User talk:Mendaliv

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Level 4

Sybil Brand[edit]

Good work. I've moved it to mainspace. DS (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I sort of had been sitting on that draft thinking about it since there are some sourcing issues with respect to Brand's first marriage; the sourcing is very rough, and as far as I can tell no recent sources even mention Brand's first marriage (apart from one or two vague mentions that Harry Brand was stepfather to Sybil's son). I also had found one source where Sybil Brand self-described as being of Jewish faith in an interview, but the context was weird enough to make me not want to mention it (she also seemed to call herself pantheistic in the same sentence). I'm not saying it should be kicked back to my userspace; I just wish I had better sources. Brand was quite a fighter, it seems. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 08:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Mendaliv. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 02:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm all set up. As the support page indicated I did have to use a different e-mail address than I had used with Questia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews[edit]

Hello Mendaliv. 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)

Would you have any suggestions?[edit]

A few months ago during the eventually unsuccessful Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Piotrus_3 you voted "neutral". You raised a number of interesting points. I wonder if you'd like to discuss them further or if you would have any suggestions in the event I'd decide to run again. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, thanks for reaching out to me on this. While it's been several months and my memory of the RfA isn't perfect, I'd be happy to provide some insight into my neutral !vote.
First, my frustration with your response to Q3 stems from my understanding of how people in my profession may have to address past indiscretions when applying for licensure. One thing that has been advised, over and over again, is not to distance, but to fully own the mistake. Not to be proud of it, but to give your mea culpa, and go on to give concrete examples of how you've both learned from the incident, and to assuage fears that it could happen again. While I agree that you shouldn't dwell on past matters too much, I felt you were too summary in your handling of the mea culpa.
As I stated in my !vote, I really do believe that the strongest indicator of ability as an admin is past experience as an admin: usually, this is experience elsewhere, such as Commons. This is why, for people standing for RfA stating that they intend to do AfD closures, there is so much focus on their prior non-admin closes. I believe you may wish to focus on past positive experiences, while at the same time blunting any concerns that you might have what professional wrestlers call "ring rust".
Finally, I should say that my general belief with RfAs is that all the materials should be polished until they are gleaming. It is remarkably unusual for someone's bit to be reconsidered after they pass RfA. As such, it strikes me that the most sparklingly impressive a candidate will ever be is during the RfA. Where there are mistakes, typos, poor argumentation, and the like in someone's RfA materials, it's like submitting a resumé or cover letter for a job without ensuring the same. As onerous as the RfA process is, I would (and I believe have) argued that it's almost reckless to let mistakes stand. I'm not saying there was anything particularly bad with your RfA in that regard. Rather, I intend it as a reminder that you should take extra care with such things. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Reaching out to concerned members of the community is, I think, the least I can do in order to not to waste everyone's time next time I decide to run (if I do so at all, of course).
Now, regarding my answer to Q3, I would like to talk with you a bit further on that. You say that I have not acknowledged my errors clearly enough. I have declared the incident as it happened - and it was indeed a while ago; five years is - I do believe - a rather large swath of time, either in "real life" or in the Wikipedia. Do you think that I should stay quiet about the fact that I have not been involved in any incidents since, or that the restrictions on me were lifted early? Or do you think that I should write more about the incident itself? I already link to a series of mini-essays that were significantly inspired by this incident, and I don't think I should turn the Request into another one. Perhaps it is the fact that I am not a native speaker and thus I miss an occasional nuance of English every now and then, but I am not sure how I can do it better. Perhaps it is also the fact that given my cultural background requests for extensive samokrytka are seen as not always inspired by the best of ideals. If you wouldn't mind putting myself in my shoes, I'd very much appreciate seeing how you'd try to phrase your answer to Q3 if you had to deal with those issues? Would you mind drafting a paragraph, or even a sentence, that you'd like to see me post next time? I hope it is clear that I am not asking this because I am lazy and want you to write a copy-paste text for me, but I am genuinely curious what you'd write in the same situation, and by reading this, I hope to understand yours (and some other's) concerns better.
Regarding admin tasks, as I noted, just like with any other activities, I foresee myself drifting from one task to another, through I would likely spend most of my time dealing with the items described in Q1 (primarily Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates), as I am steadily increasing my experience regarding copyright all over the world, and I think I could bring my not insignificant knowledge of it to reduce the related backlog (which I currently prefer not to touch much, as anything I do would require admin review anyway, so it wouldn't be the most efficient use of my and other's time).
On a final note, I wonder: do you think that if I became the admin last time, I would have abused my powers or otherwise acted against community's best interests? And if not, is there any benefit to the community in me not having those powers and not reducing the Category:Move to Commons Priority Candidates backlog? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)