User talk:Amorymeltzer: Difference between revisions
→Question....: add |
→Question....: added comment. |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:The fourth link concerns ''[[Violence and the Sacred]]''. That one is difficult to make sense of, because the page the article is being compared with is a past version of the Goodreads.com page that can be found at goodreads.com/book/show/337521.Violence_and_the_Sacred, and I certainly didn't copy anything from that page, which I never saw until now. The article content was actually based on Chris Fleming's book ''René Girard: Violence and Mimesis''. The current version of the Goodreads.com page does not contain the same material being compared to what is currently in the ''Violence and the Sacred'' article. I don't know what happened in this case, but possibly a past version of the Goodreads.com page copied from the Wikipedia article? Chronologically that is perfectly possible. The material was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_and_the_Sacred&diff=next&oldid=570484899 added] to the Wikipedia article in 2013; following the paragraph of compared text in the past version of the Goodreads.com page you can find the text, "see review Jan 17, 2016". [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
:The fourth link concerns ''[[Violence and the Sacred]]''. That one is difficult to make sense of, because the page the article is being compared with is a past version of the Goodreads.com page that can be found at goodreads.com/book/show/337521.Violence_and_the_Sacred, and I certainly didn't copy anything from that page, which I never saw until now. The article content was actually based on Chris Fleming's book ''René Girard: Violence and Mimesis''. The current version of the Goodreads.com page does not contain the same material being compared to what is currently in the ''Violence and the Sacred'' article. I don't know what happened in this case, but possibly a past version of the Goodreads.com page copied from the Wikipedia article? Chronologically that is perfectly possible. The material was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Violence_and_the_Sacred&diff=next&oldid=570484899 added] to the Wikipedia article in 2013; following the paragraph of compared text in the past version of the Goodreads.com page you can find the text, "see review Jan 17, 2016". [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
:The fifth link concerns ''[[The Structure of Science]]''. If there is over-quoting there, it should be a simple matter to cut back on quotations. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 00:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
:The fifth link concerns ''[[The Structure of Science]]''. If there is over-quoting there, it should be a simple matter to cut back on quotations. [[User:FreeKnowledgeCreator|FreeKnowledgeCreator]] ([[User talk:FreeKnowledgeCreator|talk]]) 00:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
||
I don't see any issues regarding NOTABILITY with the article in question, although if there are passages which appear to be directly drawn from other, external sources then those definitely should be altered. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 10:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_04391CF|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] == |
== Please comment on [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#rfc_04391CF|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] == |
Revision as of 10:18, 21 September 2018
Amory has a very distracting family and will likely be editing erratically until the kids stop being cute. |
This is Amorymeltzer's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
Article policies
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31Auto-archiving period: 11 days |
Back at you. :)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— at any time by removing the Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Boom, replied. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Bad bot. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- When you added or edited a template with the visual editor the input boxes were very big. This has been fixed. The input boxes will now be smaller until you click on them. Then they will change size to fit the text. [1]
Problems
- Some diffs showed lines in the wrong order. This was fixed last week. [2]
- Marking a cross-wiki notification as read didn't work every time. The other wiki was not updated. This has now been fixed. [3]
<maplink>
did not work for a few days. This was because of a bug. This has now been fixed. [4]{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}
is used by some templates. For a period edits saved with{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}
would save the previous user's name and not your username. This is now fixed. Edits made before the bug was fixed will still be wrong and need to be corrected. [5]- When you move a page the title still shows the old page name. The developers are working on fixing this. [6]
Changes later this week
- Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour. You can read more about this.
- Because of the data centre test there will be no new version of MediaWiki this week. Changes for this week will come next week instead.
Meetings
- You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 11 Septmber at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 12 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The developers work on making the wikis work better on mobile phones. There is a list of common problems when making content easier to read in the mobile view. You can add things to the page and ask others to help.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Machine Intelligence Research Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Can you take away my Rollback?
No longer need as I am vanishing. Thank you The Kothlover|Speak to me!|Open the Records 20:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- Done ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The Wikimedia Commons mobile app has a new version. Images uploaded using Nearby are now automatically added to the associated Wikidata item. You can browse other images on Commons. You can see your achievements and your upload statistics. It has also fixed some bugs. [7]
- MediaWiki web requests now have a time limit of 60 seconds for GET requests and 200 seconds for POST requests. [8]
Problems
- You could not see the menu on the notifications page on the mobile version. This has now been fixed. [9]
Changes later this week
- Special:AncientPages can hide disambiguation pages. [10]
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 September. It will be on all wikis from 20 September (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 September at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- The developers are testing new mobile web navigation. You can use it and give feedback.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
21:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Question....
Hi, Amory - is Moonriddengirl on vacation or leave of absence? I left a comment on her TP and she hasn't responded. If she is away for a while, would you please take a look at my question?? Thank you. Atsme✍🏻📧 03:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to speak for her, but my understanding is that Moonriddengirl is somewhat busy so may not see or respond to messages for a while. I'm not sure what your actual question is; it seems you've raised the specter of copyright issues, but are more concerned with whether the article in questions meets notability guidelines rather than any particular issue with the editor, is that correct? They replied to your message, which I presume is what prompted this query to me, but I would think it more useful to first engage your concerns with them directly, there or at the article's talkpage. Are you asking me and MRG whether we think the article should go to AfD? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the copyright issue would probably prevail but yes to your last question, too. I prefer to not engage the user until after my other questions are answered. I first went to MRG because of her prior interaction here regarding a similar issue. Atsme✍🏻📧 11:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Adding - this link also raised my concerns. I did some random checks using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and got the following percentages as potential copyvios:
- I think the links I've already provided, and the list just above needs admin attention rather than my engaging in a discussion with the editor but if you believe otherwise, I'll be happy to consider your recommendation. Atsme✍🏻📧 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- Atsme has no basis to call for the article to be deleted. On Moonriddengirl's talk page, she tried to suggest that Sexual Preference has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. I have no idea why a person would make such a claim, but it is obviously and blatantly wrong. Sexual Preference received many reviews, both in the popular press and in scientific and academic publications, as well as many subsequent discussions in scholarly literature. That should be immediately obvious simply from reading the article. The article has already passed through WP:GAN and achieved good article status, which makes it pretty incredible to claim that the book it is about is simply not notable. Claiming that it is not notable is not only a slur against my competence, but against the competence of Midnightblueowl as well. You will note that at no stage during the good article review did Midnightblueowl question the book's notability. She can speak for herself, but I presume the reason she did not do so is the obvious one: there was much more than enough evidence of the book's notability in the article. As for Atsme's refusal to respond to me directly, that's plain rude. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think the links I've already provided, and the list just above needs admin attention rather than my engaging in a discussion with the editor but if you believe otherwise, I'll be happy to consider your recommendation. Atsme✍🏻📧 13:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Atsme: I pretty much always favor engaging the user, but that's probably a fault of mine. In this case, I think the GNG arguments are muddying the waters, as seen above, since it seems the issue is ongoing copyright problems. From a quick perusal the second and fourth links look pretty blatant to me, and the fifth link is probably guilty of far too much over-quoting. Those are different articles (not listed at the CCI page, FWIW) than the initial one you raised, so I'm still a bit confused by what you mean by you "questions," since this would certainly seem to be about the editor and not the one page. The CCI page appears rather dormant, so I think the best thing would be to 1. Remove as much of the offending material as you can then 2. List one or two at WP:CP, noting the larger picture. The folks at CP should have a better feel for material on this scale, although AN is an option I suppose.
FreeKnowledgeCreator Ignoring the GNG arguments, can you explain the apparent copyright issues? I haven't seen anything from you on that topic, and it would seem there is a real concern here. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- If there are copyright issues, then we can discuss this like civilized people and get them resolved. Whatever changes are necessary to avoid copyright violation can be made. It is irritating, however, to see someone try to claim that a subject that it is overwhelmingly obviously notable is not notable. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- The second link, mentioned above by Amorymeltzer, concerns Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry. The apparent copyright violations are centered on its "summary" section. If someone wants to simply blank that section to deal with any possible copyright violations, they can go ahead. I wouldn't revert such an edit. A less drastic solution might be possible, but I would be willing to accept total removal of the section. I don't much like that section, in the way it is currently written, anyway, even aside from the risk of copyright violations. If need be I can write a completely new version free from copyright violations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- The fourth link concerns Violence and the Sacred. That one is difficult to make sense of, because the page the article is being compared with is a past version of the Goodreads.com page that can be found at goodreads.com/book/show/337521.Violence_and_the_Sacred, and I certainly didn't copy anything from that page, which I never saw until now. The article content was actually based on Chris Fleming's book René Girard: Violence and Mimesis. The current version of the Goodreads.com page does not contain the same material being compared to what is currently in the Violence and the Sacred article. I don't know what happened in this case, but possibly a past version of the Goodreads.com page copied from the Wikipedia article? Chronologically that is perfectly possible. The material was added to the Wikipedia article in 2013; following the paragraph of compared text in the past version of the Goodreads.com page you can find the text, "see review Jan 17, 2016". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
- The fifth link concerns The Structure of Science. If there is over-quoting there, it should be a simple matter to cut back on quotations. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any issues regarding NOTABILITY with the article in question, although if there are passages which appear to be directly drawn from other, external sources then those definitely should be altered. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)