere is that someone else was responsible for writing the survey (and, presumably, asking him to send it). One of the first pieces of information being sought, once he gets back from wherever he is, is who that "someone else" is. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
You can probably get a day return to London ridiculously cheaply so why not come to the meetup on Nov 13? You will discover that Okeyes and myself are actually human - or, of course, you may decide the opposite. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 23:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I really ought to get myself there too. But I've got an all night shift on the Friday night. 'tis very annoying. WormTT· (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Rcsprinter123/Receive the Signpost by Mail
User:Rcsprinter123/Receive the Signpost by Mail, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rcsprinter123/Receive the Signpost by Mail and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Rcsprinter123/Receive the Signpost by Mail during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs11:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Because of your series of edits, such as this one which say that you're doing it on behalf of Wikimedia Surveys, I'm blocking you until we can establish the authority under which you're operating. Any admin may unblock once the user has either 1) explained or 2) demonstrated understanding of the issue. Please don't impersonate the Foundation or staff..... Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiya - Okeyes tells me that this is resolved to his satisfaction and that there was no ill intent meant, but just some process steps skipped. Given that's the case, I've unblocked you, and thank you for your understanding and your interest in helping Wikipedia. Have a great week, okay? :) - Philippe19:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Could we (non-WMF staff) please get some more information about what happened. I see three different activities by Rcsprinter123 that each cause me concern, and, combined, make me actually frightened. This survey allowed Rcsprinter the ability to gather IP addresses from users, without actually telling anyone that (though perhaps, it was pointed out, he didn't know). Then, below, there's an MfD on a pay where Rcsprinter alleges xe mail copies of the Signpost to people--so he is asking for people to write their snail mail address. And is he actually sending out the snail mail, paying for the postage himself, anywhere in the world? Finally, Rcsprinter123 is claiming on User talk:Chapel-en-le-Frith High School that he wants to usurp the account to run a bot, which doesn't even make any sense, given the name of the account. The more I look at it, the more this sounds like either someone trying really hard to scam people, or that this is some sort of WMF "plant" designed to test whether or not WP users will engage in dangerous actions. I really am trying to AGF, but without a lot more information, I am unable to conceive of legitimate, safe uses for this information. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about something too: the User:Chapel-en-le-Frith High School account has one old edit at [2]. However, that edit makes an odd claim, at which point it was autoblocked as being from the same IP as Rcsprinter123. I have no idea what is going on, but it seems unusual. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
From my point of view, as Rcsprinter123's ex-mentor, I haven't seen anything that has worried me unduly. Rcsprinter123 used SurveyMonkey to run a survey, apparently without the knowledge that it stored IP address and suggested it was from the foundation (by putting "for wikimedia surveys"). When the error became apparent, Rcsprinter123 supplied User:Okeyes (WMF) (who had used SurveyMonkey before) with the username and password, so the information gathered could be surpressed. It was a big cock up, but I have no doubt that Rcsprinter was not acting maliciously. As for the mail copies of the Signpost, I think that it's a very nice idea which is logistically impossible - at least one (I believe 2) editors have requested it, I don't see the harm. As for the High School account, I've no idea what's going on there, it appears it's something to do with a forgotten password and not understanding about what you should do in that situation, I will be doing a bit more investigation on that. Overall, I'd advise Rcsprinter to back off on meta issues for a while, and just get back to writing/editing/vandal fighting. WormTT· (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, he wrote, "Chapel-en-le-Frith High School is a sock of Rcsprinter123 used to usurp the name RcsprinterBot to it as the password to RcsprinterBot has been forgotten". You created the high school account five months in advance for the usurpation of the bot account? This, coupled with the incidents above, is troubling. Goodvac (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect to Rcsprinter, I don't think he plans anything that far in advance :) There's no way that account can serve any valid purpose, so it staying blocked makes perfect sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me that the account was created in April as a way to get around a block and was instantly blocked. Not that it matters, since then he has gone through mentoring, and has matured significantly. WormTT· (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it was merely caught in the autoblock because Rcsprinter123 had been blocked. It wasn't blocked directly until a few days ago. Syrthiss (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't believe he planned it; it's the deception that concerns me. P.S.: I'd still like an explanation from the user himself. [3][4]Goodvac (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Right, explanation re:Chapel school account: I created to account some months ago for some reason I don't remember, remembered it recently when I forgot the password to my bot account which I needed to run. Tried to usurp the names together. It could not be done for some reason or other, so I withdrew it and created a different bot account. As for the AfC/R edits mentioned above, I was simply tidying the archive box up a bit as it was getting a bit long and uncomfortable to navigate.
Thanks for the explanation. The AfC diffs listed above was just a note that you were editing without regard to this discussion. It seemed as if you were not planning to respond. This section is the most convenient for discussion regarding your other questionable activities. Goodvac (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership and quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale. For readership the scale goes from Low to High , while for quality the scale goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Oh, I just meant that I'll probably submit my own changes to the exact wording, as will others, I suspect. Maybe add in some different bits and pieces too, depending on length. - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.]20:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
It is a fairly quick job to create AWB settings to do reasonably well at removing the dummy stuff the edit bar creates. It might even be in general fixes. It's something SmackBot used to clean up on the fly in the good ol' days. RichFarmbrough, 10:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC).
OK, but will I need to BRFA again? And also, my AWB is really slow and I can generally only make one or two edits before it jams and I need to reboot; this may be a bit of a problem for a bot. And finally, please remember it is RscprinterBot (the S and C the other way round), but it doesn't really matter. Rcsprinter(rap)16:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If you use AWB manually on your own account then no BRFA should be needed. Probably the latest AWB would be more stable, but if not, ask for help on the AWB pages. You need a BRFA for each task, but this should be straightforward. And I didn't know you had a bot account - I was just making the name up! RichFarmbrough, 13:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC).
