Jump to content

User talk:Amorymeltzer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
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

I use the Modern skin — if anything doesn't look right to you, upgrade!
Amory prefers to receive notifications. Please use {{ping}} or {{reply to}} when you reply to this user on other pages. No talkback messages are needed.

Back at you. :)

Hello, Amorymeltzer. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Boom, replied. ~ Amory (utc) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bad bot. ~ Amory (utc) 10:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

22:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done ~ Amory (utc) 20:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (utc) 13:17, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
  1. 42.5%
  2. 21.3%
  3. 45.1%
  4. 62.9%
  5. 71%
  6. 59.5%
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

(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 (utc) 21:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]