It's my impression that the data in the various logs is insufficient to reconstruct what you and i did on [[Hopkins (TV series)]], so i'm vague about my exact thrust, and am focused on my repeated impression the most eds ignore the template's directions (once before and once after my work, in this case). If you can mention anything unconstructive that i did (besides me futile attempt to inhibit another removal by leaving trash behind, and perhaps a tutorial for what an admin should do when the subsequent edits ''are'' substantial enuf for attribution to be meaningful, i'd be grateful. <br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 05:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)<br>
It's my impression that the data in the various logs is insufficient to reconstruct what you and i did on [[Hopkins (TV series)]], so i'm vague about my exact thrust, and am focused on my repeated impression that most eds ignore the template's directions (once before and once after my work, in this case). If you can mention anything unconstructive that i did (besides my futile attempt to inhibit another removal by leaving trash behind), and perhaps a tutorial for what an admin should do when the subsequent edits ''are'' substantial enuf for attribution to be meaningful, i'd be grateful. <br>--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]]•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 05:38 '''& 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)'''<br>
Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location—so much easier to follow them in archives down the road!—), so I will likely respond to you here (if I've already been talking to you at your page I may continue to place my comments there, if it seems necessary for context). Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with another warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion here.
Thank you very much for your comprehensive and helpful explanation. I had no idea that copyright material from one Wikipedia article to another can constitute plagiarism and copyright violation. I shall bear this information in mind from now on. Cheers Edelmand (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related question, what if I add the same information to three realted articles ? is it still plagiarism if one was added before the other ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange one, huh? :D As I interpret it, if you add it, it's not a problem, because you're the author in all places. GFDL guarantees you authorship credit, and your placement of the material satisfies that. Academically speaking, it may still be self-plagiarism, but I don't think Wikipedia cares about that in the least. I have little templates I use all over the place, so I plagiarize myself all the time. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you look at my last few contributions? Someone introduced a lot of copyright violations about people who are probably not notable. They were all brought to AFD before the AFD nom noticed they were speediable. If you delete, I'll close the AFDs. My reasoning is, if any of those people really are notable, someone can create a legitimate article. J.delanoygabsadds17:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry for bugging you. I am just used to spamming your talk page whenever I need something done involving deletion. Sorry.
Also, can you check the links in my sandbox and make sure I closed the debates correctly? I did them all exactly the same from a technical standpoint (meaning I used the same templates, so if one is right, they're all right and vice versa) Also, you have a life in the Real World??! What's that like? :P J.delanoygabsadds18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally not bugging me. Feel free to knock on my talk page any time. The closures look good to me. You opened & shut the box correctly. You removed the "remove this template" bit. Seems like you did it exactly right. :) (I can only tolerate my life in the Real World in small chunks. You'll notice I frequently flee back to the shelter of the Wikiworld. :D) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Moonriddengirl, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried just about everything I could to view those links, but the website, for all practical purposes, does not exist. I even discovered a way to search Google's cached versions of websites. You enter cached:URL. To amuse myself, I looked at the cached version of en.wikipedia.org. It still has Oxidative phosphorylation as Today's Featured Article. But that really has nothing to do with anything. The point is, searching Google for cached:http://stagnes.nsw.edu.au/mission_n_vision.html comes up with nothing, which means that the website has not been in existence since Google last updated their search indexes, which they typically do once a month. So that website does not exist. However, I did look at one of the other references in the aritcle, and I came up with this: [1], which I assume is a copy of the schools website. In any case, although the Wikipedia article is organized differently, many of the phrases are identical, such as
"The formal Religious Education program follows the diocesan program, ‘Sharing Our Story’. All students study Religious Education as part of their School Certificate studies."
Also, some phrases are very similar, for example, this is in the Wikipedia article:
"St Agnes Catholic High School, in Rooty Hill, a western suburb of Sydney, Australia, is a secondary school with approximately 650 students enrolled. The school caters for students from Years 7-10 and draws students from St Aidan's Primary, Rooty Hill, Sacred Heart Primary, Mt Druitt, and St John Vianney's Primary, Doonside, as well as a number of other schools in the surrounding suburbs."
and this is in the Web article
"St Agnes is located in Rooty Hill and with approximately 650 students enrolled draws on students from St Aidan's Primary, Rooty Hill, Sacred Heart Primary, Mt Druitt, and St John Vianney's Primary, Doonside, as well as a number of other schools in the surrounding suburbs."
Hi. There are two reasons to remove it. First of all, the National Rural Letter Carriers' Association displays a prominent copyright notice. In order to print material verbatim from them, we would either need for them to display a release under the terms of GFDL on their website or to give permission to the Wikimedia foundation for this material to be released under the GFDL. It is important that the release be compatible with our license, as hosting material on Wikipedia not only gives Wikipedia permission to display it, but it also gives our users the right to modify and re-use it, commercially or otherwise, as long as proper credit is given. There is more information about how to follow up on those in the links at the article's talk page, under donating materials. However, even if Wikipedia were assured of permission to run this material, it would likely be inappropriate for inclusion. While a section briefly describing the constitution may be appropriate, particularly if it touches on especially important points, reproducing the entire constitution unbalances the article and ascribes the constitution undue importance (please see the guideline on "undue weight"). Please remember that the primary purpose of an article on Wikipedia is to give information to a general readership. While specialized detail is important to some readers, it is far more appropriate to provide an off-Wikipedia link to such details as an organization's constitution than to host it here, as suggested at Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. While I have no doubt that last link is referring more to national constitutions than organizational constitutions, it actually mentions constitutions specifically as something that should be hosted elsewhere.
If you have duplicated text in this article from any other source, please identify it. Unless it is from a source that has a license compatible with Wikipedia's, it needs to be altered or removed for legal reasons. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't intend to remove images, and my apologies that I did so. The section was long enough that I didn't realize I had. With regards to the question about other material, please do let us know if you've used other sources for sentences and phrases. As I mentioned at the article talk page, it concerns me that there are phrases like "an effective legislative program in the Congress to promote and protect the interests of rural carriers" which are clearly identifiable from other sources. (Since leaving that note, I've realized that this is the probable source for that text, though I'm not sure. It does, again, carry the copyright notice.) Wikipedia has to take copyright concerns very seriously, both for the protection of copyright holders and of the project itself. Material does need to be rewritten in our own words to avoid these concerns. --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to this; I'm working on it. I appreciate the tone you take in correcting me. It's refreshing conpared to some of the other Wikipedia editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Spasm (talk • contribs) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've certainly dedicated an impressive amount of effort to that article! And I'm sorry if you've felt "bitten" by some of the comments that have come your way. New contributors are important, and I think it's too easy to forget how steep the learning curve can be. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ensuring that the Balance of Questions remains in your favor :P
Should I bother re-tagging articles as copyvios if they were previously tagged under some other CSD criteria? For example, when I came across RL Hudson, it was tagged with db-spam. The article is (or was, I don't know if you'll read this before the article is deleted) a copy/paste of the first part of http://www.rlhudson.com/. Should I (have) tag (tagged) it as db-copyvio? J.delanoygabsadds03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would, although some would surely tell you it's a waste of time. The reason I would is that in some cases, a deletion may later be challenged or overturned, and it's safest to make that copyright violation known so that this doesn't happen. (No way it'll happen with that article.) Most of the time, copyright is going to trump other CSD issues, anyway. :) Even if you don't re-tag it, though, it's always a good idea to drop a uw-copyright on the contributor's page. This may alert them to an issue they haven't understood, or at least give a heads up to future editors that they should know better and may need to be blocked. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kenworth article copyvio notice.
Well, of course, I'd like the issue resolved and for it to just go away. :) But, alas, it's just a bit more complicated than that. The first thing I'm going to do is rewriting that "I've authored..." text. The problem, is that when the warning went up, I was under the impression that I had to give up copyrights on it. Honestly, it should never have been an issue in the first place. I wish I could pull it up out of my memory banks, but I remember reading an article here at Wikipedia a week or two before I wrote the Kenworth section, that was almost fully posted verbatim from a website whose author did the exact same thing (hence why I did it, even his wording "I've autored a condensed and derivative work for the <insert article name here> article on Wikipedia" text was written the exact same way - and there wasn't any issue there). I don't want to give up copyright on the work, but at the same time, I feel as though I'm almost forced to.
I was even shocked that the warning even came up, and felt a little disrespected and dismayed when WikiDon posted the copyvio notice (and his rather harsh tone in subsequent postings on my talk page). I come from a business administration background having been a restaurant assistant manager and shift supervisor, and my training tells me to properly investigate any issue before making any judgments. WikiDon improperly investigated the situation, and went on the attack both on my talk page and the KW article without giving my userpage a glance, nor that notice on the bottom of the Pacific History page on my website.
I apologize for the rant and babble, but that's part of why I got frustrated. I strive to contribute to the best of my abilities, and when another user goes on the attack without ever getting to know me first, I tend to get a little upset and go on the defensive.
Hi. I understand your frustration. :) It's obvious that you were trying to comply with policy, to get the information out here. It's quite probable that the article that inspired you would have created problems if it had been noticed. I wish you could remember it, too, so that I could just make sure that the "i"s are dotted and "t"'s crossed. I've been donating most of my Wikipedia time to addressing the backlog at WP:CP for some time now (I'm sure it feels like a much longer time than it is!), and I know that on my end it sometimes feels like pointless hoop-jumping, but it's worth it if the end-result is a copyright-violation free website. :)
I'm not sure from what you say here if you realize that you're releasing control of your words anyway when you post them on Wikipedia. Under the terms of GFDL, anything you contribute here may be modified or redistributed in any way, commercially or otherwise, so long as authorship credit is maintained. You may realize that; it may just be the text on the website, not the derivative version, that you don't want to release under GFDL. Forgive me if I'm pointing out something you already know quite well; I just wanted to be sure that was clear. :)
If you're comfortable releasing the derivative version on Wikipedia, then it should be sufficient to just add to the note already on your website something along the lines of "In December, 2007, I authored a condensed and derivative form of this for the Kenworth article on Wikipedia. That condensed and derivative form is irrevocably released under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License." (I would make "Kenworth" link to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kenworth&oldid=178070103, which is the version you contributed.) If you want to be particularly careful to protect the original, you might expand it to note that "The version displayed here remains under full protection of US copyright."
If you decide to go that way, just let me know, and I'll make a note at the talk page, remove the copyright notice and mark the matter resolved. :)
Alternatively, you can just write to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org. The boilerplate recommended here is available at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. Given the uniqueness of your situation, I would explain in the letter that you are the author of the website, that you have incorporated text directly from the website, but that you don't wish to release the version on your website under GFDL, even though you are comfortable releasing the version on Wikipedia.
That communication I'm not authorized to handle. Only certain Wikimedia volunteers and employees can address that. General observation suggests it would be cleared within a week--sometimes within a day or two. Someone from the committee would make a note on the article's talk page that the situation was resolved, and then the copyright notice would be removed and the issue marked resolved.
I'm sorry that you felt the other user was rude and didn't give the matter proper attention. I agree that his communications with you on your talk page don't fit in the spirit of WP:CIVIL. Sometimes we have users who are trying blatantly to get around copyright laws to get material on Wikipedia, but this is obviously not the case with you. While it might be desirable to further clarify the situation here, it's apparent that you're operating in good faith and attempting to make a valuable contribution to the article. So, as one of Wikipedia's many unpaid and (not particularly important) representatives, please allow me to apologize that you were made to feel that way and instead to thank you for your contribution. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that could possibly fail to do it. :) I've removed the copyvio notice, and I'm off to mark this matter "resolved" at the copyright problem notice board. Thank you so much, and, again, I'm sorry that the experience was so frustrating for you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of article on T.J. Parsell
Hello:
My name is T.J. Parsell. You deleted a page that mentioned me and my book, Fish: A Memoir of a Boy in a Man's Prison.
Why did you delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.124.11 (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The article T. J. Parsell was deleted for copyright problems. It was copied completely from this source, which carries a copyright notice and hence is not usable as a source of sentences or phrases on Wikipedia without an assertion of permission. (Note that a lack of copyright notice is not sufficient to clear permission for that; the material needs to display a license compatible with Wikipedia's GFDL.) A tag was placed on the article notifying interested parties how to either (a) arrange for the release of material or (b) revise the material to fall in line with copyright policies. The tag indicates that Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing. However, while the article was tagged on May 28th, due to a backlog at the copyright investigation page it was not actually deleted until nearly a month later, on June 26th. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article deleted was created by user:Howdidyouknow, who claims her name is "Stephanie" and hence is very unlikely to be you. :) Even if she had claimed to be the copyright holder, though, we would have asked her to produce evidence of that, as Wikipedia has no user identification requirements for log-in, and any user can create an account under any name. Of use in such situations are the directions for "using copyrighted works from others", if contributors are not the copyright holder of the material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if they are. If you wanted to include the material, for instance, aside from the potential problems of "conflict of interest", you'd need to go through one of the steps at "donating copyrighted materials" to confirm that you have authority to release the information here and understand that you are releasing it by GFDL, for modification or reuse (even commercial) so long as attribution is retained. This is commonly done through a note on the original website or a letter to the communications committee, as set out there. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pictures from Picasa
Hi,
im also a registered member on Picasa. The picture you mentioned about are from the user mohsin's album and I did ask for permission before using them on wikipedia. If hes doesnt have a problem with me using them why would anyone else? If I am asked my the user to delete them from wiki I would be more tham happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, yes sure, ill get in touch with mohsin asap and get that done but i think ill be needing a hand when it comes to this URL etc etc thing as i aint too good with all that. I would really apprciate your help! So please kindly instruct me step by step on what i need to do & i will get in done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput m16 (talk • contribs) 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, looks like i have lots to do lol but dont worry ill get it all done asap. Just want to know how long do i have to do all that?
Good job
Hey, I've just seen you around CSD discussions and on Commons and wanted to say hi. I know how discouraging speedy deletion work can be, when you earn the ire of all those whose articles you smight, but I think you're doing a great job and really giving articles a chance wherever you can. Keep up the good work, and let me know if there's anything I can ever do to help. :-) Dcoetzee19:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :D Occasionally there is ire, but fortunately most folks are reasonable once the situation is explained. I do very much appreciate the peer approval, and the door swings both ways. My talk page is (almost) always open. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andew Wilson (theologian)
Hi, Xenocidic recommended you as an administrator who would be a good, neutral, experienced party to consult in a contentious AfD. Currently, the subj. article is reverting versions repeatedly, although I don't believe any editor to have been in 3RR violation yet. Further, it has been observed that positions have solidified, which I believe substantially true, and the time for the AfD has expired, yet it not been closed.
There are five involved editors: myself and Exucmember support a version of the article which has as much RS infomation as possible about Andrew Wilson's major work, World Scripture. Hrafn, Crusio, and DJ Clayworth favor deleting that information for various reasons, including that it is a coatrack, not neutral/spam, and fails to demonstrate sufficient notability. I believe all parties would benefit from an admin without any previous involvement in the topic to look at the issues and revisions involved, render an appropriate judgement, and close the AfD. Would you be willing to do this for us? Thanks!
Hallelujah! I'm connected. I wanted to note very quickly that my internet connection has been iffy for a few days. I'm looking into it. I may not be able to help today, not only for poor internet connection but because it is a holiday weekend in these parts and I am preparing for guests, but if I don't think I can address it immediately I'll try to leave a note to let you know. :) If I feel I can tease consensus out of it, and I can't do it today, I will try to do it (if somebody doesn't first) as soon as I can. Unfortunately, it can take me quite a long time to read through and evaluate these things. I once spent two hours on a single AfD! --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I have looked at it, and I see that it is indeed quite contentious, and it looks like it could benefit from swift handling. I have limited time, as I said, and my connection is spotty at the moment, so I'm looking for another administrator who will be good, neutral and experienced to take a look at it. :) In addition to my limited time at the moment, I am a little concerned that even your neutral summary above might seem to bring my neutrality into question. For that reason, I think it would be better for an uninvolved party to ask. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did my best to set aside my participation and present the arguments neutrally, but I would be a poor judge of my own success. I appreciate your looking into it, and thank you for your decision to seek another administrator's assistance. I am simply seeking A neutral, experienced AfD administrator, and you were simply the first one I was told to seek out. Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with the way you presented your case. :) I think the danger is that when an AfD is contentious, it is particularly necessary to avoid the appearance of starting with a side. If perchance you do approach somebody else, I think perhaps you would do better to eliminate your synthesis--the bit of "There are five...demonstrate sufficient notability" and just let the admin read the debate. My first thought didn't pan out--admin on wikibreak--so I am moving on. --Moonriddengirl(talk)21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got your message, MRG, and I've just completed closing the AFD. I would appreciate your opinion on my close (for example, if you were going to delete the article...:-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer16:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! :D It's my goal to clear out that backlog, and I plan to keep pounding at it until it's done. Today or tomorrow maybe? Depends entirely on how complicated the things are ahead of me. Revising material can sometimes take me a long time. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Safesquid
Hi. I see you just "notability" tagged the newly re-created SafeSquid article. I was working with the creator briefly and think he found a couple of reliable sources after the previous article was speedied for being a copy-vio. The copy-vio issues are also now resolved, by the way, so I'm not sure why the creator added the GFDL tag. Anyway, I think the article does (BARELY) meet notability guidelines so I've removed your tag. I won't complain if you decide to put it up for deletion, though, since I think the article would benefit from closer inspection by a wider range of editors. Thanks! GDallimore (Talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not putting it up for deletion. As I explained to him at his talk page, the tag is to encourage the addition of reliable sources to verify its notability. Currently, I don't see that the article makes any real assertion of notability, and I believe that pending the inclusion of reliable, secondary sources that reference the product, the tag should remain. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, am confused. I didn't believe an assertion of notability was necessary, merely signficant third party coverage. There are a number of third party references provided, of which I think two are non-trivial and sufficiently reliable - although only barely as I previously mentioned. I also wasn't aware that the notability tag helped bring other editors to the page as you suggest - does it automatically put the article in a category that other editors might be watching? If so, feel free to re-add it as this article needs attention. What it doesn't need is a tag that might just put people off when the article's only starting out, and WP:Note is a serious enough flaw in an article that it might have that effect and that effect alone.
PS I'm watching this page if you want to comment further. Ultimately, though, I'm not bothered about the article - I'm just trying to help a relatively inexperienced editor do a better job and think he's made enough progress with the article that it deserves slightly less harsh treatment. GDallimore (Talk) 14:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the notability tag puts the article into Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability. Looking at the sources cited, the reference here and here look trivial to me, especially the latter, which is one name in a list. This is not a WP:RS for purposes of notability, as it is a wiki and a how-to-guide and does not address notability. Thesesources don't look independent, as they seem to be connected to the product. Which two did you think were non-trivial and sufficiently notable? Perhaps I'm missing something.
I agree that the notability tag can be intimidating to new contributors, which is why I explained its function at the user's talk page. It's not my desire to "bite" a good faith contributor. Did you feel that my note was unfriendly to him or her in some way? --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all unfriendly, just that notability objections can be most disheartening. Please don't take anything I've said as a criticism of you. I'm just trying to strike a balance. As for the two sources, I felt "thejournal" gave just enough coverage to be non-trivial. The second link was this one, which seems to have gone missing in the final article... I'll add it in. GDallimore (Talk) 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't worried so much about your being overly critical of me, though. :) I am highly concerned with being civil, and sometimes something comes across as less friendly than intended. If there's a risk I come across that way, I'd like to know! The new source is not really applicable to notability, either, as it is not independent of the subject but an announcement by a business partner, I'm afraid. I do think it's inclusion is probably a good thing in the article, though. As long as someone is actively working on finding new sources, I don't feel like the tag is that important. Hopefully, more will be located that can more obviously meet that "widespread notability" thing. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←Hi. :) The reliability of the article isn't in question; the problem is that the coverage of this specific product is light. Generally speaking, notability of products is affirmed by widespread, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. It is the most substantial reference I see. I don't think that you need Burt's quoting that article, but I do think that the article would benefit from additional references to verify that non-trivial, widespread coverage exists. You don't necessarily need to look online for these. If this product has been reviewed in magazines or newspapers, that can also be indicated. We have a whole list of citation templates that can help you format those, here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Without the copyvio, there was insufficient material for the article to remain, which fits well within G12: "There is no non-infringing content on either the page itself, or in the history, worth saving." If I were tagging a page of that sort, though, I'd leave a note at the talk page explaining that, and I would do it in a friendly and constructive manner in case the creator decided to address it. :) (Not that I'm suggesting you would do it uncivilly under any circumstances; what I mean is that your language would differ if you were communicating solely to the reviewing admin, and I think it's always good to keep in mind that creators and less experienced contributors who review the text may not understand it in that case.) I'm off to run an errand! --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That guy created the same page on the Persian Wikipedia, using a direct copy/paste of the Persian version (I love how that rhymes :D ) of his biography on his website. I don't know a word in Persian, and Google's translator can't do Persian. So I just clicked on the interwiki link on WP:AN and made a post in English. I hope someone there can read it. Now I have a headache because Persian is written from right to left, so typing English is...... fun... And it took me six tries to figure out how to start a new section on their AN. Wow, I love English.... J.delanoygabsadds16:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I know that right to left thing. Sometimes even pasting an article title at Articles for Translation here gets all munged up. :D I also know how disorienting it is how to drop into an unfamiliar wiki. I left a note at commons the other day, and it was similar but yet so different that it was a "through the looking glass" feeling. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you add a comment to his page after you used User:Moonriddengirl/carticle, so I added another parameter to the template to allow you to customize the ending, similar to how you can with the messages on WP:UTM. You can look at the template doc to see my changes. I also tested it in the sandbox, and added an explanation with it. Here is the version with my test in it. If you have any questions about it, just ask. Thanks again for your help. J.delanoygabsadds16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem at all. I love working with stuff like that, and your template gives me a good reason to mess around. Also, what were you talking about with the second part of your message? Maybe I'm just thick, but I'm afraid I don't know what you meant. :/ (feel free to reply here) J.delanoygabsadds18:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Since you had edited the template recently, I presumed you were watching it. Should know better than to assume that, given how widely I contribute and how relatively little I watch! {{smile}} has had a strange addition recently. I don't know why it was placed there, but it seems to have been requested in April. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I dislike having a huge watchlist. Right now, I just watch the Huggle warning templates, the pages in my userspace, AN, ANI, and several admins' talk pages. (including yours, so I can stalk...) If I'm in a conversation with someone, I usually watchlist their talk page if they prefer that I reply there, but after the conversation is over, I just remove it. J.delanoygabsadds18:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went on ahead and removed it. It seems to have been added without real consensus. I tend to stop stalking people after a while, too. I've got a list of articles I monitor for vandalism or other concerns. Currently, I have 508 pages on my watchlist, excluding talk pages. I'm thinking I need to do a cleanup soon. :D (Some of these are dead pages I watch against recreation.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it! I was going through the history, and while I did that, you removed it! On the subject of watchlists, I have only 84 pages watched (excluding talk pages), and if you take away all the Huggle templates, I only have 45! I guess that's kind of ironic, considering how much vandalism I fight, but it is also a testament to how powerful Huggle is. I wonder if Gurch realized that, with one stroke, he would forever change the balance of power between the good guys and the bad guys here. I mean, if there are 6 people huggling at once, they can stop >90% of vandalism no matter how bad it gets. Add the bots, Twinkle, VP, popups, and old-school fighters, I would say that less than 1% of vandalism makes it through if enough hugglers are on. J.delanoygabsadds18:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC) (I love what this conversation would seem like if you didn't know what WP:HUG redirects to...)[reply]
←LOL! Well, that's always the way it goes when jargon enters. :D I've never used huggle. I use Twinkle, and I used it quite a lot in the days before my adminship, when I focused a good bit more on vandalism. I don't know how huggle differs, really, but I gather it must, because I've caught glimpses of some controversy related to it. (Not sure what or why; I haven't paid close attention.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was working - anyways, Huggle is like Twinkle, but different. When Iridescent first tried Huggle, s/he said Twinkle is like Huggle the same way a spear is like a machine gun. I have to agree. Using Huggle, I made almost 40,000 edits in three months. I once made almost 1000 edits in a day. Iridescent once made 21 edits in one minute. It's really hard to describe what Huggle is. You pretty much have to try it to believe how powerful it is. It takes most people a minimum of two weeks to learn to control it, and some people never learn. If you want, I can tell you what went on with the controversy. J.delanoygabsadds23:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(mostly copy/pasted from when someone else asked me about Huggle, with the links to the AN discussion provided by Iridescent)
Huggle started as an anti-vandalism tool that Gurch made for his own personal use. Apparently (I wasn't vandal-fighting at the time, but I have seen some old conversations...) people asked him how on earth he was reverting and warning so fast. When he told them, they apparently asked if they could use it, and he started distributing it around via email. I believe that other people than Gurch started showing up with Huggle between last December and the middle of last January, but I am not sure of the exact details. Gurch then left on extended wikibreak, and Huggle was distributed to trusted users upon request via email from other users who already had it. Thus the hugglers were a small group. This was the case when I first got Huggle near the end of February. For a while, this status quo remained in place. Then Gurch returned (as Gurchzilla at first, later he started using his Gurch account again) and started expanding Huggle's capabilities and, to some degree, its speed. I seem to remember a push to let Huggle go "live", that is, anyone who wanted to could use it, without having to download it, just like Twinkle.
Eventually, Huggle did go live, and many, many editors began using it. Unfortunately, it takes a steady mind and a lot of vandal-fighting experience to handle Huggle properly, and many of the new users simply were not experienced enough. It was bad. I mean, really bad. People were filing reports to AIV for trivial things like typing "hi" into a page, people reverted anything that even remotely resembled vandalism, even edits that were clearly not vandalism, like good-faith attempts to change American English spellings to British English spellings (honour instead of honor, yogurt instead of yoghurt, etc.). Eventually, it got bad enough that Gurch started a thread on the administrators' noticeboard to see if people wanted him to ban Huggle completely. It was eventually decided that the tool wasn't the problem, it was the inexperienced users who were misusing Huggle's power. Administrators were encouraged to swiftly deal with any abuse or misuse of the tool. (by blanking and protecting problem users' huggle.css) Recently, acting on the advice he got primarily from Iridescent, Gurch made it so that to be able to use Huggle, you have to have either +rollback or +sysop. That really got things under control for the most part, so Huggle is not nearly as big of a problem as it was.
Hi, Keeper! Thanks again for handling that AfD. :D I had no idea that the whole Huggle thing got so involved. Glad Iridescent and Gurch came up with a response to the problem! I probably saw it at AN at some point, but I tend to skim/skip stuff that draws a lot of attention (usually because it means somebody is already handling it--I'm drawn to "lonely" incidents). So, it's a speed thing, mostly, that makes it so powerful? --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculously fast! I only know this second hand, I'e never installed it myself. But what I've heard, it only takes 6 or so humans, using huggle, to revert 90% of vandalism that comes in. Profoundly effective. It is the tool that Wikipedia has been longing for, as we (collectively) have never been able to keep up with the vandals on our 2 million + articles. Profoundly effective! I'm very glad, by the way, that only editors that are in good standing, and +sysop or +rollback approved, are able to access Huggle. A much needed additiion to the script. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't quite grasp how it could go any faster than Twinkle. It seems like human limitations would factor in. But it must be so, or there wouldn't have been so much excitement. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on your side with that. I've never downloaded it, mostly because I'm terrified of it. I've seen it grossly abused, but 99% of the time, I've seen it be insanely faster/more effective than Twinkle. Keeping in mind that you can remove it if you don't like it, try it. I haven't yet. If you do, let me know? I'm at the same "deer in the headlights" moment that you are right now. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer01:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)It's really quite simple to use, I find that you just have to click a few buttons, you can't really mess up unless you revert content that is not vandalism... and I know you know what vandalism is! ;) Knowing what these buttons do is the main key IMO. I also believe it is so fast because it uses the recent changes feed with nearly no lag. (Compared to what MiszaBot does in the vandalism channel.) Cheers. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(about 10 e/c's) It's not that bad for an experienced user. What Huggle does is scans recent changes (or the recent changes IRC feed) and sends the diffs from IPs and user who are not on its whitelist to hugglers for review. So all we have to do is keep hitting the spacebar to scan recent changes for actual vandals. Reverting and warning vandals is as easy as hitting the "Q" key. It is not a hard to use, it is hard to master. You should be fine, because you have quite a bit of experience vandal-fighting with Twinkle, and (from what I can see) you are not really planning on using it a lot. If you do try it, make sure you go to System>Options and set Huggle to scan all the namespaces; by default it only scans the article space. J.delanoygabsadds01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will, Keeper. And, KOS, the distraction is welcome. I'm trying to track down when an image was removed from PUI in July of 2007, and their "records" at that time weren't always clear. Oi. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopkins
It's my impression that the data in the various logs is insufficient to reconstruct what you and i did on Hopkins (TV series), so i'm vague about my exact thrust, and am focused on my repeated impression that most eds ignore the template's directions (once before and once after my work, in this case). If you can mention anything unconstructive that i did (besides my futile attempt to inhibit another removal by leaving trash behind), and perhaps a tutorial for what an admin should do when the subsequent edits are substantial enuf for attribution to be meaningful, i'd be grateful. --Jerzy•t 05:38 & 05:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
