User talk:Calliopejen1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Centralized discussion

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year[edit]

Christmas Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.png Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Contribution to a CopyVio Investigation that was closed five months ago[edit]

It is unclear why you felt the need to comment on a copvio investigation that was concluded five months ago. ( Just to clarify, the discussion in the copyvio complaint proceeded as follows:

1. I placed a copyvio notice on the article, History of marketing, on 18 November, 2016.
2. An unknown editor appears to have removed that notice on or around 19 November, 2016.
3. On 20 November, 2016 I reinstated the copyvio notice.
4. The allegation was investigated by an administrator and on the 13 February, 2017 the outcome was posted. The admin found that the content in question was "backwards copy" (i.e. the source in question had copied the relevant content from wikipedia and not the other way around) and that there was "no cause for concern.
5. After the initial investigation concluded, the copyvio notice should have been removed at this juncture.
6. On 26 March, 2017, a different administrator, who incidentially is a WP editor in residence specialising in identifying plagiarism, cleaned up the content in question by paraphrasing it and noted that there was "no remaining infringement"
7. That should have been the end of the investigation and the application of any solutions as required.
8. Two months after the content was cleaned, and five months after the investigation was concluded, you decide to add to the discussion by noting that something, probably the copyvio notice, was "apparently removed by Bronhiggs [me]." [From the context, it is not entirely clear whether you are alleging that I removed the content or the copyvio notice]

Are you trying to intimate that I removed the copyvio notice before the investigation reached a decision? Do you have the diffs to show when and who removed the notice? If so, why not include them in your commentary? I do not understand why it matters who removed the copyvio notice in relation to an investigation that had been concluded some five months earlier and which explicitly found 'no cause for concern'? It seems like too much of a coincidence that you would want to look into old copvio investigations just a day after we had a debate about some content on the Consumer behaviour article in which you alleged plagiarism, without providing any supporting evidence. Now, why would you want to add this type of commentary to a closed investigation, unless you are trying to make some kind of mischief? BronHiggs (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@BronHiggs: I was noting that you removed the copyright violation. Without a notation for each article under discussion, the day can't be cleared from the backlog. (The investigation wasn't "closed" at the WP:CP page, which was preventing that day from getting archived.) I was giving you credit, nothing more. Then I archived that day's log. I have been working on various copyright cleanup issues. One was the User:Grochim cleanup at WP:CCI. Another was the backlog at WP:CP. Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Calliopejen1: The revision history for the page Marketing is somewhat confused as the copyvio tag was added and deleted several times over. In addition, a separate copyvio investigation was mounted for the same article around the same time that I placed my original notice about copyvios. However, I am quite certain that I did not take the notice down. The page editing history shows that the notice was on the page on 18 February, 2017 at 9.16 when Justlettersandnumbers made an edit. ( The notice had disappeared by 11.21 on the same day when Trappist the monk made an edit. ( Neither edit summary mentions removing the notice, so I cannot say which of them deleted the notice. I have made very few edits to the Marketing page since I started editing on Wikipedia. In my very first few days editing marketing/advertising articles, I made a valiant effort to correct some misinformation on that page but was informed by another editor, who reverted everything I had added, that "some content just doesn't belong on Wikipedia." I also noticed that this same editor reverts most new contributions to this article and continues to do so. At that point, I decided that editing this article was simply a waste of my time and have since occupied my time eiting "low importance" and/or "stub" articles that are not so heavily patrolled and do not have editors exhibiting ownership type behaviours. Having said that, I was aware of the copyright issues on the Marketing article from the beginning of my WP career, it just took me a month or so to figure out the process for bringing these matters to Admin's attention. After that, I was content to let Admin handle the matter. It was not up to me to decide when the issue was closed, but it was clear from comments, made by the investigators on the article's talk page, that the investigation had concluded.I apologise if this seems to be carping, but there are so many bullies on Wikipedia, and many would love to seize on this sort of thing to point the finger. So, I am concerned that I will subsequently be accused of taking down a copyvio notice without the proper authorisation or some other perceived crime. BronHiggs (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@BronHiggs: I agree that the revision history was somewhat confused but from my brief review it looked to me that you resolved the issue. All I was doing was noting that the issue had been resolved so that the day's worth of copyright violation to-dos could be archived. There is not really a formal process for an "investigation"--just a page where issues are listed and interested editors can help out. So even if you were the one who removed the tag there is no problem with this -- to the best of my understanding, the tag can be removed when the offending text is removed. There is no "perceived crime" here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Calliopejen1: OK, thanks. I am being paranoid, but there is a little group of editors following me around, deleting many contributions and making snide comments on various talk pages - so please forgive me if I am being overly cautious to avoid any trouble. BronHiggs (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mohamed Hassad has been accepted[edit]

Mohamed Hassad, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

SPI over Khashayar Farzam[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I've opened an investigation at SPI over the unusual editing going on at Khashayar Farzam and its AFD discussion. Feel free to comment if there's anything you wanted to add! RA0808 talkcontribs 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A breath of fresh air[edit]

… has blown through WP:CCI and WP:CP – thank you so much for all the cleaning and tidying and resolving you've done there, it's made a real dent in the appalling backlog(s). I've re-added the copyvio template to [:Vanessa Beecroft]], as there seems to be yet more to be dealt with there – I'll try to resolve that today if i can. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Come and join us at the Wiknic[edit]

LA Meetup: 6th Wiknic, 7/15 @ Pan Pacific Park

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

You are cordially invited to the 6th Los Angeles Wiknic, a part of the nationwide Great American Wiknic. We'll be grilling, getting to know each other better, and building the L.A. Wikipedia community! The event is planned for Pan-Pacific Park and will be held on Saturday, July 15, 2017 from 9:30am to 4pm or so. Please RSVP and volunteer to bring food or drinks if possible!

I hope to see you there! Howcheng (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Orphaned non-free image File:Idi Amin.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Idi Amin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

CCI notification[edit]

I am working on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Corkythehornetfan

I don't see evidence that the subject has been contacted. I would have guessed this was required. I started to contact the subject about a question, and the subject was away at the time, but has now returned to editing. I would like to discuss this CCI with the editor, but I'd like to know whether they know about it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I think so, Sphilbrick, though perhaps there hasn't been a recent reminder (I think the user dislikes talk-page notices and quickly removes them). My notification here was quite a while ago. From what I recall, he/she was helpful and willing to assist with clean-up.
In general, I think a notification that a CCI has actually been opened is a pretty good idea, especially if there's ever going to be another backlog like the one Calliopejen1 has just taken an axe to. As far as I can see in Category:CCI templates and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions, we don't have such a thing. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
When it may not be a big deal, I'm trying to sort out some timing issues. The CCI was created in 23 May of this year. I'm aware that the editor removes talk page notices but I naïvely thought I could start working after 23 May. I now see your edit in November 2015. I'm well aware that our volunteers in copyright areas are limited relative to the need, so I'm not casting any aspersions if it really took a year and a half to create the CCI after the request but I just want to make sure that I'm not missing anything.
While it may not be a big deal, I'm trying to sort out some timing issues. The CCI was created in 23 May of this year. I'm aware that the editor removes talk page notices but I naïvely thought I could start working after 23 May. I now see your edit in November 2015. I'm well aware that our volunteers in copyright areas are limited relative to the need, so I'm not casting any aspersions if it really took a year and a half to create the CCI after the request but I just want to make sure that I'm not missing anything. My goal is to have a discussion about how the editor may help in this review — you've suggested that they have indicated willingness, but I didn't want to find out that I had missed an extensive discussion.
My current understanding — you (Justlettersandnumbers) identified a need for a CCI in November 2015. You notified the editor at that time. A number of such requests languished until Calliopejen1 cleaned out a backlog recently.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
That sounds right. I opened a ton of CCIs in succession recently and don't think I re-notified anyone. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you needed to, I just want to open a conversation with the editor and I wanted to make sure I understood what type of communication has already occurred.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand other language[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Expand other language has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

Language Rfc survey vote reason[edit]

Hi, Calliopejen1, just checking whether you really meant one of the reasons you gave for your vote at the MOS/Layout Rfc. Your link to Template talk:Expand French doesn't support your vote, but a link to this or this would; did you perhaps mean one of those? Or something else? Mathglot (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


Just letting you know that I completed checking all pages here. I was using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, full check. It could help by including TCDB here, but for some reason it did not work, i.e. all overlaps with TCDB itself appeared at the top, just like before. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

ANI post-mortem[edit]

Hi, Calliopejen1, I'd like to get some feedback and advice from you about ANI procedures generally and also your thoughts about what happened in the ANI case you raised about a user's massive template moves.

Although the thread at ANI which went absolutely nowhere isn't completely dead yet, it's moribund and likely will be dead by the time you read this. I was quite disappointed with the way it ended up, which is to say stillborn, and not because of "win/lose" because I really do believe in consensus even if it goes against my PoV, but rather because I thought that ANI was a place to raise such questions, and that we would get a lively discussion going among admins who would weigh in, possibly with numerous different angles to consider. But after a brief initial flurry of support, there was vociferous opposition from one corner (plus the understandable and civil opposition from the person whose behavior was being questioned), and the hoped-for discussion among multiple admins never really happened, because they never showed up. Instead, we had a duopoly dialog involving myself and one other involved editor which got stuck in a tar-field of strife based largely on factually erroneous claims not germane to your original post, but which managed to effectively derail the discussion.

The ANI thread (which I likely would have started a day or two later, had you not done so) asked for two remedies: a "knock it off" warning, which presumably you would have issued yourself had you not been involved, and a question on how to undo the changes. This almost seemed pro forma to me, and I awaited the scramble of uninvolved admins to jump in and do what was needed. Instead, after the brief flurry of support, crickets on the original topic, and lots of derailing.

In the run-up prior to Rfc and ANI, I feel like I hewed to all the guideline-approved behaviors: I only reverted the user's anti-consensus doc change once, allowing his willingness to edit war about it to install his favored version in the doc which was then referenced in the ANI as "consensus"; I made numerous pleas on his talk page to stop his behavior, rather than trying to massively undo it, which was alluded to at the ANI as WP:SILENCE and thus the new consensus; and finally, engaging in good faith in the ANI thread about the behavior itself, which when not being derailed was attacked as revenge-based and bloodthirsty (not by the unfailingly polite and civil editor whose behavior was the subject of the thread). This seems to lead inexorably to the lesson, "If you have a passion for a PoV in some relatively unwatched corner of the encyclopedia, alter the doc to suit, edit war to keep it, stay calm in discussions, and then just go for your desired change, and go for it massively."

What happened here? Was it just apathy on the part of other admins, or are they just busy with other things, or suffering burnout of their own, preferring to stick to the simple NPAs and uncivil/bullying complaints? Any advice on being a succesful ANI participant, if I decide to put my toe in those waters again? I noticed that you and 3 or 4 other editors or admins supporting your view weighed in once near the top, then not again. Is there some sort of unspoken rule about this? I didn't really wish to keep popping into the thread repeatedly, but I felt unable to just let patently false claims of easily diffable history stand unchallenged, and so I kept returning. Was that a mistake? Any other sage thoughts for encouraging successful ANI outcomes in the future? Thanks for raising the ANI, and in advance for any thoughts you add here. (And if you're feeling burnt out yourself, don't feel constrained to reply here if you don't wish to.) Happy trails, Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: To be honest, I don't participate much at ANI--I generally just do my own thing in obscure areas and don't run into much conflict. So I don't really have any advice to offer. A couple random thoughts:
  • If Ettrig had kept doing moves, I think he probably would have gotten blocked. The ANI post had the intended effect of making him stop, even if he did not formally agree to do so. This is probably what drove the lack of participation.
  • I was really amazed by TimothyJosephWood's lack of judgment. It was enough to make me take note of his name in case he does an RFA in the future. The failure to distinguish between problematic behavior and content/policy disputes was pretty bizarre.
  • Rollback doesn't require administrative tools -- it's a separate right that many people have. You probably could get rollback yourself; I don't think it's that high a bar. (But I'm not an expert in this by any means!) That may be why we didn't get any interest at ANI once it became clear that Ettrig was no longer moving templates. (Perhaps I shouldn't have raised undoing the changes at all at ANI, and just done it once a broader discussion had proceeded re the changes.)
Anyways, I agree that the administrator response wasn't what I expected. If I had come across this, I would have left Ettrig a message saying that I would block him if he moved any more pages before gaining consensus. And I would have encouraged other editors to revert the changes because they were done without consensus. But I wasn't the one who came across it because I don't hang out at ANI looking for conflict! And the problem of polite but tendentious editors is a well-known one; Ettrig is but one example... Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Your response is much appreciated, thank you very much. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)