![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).
|
![]()
|
hello :) for your recent review on the Ireneus, from here I got the text https://www.christianhistoryinstitute.org › ...PDF Midwife of the Christian Bible
but you passed on the following link: https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-80/why-reformers-read-fathers.html?id=7830&number=6&type=issueNext
I don't know if in that case the revision is maintained, but I just inform you this, in case there is a solution, thank you. Tuxzos22 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, could use more assistance from you and Diannaa on persistent promotional and copyright issues. Thanks for helping thus far. 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:7E59 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
![]()
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, SP - can you advise as to how we go about moving a CC-By-SA 4.0 from en.WP to Commons (see Ticket #2022032910002245)? Atsme 💬 📧 13:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).
deletelogentry
and deletedhistory
rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi S Philbrick, I'm not sure if you're still on hiatus, but I thought I would say hello in any case. It's been a a little over a year since you last reviewed new material for the Robert Rubin article, but I'm still working with his team, and I wonder if you'd be willing to look at my latest suggested update? It think it's more straightforward than the derivatives topic we had discussed before, although I wouldn't say it's uncomplicated. I'd appreciate it if you can, but no worries if not. Hope all is well with you. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Check that out please. Thanks. I still don't understand why I was reverted. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
![]()
|
--Innisfree987 (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
|
![]()
|
Greetings Sphilbrick, Makov Borislav is persistently adding WP:COPYVIO material to Fédération Internationale de Sambo. I noticed you reverted them once already, however, the disruptions continue. I submitted an WP:AIV, but nothing is being done. Wondering if you can have a look/assist in protecting the article from further copyright violations. Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
The user who returned the text meant it. There was no editorial conflict. And the user did not edit here at all. You also delete it regardless of my text and edits. The copyrighted text was as follows: I deleted it. Please do not delete my content again. The rest of the content is not a copy at all. Also pay attention to the volume and bytes of that user's content. I deleted the copyright text. Pay attention to the following link. The rest of the content is not a copy.
No text has been copied or pasted.
I took the time to complete the article. All copyrighted material has been removed.
After your remark, I deleted all the copyrighted content more than ten times in the edits and explained it in the discussion page, and gave the link. Instead of accepting, he is arguing with me
![]()
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging
What is the point of reverting copyright violations and simply welcoming users? Please in the future can you inform them that what they did was wrong in some fashion? Preferably in the form of a template eg. ((uw-copyright-new)) on their talk page. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your observations.
Curiously, when I was addressing some issues yesterday, I handled several in a row quickly, and casually wondered whether anyone would notice the short length of time between edits. I dismissed that thought, but I was clearly wrong. I have noticed on several occasions someone bringing a complaint to AN or ANI which involved an editor working too fast. In most cases, while the majority of the edits were fine there were a significant number of errors. Even a 10% error rate is too large, because of the burden places on others, so I take your suggestion seriously but I don't think it applies.
I am in general agreement that when regarding a copyright violation, it is important to notify the editor so they know what happened. It is my intention to always provide information in the edit summary which should be sufficient, albeit brief, to explain the situation, although you did run across a glitch whether did not happen as I intended. In addition to an edit summary, I often leave a specific message on the editor's talk page.
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 (Hundreds more examples upon request)
There are some cases where I do not leave a notification on a talk page.
I know there's an essay Wikipedia:IP editors are human too
I have years of experience with copyright issues. In the early years, I left messages on the talk pages of registered editors as well as IP's. It was my observation that three or 4% of the cases were I left notification on a registered editors page they would respond often with an objection. I was correct more often than not, but on occasion, they made good points and I quickly fixed my error. However, despite leaving messages on the talk pages of hundreds of IP addresses, I do not recall a single instance where an IP editor entered into a discussion. I'm happy to create a message for hundred registered editors even though only three or four may respond, but it's my assessment that leaving a message specifically relating to copyright issues for IP editors who never respond is a waste of time. (I do think leaving a courtesy note on IP editors talk pages when they engage in vandalism is worthwhile.)
I will respond to those five edits you identified later but I have some things I have to do right now.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the edits close together in time: First This edit constructed a table. The text entries were all short and in quotes, so it only took a few seconds to realize there were no problems. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Second This edit involves the addition of Lorem ipsum text. Not surprisingly that it registers in Copy Patrol, but clearly not a copyright issue. The edit was reverted but not by me. I did mark the issue as fixed, and arguably should've marked it as "no action needed". I vaguely thought about whether it was important to make that distinction and decided there wasn't. I didn't notify the editor as I made no reversions – I note that the editor who did the reversion did leave a notification. It takes less than 10 seconds to identify Lorem ipsum text, especially if you've seen it hundreds of times. Third This edit adds a list. While list can sometimes raise tricky copyright questions this one does not. In my opinion it only takes five seconds to identify this as a nonproblem. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Fourth This edit added seven extremely short sentences. I didn't even check the purported source which appears to be a porn site (assuming nudexxxx.com isn't a religious history site). While one might argue that if it is a simple copy and paste, and should be rewritten, I made the assessment that the passage was too short to create a likely problem. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem. Fifth This edit is primarily an info box with a couple of extremely short sentences. The info box, which doesn't contained any extended text is obviously not a problem. The other short sentences seem too short to be worth pursuing. Obviously, no need to notify someone when there isn't a problem.
While I could imagine another editor taking a more aggressive view on the last two, if they could find a source with that exact text, I'm comfortable that my assessment was acceptable. Frankly, I can't see anyone of these five taking more than 30 seconds to investigate so two minutes for the five of them sounds about right. None of them required notification to the editor, as there was literally nothing to say in for the five cases and in the fifth the editor who reverted the information had provided notification.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I was able to find three instances where it appears you did not go through with that step.Accusations without diffs are exceedingly rude. Please identify. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)