User talk:Susan Schneegans: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:01, 1 September 2017

Susan Schneegans, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Susan Schneegans! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Susan Schneegans, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Susan Schneegans. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations

Please do not under any circumstances copy text from other sources and pasts it into a Wikipedia article as you have been doing at Chinese Academy of Sciences. Please read WP:COPYVIO before making any more edits. It is possible that the source that you are copying from is freely released into the public domain. However, even in this circumstance, you must provide acknowledgement of that source and it is still not permissible to copy and paste bulk text. You may quote key definitions etc without risk, but not much more, the rest should be precied in your own words and the source may be used as the reference. Thank you. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have removed the content you added to the Chinese Academy of Sciences article, because the UNESCO science report: towards 2030 is released under a CC-by-ND 3.0 NGO license, which is not a compatible license because it does not permit derivative works and our license does. Please do not re-add this material. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you are incorrect about the license of this publication, it clearly states the text is available under CC-BY-SA on the 4th page of the .pdf. Please revert your edits. --John Cummings (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edition I looked at yesterday via Google Books shows a CC-by-ND 3.0 NGO license on Page ii, but the second revised edition available at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf clearly shows a compatible license. It's okay to include it after all. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Higher education in Afghanistan

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Higher education in Afghanistan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa. I've taken a look at the article above and the content is from an openly licensed document. The copyright statement is on page 4 of this PDF (5mb). I notice that {{Free-content attribution}} was used to declare that the content is openly licensed, but it still got picked up by the copyvio report. With high quality content being released by UNESCO it would be beneficial to integrate it into the encyclopedia, especially as this addresses an under-represented area. But this may produce false positives where openly licensed text is being flagged as a copyright violation. Any ideas how to deal with this? Nev1 (talk) 10:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The material was copied from http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf, not from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf. http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf does not have a copyright notice of any kind, and is therefore not released under a compatible license. Like I mentioned on the (now deleted) talk page, the overlap is visible on the Turnitin report. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, as you can see http://researchdirect.uws.edu.au/islandora/object/uws%3A34382/datastream/PDF/download/citation.pdf is a truncated version of http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf. The former begins at page 567 and ends on 597. The full 820-page document has the copyright statement on page 4. For some reason Earwig picked up on the shortened document which doesn't have the copyright statement. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UNESCO Science Report material

Hi, if you compare the two PDFs, you will see that researchdirect.uws.edu.au has extracted pages from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf. They are entitled to do this. However, they are obviously not at the origin of the material, UNESCO is. I am the Editor in Chief of the UNESCO Science Report, all the material from which has a CC-BY-SA license. The material I am posting (some as reworked text, some paragraphs as copy and paste) does not infringe copyright and should not be deleted. Susan Schneegans, 2 February, 2016

Proposed deletion of Challenges for innovation in Malaysia

Hello, Susan Schneegans. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Challenges for innovation in Malaysia, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit copyright problem

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/science-technology/single-view-sc-policy/news/what_impact_might_the_brexit_have_on_british_and_eu_science/, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No copyright violation

Dear Diannaa, We discussed this issue for an earlier Wikipedia contribution taken from the same publication, the UNESCO Science Report. The material on the UNESCO science portal is taken from the UNESCO Science Report, which is CC-BY-SA, so there is no copyright violation. The text you saw is simply an excerpt from the report on the Brexit. The source is always the same. I hope this answers your query. (See the Source at the bottom of the Brexit page.) --Susan Schneegans (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do differently when copying compatibly licensed material is to provide proper attribution. If you don't, you are committing a copyright violation. For example, if you are quoting from a document licensed under a CC-by- 4.0 license, add this as part of your citation: "

Content in this section was copied from this source, which is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License." Alternatively, you can use the template {{CC-notice}}. Place it immediately after the citation and before the closing </ref> tag. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, please could you unblock the revisions Susan made so she can correct the problem? We have been using Template:Free-content attribution using the instructions at Wikipedia:Adding open license text to Wikipedia. Can you explain where you tell me where the documentation is for the process you are describing? Many thanks, --John Cummings (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the revisions as suggested, but the content is no longer present in the article. It's been repeatedly removed by other users for reasons unrelated to copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I think I understand why this keeps happening, the copyvio tool you may be using (EarwigBot) isn't finding the original text with the correct licensing statement because the text is from a .pdf, the tool only sees reuses of this text which do not carry the correct license statement. I'm discussing with the creator of Earwigbot how we can get around this issue.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Life sciences in the United States

Hello Susan Schneegans,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Life sciences in the United States for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Template:Z166

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: I've undone the deletion. The page is indeed copied from another source, as stated at the foot of the page. However, the source was released under an open licence compatible with Wikipedia, and allowing adaptation of this sort. The source section includes the following statement:

This article incorporates text from a free content work. Licensed under CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0. Text taken from UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030, UNESCO.

Nev1 (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Consequences of Brexit for science, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Effects of Brexit on research and innovation policy

Your addition to the above article was very close to http://bruegel.org/2017/02/brexit-goes-nuclear-the-consequences-of-leaving-euratom/, a copyright web page. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation, even if you cite the source. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. You need to re-state things in your own words; simply changing a few words in a sentence is still a copyright violation if the structure of the sentence is preserved. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted too much text. There was a second source of the material that was rephrased entirely and you have deleted citations from the White paper that I had found in the original document and that were, themselves, cited by the blogpost. I shall reinstate the material but rephrase the parts that need rephrasing to distance them from the blogpost I quoted.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 08:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, I did remove some prose that was not copyvio, because it didn't make sense any more without the context of the copied material. Thank you for fixing — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Trends in scientific mobility

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Trends in scientific mobility requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/director-general/singleview-dg/news/scientists_have_never_been_so_mobile/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

The original text comes from the UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030 which is CC BY SA IGO 3.0. The text has been copied onto the UNESCO portal from the report, the report being the original source. Any webpage is entitled to cite material from the report under this license. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on previous discussions above I have little doubt that you'll come up with some proof that the "© UNESCO 2017" at the foot of the page either doesn't apply or doesn't mean what it says. However, even if the article were to be copyright free, Wikipedia isn't a backup repository for UNESCO's research papers, and UNESCO's research papers are not encyclopedia articles. Cabayi (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am still creating this page. You reviewed it too soon.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not ready for the mainspace, or you don't want it reviewed yet, start in draftspace, at Draft:Trends in scientific mobility, and don't start the article with a copyright violation. Cabayi (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not start with a copyright violation. I could not save my work because of an an editing conflict. I believe it is a Wikipedia rule that new contributors should be treated with courtesy by more experienced Wiki-editors. --Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cabayi, the reason you keep getting false copyvio problems is because the text is originally taken from a publication released as a .pdf and then later added to the website. I'm working on a way to correctly license the website. Please in future check the page for an open licensing template at the bottom of the article before you nominate an article for deletion. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John, the version I reviewed contained no such open licensing template. A google search for a chunk of the text came back with a page on UNESCO's website which clearly stated "© UNESCO 2017".

If you're going to quote the guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, may I point you at Wikipedia's core principals, the 5 pillars,

WP:5P1 - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not ... a collection of source documents

WP:5P3 - Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute

Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.

Susan, it's possible now to see that there is no violation. Your first version, the version I reviewed was indistinguishable from a copyright violation. Starting with a cut-and-paste from another website will almost inevitably result in this kind of problem. I can only reiterate the advice I gave earlier, start in draftspace, and don't start with a cut-and-paste.

I believe I have behaved with courtesy, but courtesy does not extend to tolerating repeated breaches of Wikipedia's core policies. Courtesy runs two ways - you're not exactly encouraging anybody to respect or protect UNESCO's asserted copyright.

I wish you well in sorting out your website so that you don't falsely assert copyright where none exists. Cabayi (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susan. Your user page has been listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 April 10#User:Susan Schneegans where editors are weighing in on whether the speedy deletion was justified. Please feel free to comment in the discussion if you would like to do so. Cunard (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Effects of Brexit on science and technology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Effects of Brexit on science and technology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of Brexit on science and technology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Widefox; talk 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Union's scientific cooperation beyond the bloc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eureka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this error. I have corrected the link so that it goes to the Eureka organization. For some reason, Eureka the organization does not show up in the list of related pages when you are seeking to link to to the organization's page. You have to know the title of the page you are looking for, which I discovered is: Eureka (organization).--Susan Schneegans (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Brexit and arrangements for science and technology. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. restore those tags still appropriate and removed without discussion or addressing the concerns. Further, it's wholly inappropriate for a COI editor to remove considering opinions at AfD. Removal without addressing concerns is deemed disruptive editing. Widefox; talk 15:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just an FYI, but when you create a new article, try to remember to add associated WikiProjects to the talk page. This helps interested editors spot new articles and work to improve them. Associated WikiProjects can usually be found fairly easily by looking at the talk pages of closely related articles. TimothyJosephWood 14:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Science and technology in Turkmenistan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Science and technology in Turkmenistan, Susan Schneegans!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Kindly remove the content that is not related to the subject of article. Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

—usernamekiran(talk) 14:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology in Cambodia

I'm just letting you know that I have tagged an article you created, Science and technology in Cambodia, as reading like an essay. Text such as "This article analyses the development of science and technology in Cambodia from a policy perspective" is problematic as Wikipedia articles should summarise what reliable, published sources say about a topic, not analyse that topic. Moreover, text such as "Cambodia is pursuing its impressive transformation from a post-conflict state into a market economy" sounds like your own opinion, and opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice but rather attributed to their holder, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I note that you have created several similar articles, so can I suggest that you read WP:NOTESSAY and review their content when you get the chance? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Larry, if you consult the source, you will see that the analysis is taken from the UNESCO Science Report, which is written by experts. It is thus expert opinion that is given here. However, I see no problem with rephrasing the first sentence to read "This article summarizes the development of science and technology in Cambodia from a policy perspective", however, and removing the author's qualifier of "impressive" to describe the transition. The material in this article and others is being added to Wikipedia through a collaborative project with the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope this clarifies things and that you will be so good as to remove the message you added to the page. With thanks in advance.--Susan Schneegans (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "impressive" is a step forward (the alternative would have been to use wording such as "According to a UNESCO report, Cambodia is pursuing an impressive transformation..."). I have just spotted another problematic sentence: "It will be challenge for Cambodia to enhance the technological capacity of the many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) active in agriculture, engineering and the natural sciences". A challenge according to whom? Articles should not contain speculative opinion like this, expressed in Wikipedia's voice. I don't have time to check all of the articles you have created, but I see that you are working with John Cummings, so perhaps the two of you could check them for unattributed opinions? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A challenge according to the source. You are suggesting that issues should not be flagged by Wikipedia articles, which contradicts a lot of the material I have read on Wikipedia. Please consult with John Cummings from the Wikimedia Foundation on this and related issues, as your approach would necessitate broad revision of thousands of Wikipedia pages.

@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 Dear Larry, if you consult the source, you will see that the analysis is taken from the UNESCO Science Report, which is written by experts. It is thus expert opinion that is given here. However, I see no problem with rephrasing the first sentence to read "This article summarizes the development of science and technology in Cambodia from a policy perspective", however, and removing the author's qualifier of "impressive" to describe the transition. The material in this article and others is being added to Wikipedia through a collaborative project with the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope this clarifies things and that you will be so good as to remove the message you added to the page. With thanks in advance.--[[User:Susan Schneegans|Susan Schneegans]] ([[User talk:Susan Schneegans#top|talk]]) 09:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 :Removing "impressive" is a step forward (the alternative would have been to use wording such as "According to a UNESCO report, Cambodia is pursuing an impressive transformation..."). I have just spotted another problematic sentence: "It will be challenge for Cambodia to enhance the technological capacity of the many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) active in agriculture, engineering and the natural sciences". A challenge according to whom? Articles should not contain speculative opinion like this, expressed in Wikipedia's voice. I don't have time to check all of the articles you have created, but I see that you are working with {{u|John Cummings}}, so perhaps the two of you could check them for unattributed opinions? [[User:Cordless Larry|Cordless Larry]] ([[User talk:Cordless Larry|talk]]) 09:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
+A challenge according to the source. You are suggesting that issues should not be flagged by Wikipedia articles, which contradicts a lot of the material I have read on Wikipedia. Please consult with John Cummings from the Wikimedia Foundation on this and related issues, as your approach would necessitate broad revision of thousands of Wikipedia pages.