Statement by LupEnd007: I have to disagree with the characterization here. I did in fact go back and at least attempt to cut down on copyvio problems. I am not even sure why you chose to use that particular one as the example, considering that I had addressed and removed it from the article.

My dispute with the other user was unrelated with copyvio as far as I know, as they made no mention of it in their edit summary or on the talk page. Apparently, they took issue with my expansion of the lead section to summarize the entire article, which leads are meant to do. As it stood, the lead summarized mostly the background section. The user keeps mentioning OVERLINKING and repeatedly, if not almost exclusively, pointed to the linking of the words "rock" and "pop" as evidence. However common words they may be, "rock" and "pop" should be linked in the Composition section, for fairly obvious reasons. However, to cut down on linking, I did in fact remove the hyperlink to "pop" from the Critical reception section. As I pointed out, their edit actually reverts this and places it back. I dispute their Fancruft critique, considering that everything I had placed in the article was drawn directly from journalistic sources. As for their remaining qualms about how "This is a barely notable album tthaty is not 400 percent larger than it needs". I have no idea how they arrived at that estimate. Frankly, their complaints appears predicated on arbitrary notions.

Back to the subject as at hand. I have to admit that I was not aware of the Earwig Copyvio Detector tool. I wish it had been recommended earlier, it appears to be a very useful for the given task that I need to accomplish. I am not accustomed to having these specific kind of issues. Though I will say that upon using the tool, my first impression is that a lot of my violations seem to arise from me quoting the sources closely for the Critical reception sections. However, it should also be noted that on certain articles listed here, including Heavydirtysoul, you are blaming me for copyvio problems I am not responsible for. For example, the material that supposedly violates copyright on Rockaway Beach was already on the page prior to my edit. And I did not really change that section apart from removing the cluster of citations. Are you all aware that the tool links to web pages that mirror content from Wikipedia?

Example

Current: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockaway_Beach_(song)

Prior to my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockaway_Beach_(song)&diff=940115204&oldid=940046632

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockaway_Beach_(song)&diff=next&oldid=940115204

Earwig: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rockaway+Beach+%28song%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

Main "source" of vio: https://rockandrollgarage.com/hear-beach-boys-singer-cover-for-ramones-rockway-beach/

-- LupEnd007 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I find it difficult to believe you made an attempt to cut down on copyvio, given that just at the beginning of the month were your edits to Shy Away (see Talk:Shy Away). I was incorrect in stating earlier that LupEnd007 brought the copyvio on the article from 30% to 60%. In reality, the 30% match on the source appears taken from Wikipedia, making the actual copyvio before LupEnd007, 6%. There is a 60% infringement on this BBC source. I'll give a specific example: "he created the song for his younger brother after asking him how to go about writing and producing a record." is what LupEnd007 wrote, and this is what's in the source: "he created the song for his younger brother, after he asked him how to go about writing and producing a record".

Another example from this source: LupEnd007 wrote: "[T]wenty one pilots shared a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the music video for "Shy Away." In the source, "[T]wenty one pilots have shared a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the video for Shy Away."

Not to mention an overuse of quotes, LupEnd007's changes to Shy Away introduced restating of information multiple times, which I had to cut down. When I made a few changes, such as changing the word "imparted", or unlinking the note G (musical note), they were reverted for no apparent reason in massive edits by LupEnd007, which isn't a big deal for subjective things like "imparted", but for actual tense and reference errors I fixed, it makes no sense to revert them. After I posted on the talk page, the much more experienced Binksternet rollbacked the edits as I was unsure what to do.

Overall I think this statement barely helps LupEnd007's case.Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My statement was to Binksternet but since you are here, I will point you towards my cutting down on the aforementioned Heavydirtysoul, The Judge etc. But like I said, I was operating without the use of the Earwig Copyvio Detector tool, so it perhaps one might not find them sufficient. Either way, it very is a work in progress.

As for Shy Away, I was preparing copyedits that would have dramatically reduced any copyvio problems. However, much of that text is now moot thanks to the revert and probably has to be rewritten. I do not recall reverting the G (musical note) specifically, at least not following your claim of OVERLINKING but I do remember providing an edit summary that elaborated on attributing text and linked to related to advice on WP:USM. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LupEnd007, you added more bad writing with copyright violations to "The Judge" even after I removed the problems a week earlier. At "Heavydirtysoul" you fought everybody who tried to remove your bad writing, restoring a bunch of unencyclopedic, word-salad prose along with too much repetition. It's like every adjective from the sources was shaken up in a bag to randomize them and thereby side-step the copyvio, but in a way that obfuscates the topic and confuses the reader.

At a bunch of song articles listed here, you did not go back and rework your copyright violations. "House of Gold" still has your violations, "Opinion" has your violations, "Tear in My Heart", etc. Sure, it's true that you were not asked to fix all of your copyvio, but the most responsible reaction to hearing our concerns about rampant copyright violations would have been to investigate and correct all of your own past work. Instead, you have dragged your feet, doing as little as possible, and you fight other editors over your preferred versions.

Never once did I mention overlinking to you. Are you confusing me with Walter Görlitz? He listed it on your talk page as one of the many problems he saw in your "Heavydirtysoul" edits. Of all the problems discussed here, overlinking the least important. Let's focus on copyright violations. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As of yet, I have been quite reasonable and willing to provide explanations in edit summaries for my edits, including reverts. My aforementioned advice towards Mcguy15 regarding attributing text within the Composition sections [for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shy_Away&diff=1021285938&oldid=1021267037]. Even got a thank you in my Notice for that one. I would have been more than happy to address any issues in those subsequent copyedits that were coming up, and been cooperative if they had reached out to me to clarify whatever they thought I was doing wrong on that article. In short, I would hardly describe what I have done so far as combative. I generally try to revert only when the user fails to given adequate explanation for a given revert, as was the case with Walter Görlitz. The other user was in fact Walter Görlitz by the way, I assumed that was who you were referring to earlier in regards to Heavydirtysoul. As I said, my dispute with them was completely unrelated to copyvio so I am not even sure why it was invoked, but I thought I would clarify.

For the record, I think much the critique you have given me has been quite hyperbolic, but I am starting to get the message. There is only so much I can to with vague, subjective description like "word-salad" and the kind exaggerated rhetoric you exuded in the some of the edit summaries. Something a bit measured like simply "unencyclopedic" is more helpful. I have yet touch House of Gold, hence why I did not cite it as one I went back one. Though I do plan on it. I was planning on addressing much of my past work whether specifically requested or not, though it will take time. Hopefully the Earwig Tool will help expedite things. Again, the issue I raised is that in certain cases you are blaming for copyvio problems I am not responsible for. I would suggesting taking a look those links relating "Rockaway Beach" from above. As an aside, do you know how to filter out certain URLs in the tool interface? Like I said, I am unfamiliar with the tool. As both I and I think perhaps Mcguy15 have mentioned earlier, much of what comes up as copyvio is a site that mirrors Wikipedia. i.e. It not entirely that I am copying sites, it is that certain sites are copying what has been submitted to Wikipedia, including by me. Regarding articles like "Opinion", as I mentioned before, the copyvio seems to arise from a quote in the Critical reception. Odd, seeing as the review quote is attributed specifically to the person, like every other quote in the section. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]