User talk:Lithistman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Jimbo wiki civility.png
Exquisite-folder font.png
See archiving a talk page for more information.

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Lithistman. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right...[edit]

I should have asked some better questions on the recent RfA where I criticized the inane questions being asked, but frankly, the entire RfA process seems inadequate to me. I've voiced this, and not surprisingly, all the admins who replied to me tell me it works just fine the way it is. I'm generally frustrated with WP right now and that came out in my comment. I apologize if I offended. Vertium When all is said and done 17:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Which RFA was that? I've commented on three recently. LHMask me a question 17:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
For Jethro. Vertium When all is said and done 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I share your frustration with the RFA process, as well as the intransigence within the community of admins to any attempt to affect real change. Ideally, from my point of view, the admin tools would be broken up, and each set (blocking, deleting, etc.) would be granted separately, just as rollbacker and reviewer are now. LHMask me a question 21:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

When you said...[edit]

When you said "When people oppose for spurious reasons (I mean, being too "mean" to vandals and trolls--seriously?) such things are bound to happen. We lose a really good editor like Thomas, and are left with the Civility Cops Corps running the show.", there is such a thing as being too mean to vandals. Being mean in the slightest bit is too mean. You don't feed the trolls, and you don't insult the vandals. --AmaryllisGardener talk 17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

This "don't ever say anything that could be construed as 'mean'" ethos is going to be the death of Wikipedia yet. LHMask me a question 18:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've never heard anyone on here defend meanness. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What are you even talking about? I'm defending Thomas from BS like the line "Being mean in the slightest bit is too mean." Just complete bollocks. LHMask me a question 18:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I never said "don't ever say anything that could be construed as 'mean'", a I said "Being mean in the slightest bit is too mean." aka anything that could be construed vs. being. --AmaryllisGardener talk 18:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A distinction without difference, which is basically par for the course for civility warriors. LHMask me a question 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of wars involving the United States[edit]

Please see the result of your 3RR complaint. You are warned that any continuation of the war can result in a block without further notice. Surely you noticed that you went way over WP:3RR yourself. Use the talk page or WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you. (P.S. we still don't know who won the War of 1812). EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I was actually editing the article, not bald reverting things. That you equate that with what PC was doing is just beyond belief. LHMask me a question 14:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

literature and history
Thank you, user passionate about literature and history, for quality articles such as Song of the Trees and The Gospel According to the Son, for language precision and analysis, for "being FA doesn't mean it's perfect", for a user page concentrating on the essential, and for insight in Wikipedia history such as "It has allowed cooler heads to prevail, and a couple of proposed compromise texts to emerge, ...", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, thank you very much! Considering the nonsense further up this page, this means a lot! LHMask me a question 14:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
You deserve high praise for "cooler heads to prevail" alone, - so rare. See my talk, slightly less desperate today than yesterday, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)