User talk:Fuhghettaboutit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Billiard chalk 20050724.png



/template testing spot /Release to us
/Welker Cochran
Useful language dump
/Wikipedia:Time machine
/List of pocket billiards games
Archive 1: March 27, 2006
Archive 2: June 26, 2006
Archive 3: August 11, 2006
Archive 4: November 1, 2006
Archive 5: March 30, 2007
Archive 6: June 24, 2007
Archive 7: September 13, 2007
Archive 8: December 22, 2007
Archive 9: June 16, 2007
Archive 10: March 27, 2009
Archive 11: December 20, 2009
Archive 12: November 23, 2010
Archive 13: January 9, 2012
Archive 14: October 3, 2012
Archive 15: August 18, 2013
Archive 16: March 10, 2014
Archive 17: September 8, 2015
Archive 18: September 26, 2017
/Black Desert
/Finger billiards
/Maurice Daly
/Giant nuthatch
/list of userfications

/Glossary of bird terms

If you leave a comment for me here I will likely respond to you here as well, but I might also duplicate my post on your talk page, depending on context or if you request that I do so. Please sign any post by placing ~~~~ at its end and please note that new posts belong at the bottom of the page. Thanks.


Quantum Energy[edit]

Hi there, I note that a page previously existed for this company and was deleted by you as an attack page. I never saw that page, I don't think, so you were likely right about that, although in my opinion we're currently overdoing caution where he's concerned. In any event though, the topic is more notable than it might seem, mostly as detail about government corruption in Angola. I'm wondering whether you salted it and also whether you had any specific ccncerns that I should address if, as seems likely, we need an article on this. If it was the part about using the sovereign wealth find of Angola in his personal real estate projects, this is highly reference-able Elinruby (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Quantum Global Group Elinruby (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of the Rebekah Radice page[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. How is the Rebekah Radice page any different than this page: ? They are peers and the same type of content appears there. Please explain. Also, the page was edited and there was no longer any copyright issues.Pnnduvall

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Thank you for clarifying. Not sure why you are so rude. I've never posted anything on WIkipedia so i'm learning as I go. I hope your mood improves (or at least you stop being rude to strangers). --Pnnduvall (talk)

Block of Cduggan4[edit]

I saw that you blocked this editor for copyright concerns. The material in question was from the US Department of Justice website, specifically at [1]. Since they're a federal government entity, their work is normally in the public domain. The copyright policy for the site is "Unless otherwise indicated, information on Department of Justice websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the Department of Justice as source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate. The use of any Department of Justice seals, however, is protected and requires advance authorization, as described below." [2]. The PDF cited does not "otherwise indicate" that it is not in the public domain, so I do not believe that this editor was violating copyright. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Seraphimblade. Right – that was sloppy. I should have noticed the URL rather than just at the page which contains no indication where it's from. That does not mean it's not a copyright violation – only if it was created by a federal government employee in the course of their work and not licensed from the subject. And I am not at all sure the DOJ page is the original source of the second two paragraphs; the first paragraph, duplicated in the DOJ material, preexists: found here. I can't access that link but the Google preview shown here, indicates it's from 2011. Of course, even if it was all from the DOJ source, and we knew it was not provided under license, it would still be plagiarism unless the user proved it was their own writing. If after I posted to the talk page some actual discussion and disclosure was started before just reposting... but that happens only once in a blue moon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't have an account at that site, but I'll take your word for it. Seems it's the DOJ who's being sloppy then. If they're going to say material is in the PD on their site unless they note otherwise, they certainly should make sure to note otherwise when that doesn't apply. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Viola Group draft page deleted for alleged copyright violation & "blatantly promotional" language[edit]

You have deleted the draft page I created for Viola Group for apparently violating copyright. I don't believe that I am in violation of copyright.

I would like to point out that I have stated on my user page - as requested by "Huon" at Wikipedia - that I am an employee of the Viola Group. If I have used some language in the draft page that sounds similar to wording in our company website or blog, it's because there is no other way to say it, or saying it differently may render the statements inaccurate. In any case, I would like to know which sentences specifically were allegedly copied from "an external source", that apparently violated copyright so severely that you deemed it appropriate to delete the entire page as a result (instead of requesting that one or two sentences be rewritten, for example).

As for being "blatantly promotional", once again, I respectfully disagree. The text in my draft was completely devoid of adjectives, superlatives or any sales or promotional language, and I made a special effort to make sure of it. The draft was purely informational in nature. Please point out the exact bits that you deemed to be promotional.

Nlizor (talk) 08:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nizor. The text in your draft contained corporate ad-speak language, which is not surprising since much of the prose was illegally copied from Viola Group's website—yes, indeed, word-for-word copied or bearing some minor surface modification, which is not sufficient to avoid copyright infringement. Even if you own the content or have the authority over the entity owner to release it, you cannot post it here and retain non-free copyright ownership of it elsewhere (and few commercial ventures would want to to give up the rights to their content, even if suitable for use here).

Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising and self-promotion. We have a mandatory requirement that people disclose their conflict of interest, paid editing. We tolerate such editing – most if us with our noses held, while rightfully viewing and treating such edits with suspicion, given the incompatible aims of such editing with most of our inclusion standards. It's good that you provided paid editing disclosure (though apparently only complied with after you were told by Huon to do so, as you note above, rather than done voluntarily without prompting; it must have been when you were using a different account or editing by your IP address, since I don't see that in this account's history). I'm not sure why you're mentioning it though, seemingly offered as if to say that somehow minimizes or excuses some issue here. We do not 'give out gold stars' for complying with mandatory policies. As to the copying: &
"viola group is backed by leading global institutional investors from all over the world"
"The group is backed by leading global institutional investors from all over the world"
(As an example, this copied statement is one that no neutral encyclopedia article would properly ever contain; blatant corporate ad-speak puffery)
"technology focused growth capital and buyout fund; and viola partners – an exclusive investment fund mainly for private investors"
"technology-focused growth capital and buyout fund; and Viola Partners – an exclusive investment fund mainly for private investors"
"with over $2.5 billion under management, is israel’s premier technology oriented private equity investment group"
"Israeli technology oriented private equity investment group with over $2.5 Billion under management"
This is followed by short résumés for each founder (which, by the way, is also a copyright violation – it's copied from a prior version of Carmel Ventures, without attribution when copied over by you; see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia), followed by the unencylopedic listing of "Active Portfolio Companies" and "Exits". Promotion is not tone and adjectives alone, but the way things are said and what is chosen to be included (and avoided)—in what is supposed to be a neutral write-up on something in which you have no stake.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page patrol[edit]

Thank you for your recent edits to improve the text of the COPYVIO section, they really are very welcome but don't kick the efforts of those who have done most of the work before you turned up. I would appreciate therefore if you could be less condescending and patronisising in the tone of your edit summaries. Some of us are working literally day and night to improve this, to find ways of reducing the monumental backlog, travelled round the world to meet with the developers, started the project at WP:NPPAFC, and finally gotten the whole WMF running round in circles to help us. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You know, I'm burnt out, no excuse but I am. I feel like mostly what I interact with now is editors here to promote there businesses. All I do is deal with copyright violations and commercials, and all the time I've spent here trying to fix it (yeah, I'm one of those whose worked day and night – for over ten years) the thousands and thousands of deletions I've done, the attempts to reform policy for pragmatic solutions knocked down on an altar of using kid gloves with spammers; yet we are drowning in them, worse than ever; and when I saw that NPP page said so little about copyvios – those edit summaries are me venting that building frustration in finding our first line of defense said so little.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
If as I do, you understand that NPP is indeed our first (and practically only) line of defence, then if you have not already done so, you could help by commenting in the RfCs about what can be done to improve it. RfC have a tendency these days to fail because our weird democracy allows all kinds of people to join in who genuinely don't have a clue what it's all about, or who just come along to have a jab at the proposers.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I've spent another five hours at Wikipedia:New pages patrol getting it right before the new user group is created. Your recent edits created a lot of redundant text which I have removed, but I have kept yours as they are much better, and moved things around a bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Klaus Mietusch[edit]

I did not see the rev-del... Could this be looked into? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey K.e.coffman. I'm looking into it now. I try to be careful but when I do these I always have many tabs open, so I might have gotten confused somewhere. I'll report back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Okay, so this was a bit of you and a bit of me:-) I had seen the copyvio was by Joep01 but didn't check that the oldid you used in the copyvio-revdel template was the correct revision by that user; you placed oldid 457507009, which targets the revision "16:15, October 26, 2011‎ Joep01", when the copoyvio was added in oldid 457510304 which targets the revision "6:36, October 26, 2011‎ Joep01" It's corrected now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. In similar cases, I've seen all revs deleted up to the first clean version. For example, I can still see the copyvio text in this earlier revision: link. Compare with Günther Seeger, where the none of the copyvio revisions are visible. Does this make sense? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: You know I really think we need to have a community discussion about this issue. Let's back up. When you are using {{copyvio-revdel}} you can specify what single revision you want RevDeleted, or what span of revisions. In this instance you only specified one revision, But you're absolutely correct that that we sometimes delete all revisions containing the copyvio, so that it is entirely hidden from access – deleting the revision that added the infringement and through the revision immediately preceding the removal.

The problem comes in when there are many other edits by other users spanning the dates that will necessarily also be hidden. Those additions are also copyright protected (they are in fact personally owned by each user, so long as they were sufficiently substantive to enjoy copyright protection). The way our copyright licenses work, copyright attribution to the users is provided by the page history, which does not work when the edits have been hidden. So we have these competing concerns: One the one hand, removing infringements from view (which is important), but on the other, providing copyright attribution to our contributors (which is important).

I usually treat it as a balancing act: if there are numerous edits in between the infringement and its discovery and reversion, I will usually just hide the edit that added the copyvio, even though the text of the infringement can still be seen in the history. And if there are not numerous edits by others (or they are superficial) I will hide all in between. I know of no guideline that directly addresses the issue though, or whether it's ever been discussed directly.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see that a range can be specified, which I missed. This was one of the first ones I placed a rev-del request on, so I'll keep it in mind. In this particular case, if possible, I'd prefer the revisions up to the first clean version be removed from view. The content is essentially unreliably sourced "fancruft" and does not add value to the project. The revdel would prevent restoration of this dubious material. If you'd rather not do that, I could ask another admin. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: No, it's okay, I've RevDeleted the intervening dates, since there really was little original content betwixt and between.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Terrace theatre (Minnesota)[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I pinged you, but am also posting here as a courtesy. You did some pretty major cleanup on Terrace theatre (Minnesota) back in September. Would you mind taking a look at Talk:Terrace Theatre (Minnesota)#Copyvio when you get a spare moment or two? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(Replied there)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Resnick images[edit]

Hi again Fuhghettaboutit. Since you've already posted at User talk:Michaelphmccarty#Return of images to Arron Resnick, I am wondering if you might also not mind taking a look at User talk:Michaelphmccarty#File:Resnick and Wright.jpg. A new local version of the same file has been just uploaded by the editor so there are now three versions of it floating around on Wikipedia and Commons. The Commons' version has been tagged with OTRS permission and if verified there will be no need for the two local versions. The same editor has also uploaded other duplicate files so they might not quite understand how OTRS works and that verification sometimes takes time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey Marchjuly. I'll look soon. Sorry for the delay.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. Just for reference the editor posted an explanation for the duplicate uploads at User talk:Marchjuly#Resnick photos. I think they mean well and just might be a little frustrated by the whole image approval process, but even so I'm still not sure if triplicates of the same file are needed. I guess we can wait to see what Commons OTRS does. If they approve the files uploaded there, then the duplicates on Wikipedia can probably be tagged per WP:F8. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Molly Nilsson[edit]

Hola (disculpa que te escribo en español, pero mi nivel de inglés es bajisimo, y creo que si traducis este mensaje vas a entender mejor todo, gracias).

Quería saber porque borraste el artículo de Molly Nilsson en esta Wikipedia. Si fue por un simple plagio, te tengo que informar que casi el 75% del artículo era copia de su versión al español de mí autoría, que lo hicimos en el contexto de un Wikiproyecto que hace artículos de biografías o sobre mujeres, para cerrar la brecha de género que hay en la WP, o por lo menos en la versión en español.

Un saludo afectuoso : ) --Gelpgim22 (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Gelpgim22. Like you, but the opposite direction, I am much more comfortable writing in English – and even a machine translation would likely be better than me attempting to write it directly in Spanish (I am posting that machine translation below).

Since you indicate the deleted article was written by you, and that article was created and every edit to it was by User:Synpathic, can you please advise why you are using multiple accounts?

Regarding the deletion, please see the message I left at User talk:Synpathic. The issue is that the content of Molly Nilsson was lifted (copied and pasted) in its entirety from the pre-existing draft at Draft:Molly Nilsson, which you can see, still exists. That draft article is waiting for a review, as submitted through the Articles for Creation project (though I can tell you right now that it has a glaring problem in that the draft does not demonstrate notability well, lacking citation to reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the subject in substantive detail).

We don't allow the hijacking of drafts, written by other people, nor multiple copies of the same content under different titles. Also, by taking that content without copyright attribution to its creator, Shavtay, as required by our licenses was copyright infringement and plagiarism – unless you are also Shavtay. I do see you are saying you wrote the content at the Spanish Wikipedia article, and that this was a translation of the copy. That does raise yet another copyright issue, which is very fixable. If so, that draft should mention it is a translated copy, in an edit summary linking to the Spanish article. That is easy to do using a "dummy edit". Can you please attempt to understand these issues and advise. Thank you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Máquina traductora: Hola Gelpgim22. Al igual que usted, pero la dirección opuesta, estoy mucho más cómodo escribir en Inglés - e incluso una traducción automática sería probablemente mejor que yo intentar escribir directamente en español (me anuncio que la traducción automática más adelante).

Ya que indican el artículo eliminado fue escrito por usted, y que ha sido elaborada y cada edición de Era por Usuario:Synpathic, puede usted por favor avise por qué está utilizando varias cuentas?

En cuanto a la eliminación, consulte el mensaje que dejé en User talk:Synpathic. La cuestión es que se levantó el contenido de Molly Nilsson (copiar y pegar) en su totalidad desde el proyecto preexistente al Draft:Molly Nilsson, que se puede ver, todavía existe. Que el artículo está a la espera para una revisión, cuando las envían a través de los artículos para el proyecto de la creación (aunque puedo decir ahora mismo que tiene un problema evidente de que el proyecto no demuestra [[|notabilidad bien, a falta de citación de |fuentes confiables, secundaria, independientes que tratan el tema en detalle sustantivo).

No permitimos que el secuestro de corrientes de aire, escrito por otras personas, ni las múltiples copias del mismo contenido bajo diferentes títulos. Además, mediante la adopción de ese contenido sin la atribución de derechos de autor a su creador, Shavtay, como es requerido por nuestras licencias era una infracción de copyright y el plagio - a menos que esté también Shavtay. Veo que usted está diciendo que escribió el contenido en el artículo Wikipedia en español, y que esta era una traducción de la copia. Eso plantea otra cuestión de derechos de autor, que es muy corregible. Si es así, que el proyecto debe mencionar que es una copia traducida, en un resumen de edición que une a este artículo española. Esto es fácil de hacer usando un "[[WP:DUMMY|maniquí de edición". ¿Puede por favor tratar de comprender estas cuestiones y asesorar. Gracias--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, hmm. On second thought, even though the deleted page and the draft are near identical looking, when closely examined they are slightly different. So, maybe they were actually created independently (both failing to provide mandatory copyright attribution to the Spanish source of course), and the reason they are near identical is because each dumped a machine translation. I didn't think of that b/c it's a most unusual situation. If so, I still think the draft should have its attribution fixed, and go through articles for creation (though it's fairly certain to be rejected, for good reason, as I noted above). Nevertheless, that changes matters significantly. Still, it was still a technical copyright violation, even if I was incorrect that it was a copy of the draft and even though though of the kind we usually fix rather than delete under CSD G12; might be subject to CSD A7; and currently fails to show notability.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi. For me, this edit looks strange. Do you think you could have a look at it? Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ladislav Mecir. I reviewed this edit for copyright problems upon a different request; my response is here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
unusual performers
... you were recipient
no. 283 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda! Always a pleasure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
So that you don't fuhgett: five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Draft: Yana Zhdanova[edit]

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, I thank you for your suggestions in Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I made all the changes mentioned in your comments, as well as in the hidden comments within the text concerning the article tone and the quote. Furthermore, I added a source (n°6) to justify Lukashenko's negative image, and deleted the word "corrupted" from the sentence "the corrupted policy of Yulia Tymoshenko". I am sincerely for a real neutral, I would say archival tone in a Wikipedia article, leaving the reader to make up his/her mind. However, I admit that being the author of this text, I can sometimes compose a sentence that could seem not really neutral; not necessarily because I want to express my personal opinion, or to flatter the person or the event I am writing about, but simply because I try to give more information to the reader. So I would be grateful to you if you could tell me whether you find any other points in this draft that sound non-neutral. Thanks again.FRANC85 (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Fuhghettaboutit. Ever since I noticed Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 537#Help for User:Badol1234 by Robert McClenon, I've been watching the contributions by Badol1234. While I think this editor is trying to contribute in good faith, there does seem to be a bit of a WP:CIR issue developing. The editor seems to have a problem grasping WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR which is not such a big deal because articles are created/deleted all the time for a lack of notability. My real concern has more to do with their file uploads since there appear to be uploading photos of actresses, etc. that they are finding online, maybe from Facebook accounts based upon the file names. The first time around on something like this it's easy to assume good faith and write it off as inexperienced. The editor has been doing the same thing over and over again despite multiple warnings. They also seem to be recreating articles which have been previously deleted. Not sure how to best proceed here since they do seem to be able to communicate in English when they choose to do so, but do not seem to be willing to heed the advice of others. It's almost SPA-like and is starting to (unintentionally perhaps) move towrds WP:DE. Any suggestions on how best to proceed? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Thank you, User:Marchjuly. I noticed that Badol1234 just created an article on Moonmoon, who is the same as the subject of WP:Articles for deletion/MOONMOON (although the incorrect case of the original made it initially difficult for me to find - a move to correct the case would have been in order except that it was pending the AFD). That's a WP:G4. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@Marchjuly, Robert McClenon: Hey guys. After a deep dive into the edits, they're not all in good faith. Regardless, I agree, the competence issue is plain. I've gone ahead and composed a detailed final warning at User talk:Badol1234#General problematic editing; a Final warning. Competence issues are so much harder to deal with than plain old vandalism (the balancing act between our normal treatment of good faith edits versus the time drain of everything needing to be removed even when not done in bad faith). Do you think I struck the right balance and tone? (Will it even matter?)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking a look at this Fuhgettaboutit and taking the time to try and explain things to Badol1234. I read your post and it seems fine to me, but whether it makes a difference sort of depends upon Badol1234. I guess we'll have to just wait and see. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the deep drive and for summarizing the issues. I agree that there is a serious problem. I think that the problem has aspects of competency, but it also has aspects of sheer obstinacy, for which the usual Wikipedia phrase is tendentious editing, and tendentious editing is definitely a form of disruptive editing. Having seen all of the evidence that you (Fughettaboutit) provided, if I had seen this at WP:ANI, I would seriously consider proposing a site ban. As a result, the final warning that you provided is an entirely reasonable response. If an indefinite block does prove necessary, I would ask that it be reported at WP:AN (or WP:ANI) so that the community can have the choice to formalize the indefinite block as a ban. Thank you for giving them one last warning and five meters of rope in case it is necessary to hang them. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses! Yes I likely would take this to AN to seek a ban or review my block should it come to that (probably not ANI, unless there's a specific incident), but of course, either one of you is welcome to, if the continued edits warrants it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Biography of a living criminal[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

I'm working on an article about a prominent Nashville businessman who turned into a major cocaine smuggler (Breaking Bad), Russell Brothers. It is a fascinating story but I have had second thoughts about it because the subject is still alive and due to be released from prison in December of 2016. Even though his name and exploits have been on the front pages of many newspapers in here and elsewhere, something about this gives me pause. He still has an opportunity to live some more years. I'm sure he will eventually be on Wikipedia, but I'm inclined to hold the article for a while, maybe even until his death — he is 78 now. He reportedly enjoys his bad boy image. Anyway, please take a look. Your thoughts ?

Regards as always, Eagledj (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj. As always, you're doing a bang up job in composing the article! By the sources you've uncovered and cited it appears his criminal convictions were rather notorious, with a fair amount of coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. These are convictions so there's no WP:BLPCRIME issue. So I guess the question is, is he sufficiently a public figure? Is this beyond just routine news coverage (I think it is). However, you are not just using newspapers but court cases as sources to verify facts about his criminal history, which seems to be in conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. What I think you should do is ask for some more eyes, of people who are very familiar with these issues, to give you their opinion, and the forum for that appears to be the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It's true that that page's statement of purpose indicates it's more for reporting potential BLP violations, but it seems the best place to find people highly experienced in this area to take a look, and I can't imagine anyone turning you away because you're not reporting an incident but seeking advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your comments on my talk page. Would you please review the following text before I change the article? Also, I how do I change the title of the article. I incorrectly have the article as "Frank L. Lautenberg" when it should be "Frank R. Lautenberg". I read some help articles and some have mentioned 'file movers' or someone with administrative rights? Thank you!

Summary text for the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century: Signed by President Barack Obama on June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century amends the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, expanding the EPA's authority to protect the public from harmful chemicals (citation The Act mandates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate existing chemicals with enforceable deadlines, created a risk-based safety standard, provides for more openness for chemical data, and provides a steady source of funding for the EPA to implement these new obligations under the Act. (citation

Elizabethwhite11 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)elizabethwhite11Elizabethwhite11 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth. Page titles are changed by moving them to new titles (never by copying and pasting them). You are autoconfirmed, so you can move the page. You only need an administrator to move the page when the page title you're seeking to move a page to is already occupied (which is not the case here). As to the text, so long as you don't repeat copying (or close paraphrasing), the text is a start, though the citations need work. Please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1. (Wikipedia:Citing sources provides a more involved treatment.) In short, what you need are to change those citations into footnotes; you need a references section in the article with a {{Reflist}} template in it; the naked URLs you are using should be changed to provide transparent attribution to the sources (title, publisher, author, date, page, accessdate, etc. – what information you provide for a cited sourced depends on the type of source); and please be aware that primary sources, such as the ones you are have posted for the text above, though they have a role at times, have limitations on their use, and articles should be predominantly based on reliable, secondary sources, written by third parties to the topic. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota[edit]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I notice you are active in activities related to project page and project talk page, so I wonder if I could invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via phone, Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 15:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Fuhghettaboutit. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-redirtypo-notice[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Db-redirtypo-notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - Tutorial[edit]

I still have my doubts that the new New Page Reviewer right is going to have much impact on the quality of reviewing by the non-reviewer users who are still attracted to the MMORPG-style method of moderating Wikipedia. However, it's a baby step that has gotten the issues noticed.

I've bracketed out the much requested Move to Draft feature until we know more about if and when it will be implemented. listed here at Meta and mentioned many times, and listed at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#24. Tool for moving to draftspace for nearly three months. If you are not aware of the survey, you may like to add weight by commenting on it now. Actual voting starts on Nov 28. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


Hello Fuhghettaboutit,
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg

Community wishlist poll

Getting the tools we need


  • Improve the tools for reviewing new pages: Vote here.
  • Reduce the reviewer workload : Vote here

For NPP: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Questions re Diane Schuur article[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Forgive me for posting this on your archive page by mistake--it's a wonder you found it. I have done a near total rewrite of a stub article I found, Diane Schuur. When I started, it had a BLP tag dated June 2013 and only 4 citations. I have added a great deal to it both in research and citations and have removed the template. I would appreciate your taking a look at it to see what you think it needs. I have a couple of questions, since you have been my best Wiki teacher in the last coupe of years. QUESTION 1 — the personal life section of the article has some rather sensitive information — well-documented, but possibly embarrassing to the subject. The words came directly from her mouth if one takes the time to watch the interview. QUESTION 2: In the lead, citations 3 and 4 refer to Youtube videos of performances of the Schuur, first at "Kennedy Center Honors" for Stevie Wonder, and the second with Ray Charles. Is Youtube appropriate as a reference? The videos are certainly compelling and do support the statements made, but I do not know how to tell if there is any copyright violation. Best regards, Eagledj (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Eagledj:. I have just finished my copyedit. As usual, a wonderful job. There are a few hidden notes for you to look at. Other than that, I think it's ready for a good article nomination. I was surprised to see that none of the articles you've worked on have been taken there by you, since at least all the ones we've worked on in the past (and this one) seem worthy. Any reason you haven't? Would you want me to do the honors? As to the matters above, I think the sensitive information belongs. It's verified, certainly important to a complete biography, and not dwelled upon by you in your write-up with undue weight. I checked all the YouTube sources. Everything seems okay. The main thing to look for with videos like this is whether the source of publication likely has rights to the material they publish. So, random person posting a video of a BBC new story is a copyvio; BBC posting a video of a BBC new story is A-Okay. HoustonPBS is surely okay. As to the ones posted by Schuur, I suppose it's possible that she didn't have the right to tape or post, but we can't hamstring ourselves over unbounded copyright paranoia. Best--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear Fuhghettaboutit, You're edits were spot on, thanks. A good collaborator really helps. I have found the three hidden notes you inserted and addressed them. I've also add a few things from a great new source just now which may be clumsily worded, but which I think really improve the article. Would you take a good look at them? Yes, I would like for you to do the honors for good article status if you will. Regards, Eagledj (talk)

Copyright question[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit I though I might run this one past you as I remember you gave me my first tea-house introduction to common pitfalls in copyright and I apologise in advance in case you have to pick yourself up off the floor from laughing. If I read the copyright info at Grace's, I get the impression that as long as attribution is given, it is okay to re-use any of the content, also there is a creative commons (CC BY-SA 4.0) license link at the bottom of the page. Specifically, if I wanted to lift an image for an article here under fair use, then under the stated terms I would expect that to be okay, but I guess the onus would be on me to verify the copyright? Since the articles go back to 1856, is there a definitive point in the timeline where one could say copyright is not an issue. Regards CV9933 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey CV9933! The copyright license at the bottom of the page says that the text of the website is released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Unfortunately, then, the license is not applicable to the images. Also, be wary of websites that contain a general release, but then post other people's non-free copyrighted works, that they don't own – just like we do here when we quote copyrighted works in articles under fair use, or use copyrighted images under a claim of fair use. For example, some random website may say its text is licensed under X license, but that would not then apply to, say, a newspaper article they post there.

I see a possible confusion in your question about fair use, so let me go into that just a bit. You seem to be asking whether you might use some of the content from that website under fair use, which would be made more okay because it is released under the CC BY-SA license. That is mixing oil with vinegar. You are allowed by the free license to reuse the content, at will, so long as you comply with the license (by giving proper attribution to the authors and disclosing the license it is under). Full stop. That reuse has nothing to do with fair use. Fair use is for use of copyrighted works you could not otherwise use; it is for non-free content that you are using anyway. In other words, you are claiming the use is fair for educational purposes despite the content being non-free copyrighted (so fair use would never apply to use of free content). I hope that clears up matters a bit.

Anyway, barring a valid claim of fair use, using any of the images from that website would require you to affirmatively track down that they bear a suitably-free copyright license or enjoy public domain status – and then disclose that in some verifiable manner upon any upload. Sorry!

By the way, if you might find it useful, here's some general rules of thumb, to the best of my understanding, for figuring out public domain status of works (whose copyright has not been specifically released by their owners), with the proviso that "published" below, essentially means: "made accessible to the general public" (but that definition does not include exhibition of artwork – every copyright rule has exceptions and often there are exceptions to the exceptions, which is what makes it all so maddening). The very first of these answers your question about if there is "a definitive point in the timeline where one could say copyright is not an issue":

  • Created/photographed prior to 1896 (whether published or not) = PD.
  • Published before 1923 = PD.
  • Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
  • Published between 1978 to March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
  • Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
  • Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
  • Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I suspected it might be a bit of a legal minefield so thanks for helping to dispel my confusion with your comprehensive answer. Regards CV9933 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Yana Zhdanova[edit]

Dear Fuhghettaboutit, I thank you for your suggestions in Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I made all the changes mentioned in your comments, as well as in the hidden comments within the text concerning the article tone and the quote. Furthermore, I added a source (n°6) to justify Lukashenko's negative image, and deleted the word "corrupted" from the sentence "the corrupted policy of Yulia Tymoshenko". I am sincerely for a real neutral, I would say archival tone in a Wikipedia article, leaving the readers to make up their mind. However, I admit that being the author of this text, I can sometimes compose a sentence that could seem not really neutral; not necessarily because I want to express my personal opinion, or to flatter the person or the event I am writing about, but simply because I try to give more information to the reader. On 25 November 2016 the user SwisterTwister declined the new submission because "There's nothing currently here for actual notability in an acceptable article, the events are not inheriting any notability for an article, and ther's simply nothing else convincing."!!! In other words, the numerous articles already published on Wikipedia about the Femen organization should be deleted!!! Furthermore, Zhdanova is not only a member of the Ukrainian nucleus of the Femen group, but the activist with more protests than the others, and more media coverage. I added, in the lede part of the article, a comment about the coverage Zhdanova's protests are concerned through international, reliable, independent medias. Yet, this looks like a pleonasm to me, and I think to the reader too who will go through the article. SwisterTwister admits in the talk that he/she is semi-retired, because "quite busy with other tasks". How can Wikipedia ask to a semi-retired user to estimate the value of a submission which requires carefull reading? On the other hand, Swister-Twister's comment implies that he/she did not read the submission until its end, and the tone of this comment is suggesting a kind of personal feeling about the content of the submission, which is against Wikipedia's principles. Anyway, I would be grateful to you if you could take a look at the new submission, dated 27 November, and tell me whether you find any other points in this draft to be fixed. Thanks again, Best regards. FRANC85 (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi FRANC85. I do not do AfC reviews, though I often try to help out when a question is asked at the Teahouse about a draft by performing a copyedit to fix obvious formatting issues and text problems. I responded to your post at the Teahouse by copyediting about a third of the draft, including helping make the tone less biased sounding in parts, as Robert McClenon's review correctly noted was a problem. Though I smoothed the language and noted some problems, I did not address others, and did not even look at the balance of the draft. Looking at it now, I'm not sure if any acceptable article is possible, but I can tell you some things that might help in making it more likely to be accepted.

What you need to understand is that it all comes down to sourcing. Oh, a draft might be declined initially for improper tone, or others fixable bases, but mostly, in the end, it's about the sourcing – or the lack thereof – and sourcing issues can be of a type that is impossible to fix. Existence and use of sources show if the subject is notable, and the content verifiable, and proper citation of sources involves transparently attributing the source to make reading and reviewing them as accessible as possible. I believe what SwisterTwister is getting at when he talks about inheritance, is that when I look at some of the sources, they are not about Yana Zhdanova. They are about surrounding matters she is related to, but notability requires that the subject of the article – directly – be the subject of significant treatment in reliable and independent sources. Anyway:

  • Make the citations transparent. They are naked URLs, sometimes followed by some indication of the publication and maybe a date, but they provide poor verification for the reader and reviewer. No titles, authors or other key information is provided. For example, the second citation is in the form: BBC, 31 December 2013. Retrieved 31 August 2016.
I think just showing you a more transparent presentation of this citation will explain what I mean (note that the indication in the citation you used, that the BBC is the source, was not correct):
Smith, Charlie (31 December 2013). "BBC Newsnight takes viewers inside Femen boot camp". The Georgia Straight. Retrieved 31 August 2016. 
I used a citation template to do this, but you could also do it identically without, as below (see both in edit mode for how they were formatted):
Smith, Charlie (31 December 2013). "BBC Newsnight takes viewers inside Femen boot camp". The Georgia Straight. Retrieved 31 August 2016.
  • Looking at this source gets at the more critical issue I was speaking about at the start: this newspaper article does not mention Zhdanova at all. That indicates a major problem, because when I look at a whole bunch of following citations, either they have no mention of her, or its just a passing mention of her name among other members, rather than being a source discussing her, directly, in any detail.

    The most important consideration of a reviewer (after checking for copyright violations), is whether the topic is notable, which then requires the reviewer to check whether the sources show in depth, and direct, independent coverage, in reliable sources. If those sources exist in this draft, you have hidden them by burying them among numerous others that are not in depth treatment of her. I think you would have been better off writing a more focused article, only containing those types of sources, and only writing information verified in those sources—that is, if they exist. It is very hard to tell right now, so I think you really need to change the draft significantly for it to have a chance of acceptance. If the sources do not exist, then stop right now. There's no point because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:FRANC85 - I will comment briefly that I can't formulate an opinion on whether Zhdanova is notable based on the draft. That is because the draft is so non-neutral and so argumentative that I can't evaluate her notability. I didn't try (as did User:Fuhgettaboutit) to review the sources, because I got tired of trying to wade through the polemical language in the draft. Maybe she is notable, but that can only be assessed by review of a neutrally written draft, not a FEMEN polemic. (As I said, many readers agree with the objectives of FEMEN, but it isn't up to Wikipedia to shove those objectives at them.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit I thank you for spending some time indicating me these points! You are right about the source that was not correctly formatted. Which is not the case for the others. As for whether Zhdanova's name is the central subjet in EACH source, it cannot be: the Femen protests are a collective action and therefore newspapers and magazines relate more the protest and less the persons involved in it. Besides, the context of a Zhdanova's action can be given by a source speaking in a more general way. I give an example that has nothing to do with her: some 25 or 30 out of 197 references in Einstein's Wikipedia article are not directly about him but about other theories or about the context of the first half of the 20th century.
The answer to my question how Zhdanova cannot have a Wikipedia article, while the other Ukrainian activists have already theirs, although with less activism than her, is that my draft is badly written! So, when I find some time I will write it again, following your precious indications.
Happy Holidays! FRANC85 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

Protection level request for Template:Cite comic[edit]

Can you please reduce the protection level for Template:Cite comic to template-editor protection? It has only 1,600 transclusions, and I'd like to add unknown parameter detection to it. I see that it is cascade-protected, but I don't know why such a rarely used template would be listed on that page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi Fuhghettaboutit, in response to your comment here, did you read the discussion I linked to in the revdel request: Special:Diff/756790117#Copyright_violations? I gave a side-by-side comparison of the copyvio, which is quite extensive. Much of it has been subsequently rewritten, but the copyvio still exists in the revision history, hence why it needs revdel. TDL (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Dan. I could have looked better but please understand that when responding to revdeletion requests, the normal way to check is to run a diff of the edits spanning the request (because only the edits that are copyvios should be included in the request). Here, the diff of the span showed no copyvio because the span was wider, and the user had removed and rewritten the copied content in subsequent edits. After looking at the talk page, per above, I did indeed find the copyvio, though it was a span of eleven edit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. Do you agree that the following, which Danlaycock has removed repeatedly, isn't copyvio - because I wrote it?:

The European Network of Fugitive Active Search Teams (ENFAST) is a network of national police organisations tasked with locating and arresting fugitives. This initiative was launched in 2012 to facilitate the tracing and arresting of internationally wanted criminals who have committed serious crimes. ENFAST is funded by the European Union's programme for the Prevention of and Fight against Crime (ISEC).[1]

The network is facilitated by the Europol's Platform for Experts (EPE). Europol also maintains a list of Europe’s Most Wanted Fugitives (EMWL), akin to the list of ten most wanted fugitives published by the American Federal Bureau of Investigation.[2] In 2016 Europol arranged an online 'Christmas calendar' of wanted fugitives, which lead to three arrests.[3]

-Ssolbergj (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit. The reason why I requested the wider range was because the more recent revisions still retained some residual copyvio content from the original (see below), hence why I thought it was best to go back to the most recent clean version. TDL (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Ssolbergj Source
"This initiative was launched in 2012 to facilitate the tracing and arresting of internationally wanted criminals who have committed serious crimes." "The ENFAST project aims to increase security within the European Union by improving efficiency in tracing and arresting internationally wanted criminals, who committed serious crimes."
"(ENFAST) is a network of national police organisations tasked with locating and arresting fugitives. ENFAST is a network of police officers available 24/7 who can immediately undertake action to locate and arrest fugitives."
@Danlaycock: Ah. Hmm. I'm wondering if my vision is going (or how tired I was that night). Yup, still traces of the copyvio present; clearly close paraphrasing . I will revdelete further. Apologies.

Hi Ssolbergj. The fact you maintain that you are the owner of the material probably means you own the website, which in turn means you likely have the ability to make its content legally usable here by releasing the copyright under a suitably-free copyright license. It does not mean you did not create a copyright problem – because you cannot retain non-free copyright and use that content here. Note that text is automatically non-free copyrighted by default (no notice on the website is required to make it copyrighted, though here the website says © 2016 Europe's most wanted).

Other than short quotes, marked as such using quotation marks and cited using an inline citation, to be used here all previously written text must either be affirmatively released into the public domain, or under a suitably-free copyright license. There are a few ways to provide a release of the content, but it must be done in a verifiable way (On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog), such as:

i) posting the release of the content at the external website (i.e., replacing the current copyright notice with a suitable free license notice), or
ii) demonstrating you are the owner by sending a suitable release from an email address associated with the domain name and it being archived through the OTRS system.

For more detail on the exact methods you might use and instructions, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and specifically the subsection of that page known by the shortcut WP:DONATETEXT—but note that clearing up the copyright issue does not necessarily mean the content is appropriate for use here for other reasons (I don't know if it is or isn't; just trying to give you full disclosure). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


New article— please check it over[edit]

Happy New Year, Fughettaboutit, I have written a new article about a fellow named Bill Elliott. The guy has won a Tony Award and I couldn't believe he did not have a Wiki page. The article is in my sandbox HERE. Would you look it over do some copyedit ? If you think it is worthy, go ahead and move it to mainspace. There is another article with the identical name, so I guess we call this one "Bill Elliott (musician)"? In the article, I wanted to do an explanatory note, but I did not know how to do it. You'll find my attempt in the middle of the section "Early years". Also I need to find the subject's middle name. I am going to be out of the country for 8 days, so I may be slow in responding, but I should have Internet. Best regards,--Eagledj (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Ha! looking for his middle name I know how you got onto him; he recorded Diane Schuur’s Midnight. Will do a copyedit soon:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Viral Acharya[edit]

Thanks for removing the copyrighted stuff, I must have been too tired to notice. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Anytime! Unfortunately, all day every day they get posted.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Links within citations[edit]

Hi Fughettaboutit, I occasionally come across some links within citations which give a direct pdf download of such things as a complete book, a chapter of a book, or journal papers which would ordinarily have to be paid for. To mitigate any potential copyright violations I tend to use a googlebook reference, or a cite journal template to replace the "offending" pdf link using this as my rationale. Is my interpretation correct? A little clarification would certainly help, for example; a reference error here is not too difficult to fix, but the pdf does have a copyright logo and message so that would be a typical grey area connundrum for me and hence I would value any opinion you might like to share. Best regards and belated Happy New Year.CV9933 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fughettaboutit, I wonder if you missed my question.Regards.CV9933 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
@CV9933: Oh, I did! What happens when you get multiple posts near the same time. Yes, there is a gray area here. I think a first thing you must do is distinguish between sites that are violating a paywall the owner of material erects, but not their copyright, and those that are doing both. The former involves wrongdoing but AFAIK has nothing to do with copyright and WP:ELNEVER is not involved. What I mean is this: if a site is providing a link to a source that the owner wants people to pay for, but the link leads to, say, the copyright owner's site through a way that bypasses the paywall, that is not a copyright violation. If on the other hand, the site has uploaded its own copy, and is linking to that, then yes, the site is violating copyright and you should re-point the link to the copyright owner paywall location (and I suggest adding |subscription=yes or other refined parameter if a citation template is involved).

The real gray area comes in when the site is clearly using copyrighted material—material that is not theirs—but which involves a judgment call as to whether their use of someone else's material is fair use by them or not. Remember that one of the exceptions listed at WP:ELNEVER is "as long as the website... uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." When you're not sure, I would err on the side of leaving it alone. Though I don't agree with everything there, see m:Avoid copyright paranoia.

However, I am ultimately confused by your question. Because the link you used as an example is very clearly no problem at all. Providing a link to someone's copyrighted material is not a problem, and is not what WP:ELNEVER addresses. It is providing a link to a website that is violating copyright that is a problem. The source of the pdf at Stock-Flow consistent model is by Levy Economics Institute and the link is to, so it could not be a better example of an unproblematic external link, since the copyright owner's domain name is in the URL, demonstrating this is an upload by the copyright owner.

So I have to ask if you are possibly under the impression I explained in the paragraph above: that there is a problem linking to copyrighted material? If so, there is none. It is linking to external sites that are themselves violating the copyright of an owner. Let me give you a classic example: If the source someone links to is a YouTube video of a BBC news report, and that video is posted at YouTube by the BBC, then there's no problem. If, on the other hand, the BBC news story is uploaded by some random person at YouTube named BBCFan67, then that is highly likely to be a copyright violation, because the video is surely owned by the BBC and very unlikely to be licensed to user BBCFan67. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks once again - Yes I was under the impression that linking to a website that provided copyright material was a problem. The majority of my (manual) edits are down in the ref section, so I probably see a lot more pdf links than the average editor. I expect semi-automated edit users live blissfully unaware so unlikely to suffer paranoia to the same degree as me! Best Regards CV9933 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft Margaret Dovaston[edit]

As you suggested I went to your 'talk' page and it said 'leave a comment for me' But there was no indication (an empty box?) of where to leave a comment. The page was full of other people's comments. I therefore clicked the 'New Section' tab to get to this page which allows me to contact you, but without the benefit of your previous reply. Is this the correct method, or am I missing something?

David HDavid hewick (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey David . You left this post exactly as you should have. I didn't tell you what to do once you reached a person's talk page but you figured it out, and of course once you left the message here, I was notified. Another way to leave a new message, instead of using the new section button, is to click edit at the top of the page and then scroll to the bottom, or click on the last side edit link on the page in a previous post, and either way, then manually create a new section header like this:

== New header ==

Your post
Of course, you could have responded to me in the original location, at the AfC help desk, but I wouldn't be notified of that post unless you pinged me, as I instructed there (and as I'm doing in this post for you). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks F. I will try pinging at sometime in the future. In the meantime I hope you get this.

David HDavid hewick (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

It did David, immediately. The system really works, and once you become used to if you stick around, it will become second nature. One more tip. Our conventions are that each person responding to another indent one level further. Indents are made by colons (":") at the start of a post. So I responded to you above and indented with one colon., You then responding, so the convention would have been for you to start your post with two colons. This response would have then been made with three colons. To show you, below I have posted this arrangement. If you look at it in "edit mode" you will see the indents are created by colons.

First post.

Response post, indented with one colon.
Response to that, indented with two colons.
Response to that – three colons.
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Lorenzo de Zavala-- entire article copyvio?[edit]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit ---The Bill Elliott article is up and running. Thanks for your copyedit. Now, I have run across an article entitled Lorenzo de Zavala which contains blatant plagiarism taken from HERE. I began deleting the copyvio, only to realize that it's virtually the entire article. The whole thing may need to go. Please take a look.--your friend, --Eagledj (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See my edit summary here. I've been fooled myself by "backwards copying" many times. It's more difficult when it's backwards copyvio--the external source does not in any way indicate it's copying from us, unlike this one which did at the bottom of the page, and then use our content without aping our formatting and style. Removing copyvios is important work. Please don't let this false-positive discourage you from checking and acting on them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RE:changed visibility of 3 revisions on page American and British English pronunciation differences: edit summary hidden ‎(RD3: Purely disruptive material)[edit]

Thank you.LakeKayak (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey LakeKayak. Anytime. By the way, I noticed your most recent edit to the article, where you cited a source like this: <ref></ref> – that is, by a naked URL. The last thing I want to do is discourage you from citing sources! However, when we cite sources we aspire to citing them in a transparent manner. See WP:CITEHOW for what we hope to see. For example, for this, you might replace that instead with:
<ref>{{cite web|url=|title=Entry for "Boulevard"|publisher=Merriam-Webster|accessdate=January 25, 2017}}
which will format as:
"Entry for "Boulevard"". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved January 25, 2017. 
I used a citation template here, which I find much easier because it automatically orders and formats everything (it doesn't matter what order you place the parameters) but you could achieve the same thing manually. I think you'll agree this is much better than a lonely URL. Most cites call for more detail, for example, a book cite would normally list, in addition to title, publisher and url if available online, the author's first and last names, the year of the book, the page number and isbn number (but not the accessdate; paper sources don't need them).
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll fix the citations now.LakeKayak (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

LakeKayak - you can also use the reFill tool to automatically change naked URLs to the "cite web" format - Justin15w (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Done.LakeKayak (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Two questions-Bill Elliott (musician) and Russell Brothers[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, two things: My article Bill Elliott (musician) is in the namespace, but it is NOINDEXed so it has to go though New pages patrol which is backlogged more than three months. Since you did the copyedit on the article, can you also go ahead and approve it, assuming you think it's worthy?

Fuhghettaboutit, Nevermind--Article reviewed, passed with a good grade, NOINDEX lifted, all OK.

Secondly, we talked before about the article Russell Brothers. You suggested HERE that I I put the article up on the BLP noticeboard which i did HERE — but so far no response. Should I just wait longer on the noticeboard, (it's been archived already), submit it to WP:AFC ? or should I just go ahead a post the article to mainspace and wait for page patrollers to review it? As always, Cheers--Eagledj (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Article reviewed and passed. All OK, Best--Eagledj (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Deseret alphabet[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Somewhat over a year ago with this post you mentioned the uw you had created. I've never seen them in Twinkle so I was wondering if they ever got deployed, or if not, why not? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Please see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 37#New template addition (where you commented, agreeing that they would work better as "a single issue warning"; maybe you've changed your mind?). I think they're very important templates; really our only mechanical way to attempt to compel compliance with the ToU mandatory disclosure requirement and to set up a pragmatic route to both flushing out "everyday" paid editing, and seeking a block for the constant (numerous times per day) entries by these "lower level" type of paid editors, who ignore or are unaware of the disclosure requirements. I think you know better than most that the issue this attempts to address is not a common cold for Wikipedia, it's the plague. Without them being in Twinkle though – as you presage above – they are barely used. I'm not sure at the time that discussion took place that you or anyone there really examined how they function, because they make no sense at all that I can see as a single issue warning (nor do they accuse anyone of being the more nefarious type of paid editor like orangemoody, as someone indicated there, nor was DGG correct about there not being "much occasion to use the lower level warnings"; probably a quarter of new articles by new accounts fit the bill for the first level). The essence is:
  • 1st level): (Explanation of paid editing and its ambit) – you look like a paid editor; are you a paid editor?; here's our mandatory disclosure requirements and exactly how to comply by easy method spoonfed to you; please comply or affirmatively tell us you're not before continuing to edit;
  • 2nd level: you have not responded but continued to edit; explain the requirements again and how to comply, ask again to disclose or state whether they are or are not;
  • 3rd level: you still have not responded; you may be blocked if you don't;
  • 4th level: final warning before seeking block.
But, of course, I lost the thread and never followed up there. That was an error. Have you come around on this? If so, do you think I should revive/recapitulate that request?

By the way, thank you for the coordination nomination. I am thinking about it. I don't take obligations I enter into lightly. It seems like an all-consuming job, one that I probably don't have sufficient time to do even if I did it exclusively and would also take me away from everything I am involved in. Maybe there's some half measure, like splitting up certain tasks into groups and assigning a cadre of coordinators? To give you an example, I would expect that to do a half decent job in reviewing patrolling for accuracy and speaking with reviewers about issues would require two hours a day, every day. Note: I am leaving momentarily and will likely not be back with any time to respond until tomorrow evening. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm stepping back from all things Page Curation and I'm just trying to tie up some loose ends. Having looked at that old Twinkle thread again, I do think as before that probably one 4i warning is enough. It's what all the others except Andy suggested. Whatever, some kind of warning needs to be deployed to Twinkle because I could use it several times a day. Workload keeping NPP together is quite a lot. I've been patrolling and tweaking this and that, and designing the election today for about 14 hours. It's not like that all the time though. I do about 20 patrolls a day and that's about as much s anyone can stomach, then I spend a couple of hours on other admin stuff. Ideally at least one of the coords should be an admin because it involves looking at a lot of deleted pages to see if they were correctly tagged. Be good if you could find time to be one of the coords, but be warned, once you start, there's no let up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

The Avengers (film project) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Avengers (film project). Since you had some involvement with the The Avengers (film project) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Response from MaxEnt[edit]

Per our discussion on Help talk:Maintenance template removal. I've never taken the time to figure out how the "your alerts" notification system works (is it partially automated?), so I'm explicitly notifying you here. — MaxEnt 02:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Hello again F. I was going to send a ping thanks for your work on the hatnote but then when I saw that you had manged to fit the word persnickety into it I knew I had to leave a full fledged note saying many thanks. Cheers and enjoy the rest of you weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Ha! I loved using that word. I was grinning as a pushed save. And it gives me great pleasure that someone appreciated it (language nerds unite!)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely. Another editor used "winsome" in a conversation last week so the language nerds are in full flow :-) MarnetteD|Talk 23:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Copyeditor Barnstar Hires.png The Copyeditor's Barnstar
The best possible words,

with the best possible meaning,
in the best possible order,
with the best possible structure,
in the best possible way.

Adapted from “Defying the English Teacher” by Dan Brown Eagledj (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Much obliged Eagledj. It's is a pleasure working with you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

what are the issues you're having with giant nuthatch?[edit]

Could we help? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: Thank you for asking! I will take you up on that. The specifics are little hazy in my mind, lo these many months later; I need to open the sources again and work on it and reach the same point of confusion that I can describe before I can ask for help. It has to do with their possible extinction in Myanmar, and the dates of the studies being unclear and some of them referring to other studies that I need to see, but not making it clear which study from where they are referring to to even try myself or ask for assistance with tracking down; matters like that. However, if you look in the page history, you'll see the write up is quite far along.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Earl Scruggs Article[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I'm working on an existing article, a biography of Earl Scruggs, which I have completely rewritten. I have branched out into adding sound and images which is new to me. I took a lesson from your user page where you listed uploaded movie posters, and basically used that as a guide for "fair use" of a record album cover. I also use a sound file which needs your scrutiny— of course I'd appreciate your copyedits too if you have time. Cheers----Eagledj (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eagledj: I am well familiar with Earl Scruggs. It's always ambitious to take on a project where the person is very famous, because there's the problem of an embarrassment of riches; so many sources; so much editorial judgment of what to include. Regarding the sound file, this is not something I am familiar with. Interesting that there's the debate over whether it's public domain where it apparently is viewed as such everywhere but in New York. Anyway, if you want a second opinion on your upload, you might try Commons:Village pump/Copyright. However, the use of {{PD-old}} appears incorrect on its face. It's for works in the public domain in the "country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less". Add 70 to Earl Scruggs' life = 2082. I'll take a go at a copyedit but not right away (I've got a lot of tongs in a lot of fires right now).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Fuhghettaboutit/Glossary of bird terms[edit]

In fixing reference problems from lists over the years I've often run into articles that didn't seem to have a problem. Some I've fixed by discovering very strange problems, but I can't see anything like that on your bird items page. I fixed two reference errors that made references invisible. One of them should have generated a big red missing reference error, so I don't know what is going on. The other I fixed by using the doi to get to the publishers page, rather than the url (ends up at the same url!). But the page still shows up with the hidden category StarryGrandma (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I keep learning new things about references. The big red error messages only show in article space. See Template:Broken ref. To get them to show add span.brokenref {display: inline;} to your common.css. The problem is with reference 17. Proctor & Lynch 1998, p. 66 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Proctor66" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). StarryGrandma (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks much StarryGrandma. I'm going to look at it now. The script CV9933 linked to at the Teahouse is also really globally helpful.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I did see several CS1 errors but without the brokenref script, I missed the big red stuff. I've installed it now and another bit of the jigsaw is in place for me, so thanks very much StarryGrandma. CV9933 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request[edit]

Hi Fughettaboutit, I saw you on this list of admins willing to look at revdel requests. Would you mind looking at this edit and deciding if it should be removed? Thank you Mortee (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mortee: Done. A clear cut case for BLP intervention. Thanks for noticing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Mortee (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

follow up to teahouse[edit]

Good morning, Fuhghettaboutit . You answered a question about "puffery" a week ago and I wasn't able to follow up at the teahouse. I hope you don't mind that I am asking you a few questions directly.

You said the statement was not "puffery", but you still would have deleted the following from the "in music" section of the typewriter article: An Estonian prog-rock band features typewriters as a rhythmic instruments in their album Typewriter Concerto in D Major (1994).

It seems no different than any of the 14 other statements in that section that speak of using a typewriter as a musical instrument. Why does this one not belong with the other 14? Or are you just opposed to the entire section?

That leads to my next question: the editor who deleted this cited "challenge and delete", which you said "is for statements where you ... have checked and have not been able to find found a source." But a quick look through google books found it mentioned here:

Did the editor who deleted this have a responsibility to check for a citation before deleting if he is referencing WP:BURDEN? Phatblackmama (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Phatblackmama. No the user did not have the burden – it is the opposite (see the policy); anyone may remove unsourced content they challenge in good faith, and then it cannot be returned unless cited using an inline citation to a reliable source, that directly supports the material. The burden is always on the person seeking to return the content (however, please note WP:POINT: I am not saying you would, but it would not be okay to, say, retaliate against an editor who challenged and removed some material, by finding unsourced material they had added and removing it, which would not have been done for a legitimate challenge basis. I mention this because I've seen that play put quite a few times). The problem I had with invoking that policy section, in all but name, is that it implied that if the person met the add-back, citation requirements of the policy, then returning that material would be okay, when as I said the material does not belong for other, editorial judgment issues. Yes, there is much connective trivia in that article that I would remove if I were focused on it!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Fuhghettaboutit. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 23:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Hi. You seem to be under the impression that I made mistakes there. I was irritated by what I felt was a condescending tone in your edit summary but maybe it's because I haven't been clear about what reaction my edits were supposed to get. I deliberately violated the WP:POINT guideline, which is something I've done many times before and which I'll do many times in the future. Had you followed the discussion down the rabbit hole to that IP editor's talk, you'd have seen I was disrupting Wikipedia because of their behavior, not their content changes, and it was because I want their edits to remain. Still skeptical? Check the timestamps. You reverted an edit I didn't want to stand, and rather than react to that, you provided me with a bunch of policy alphabet soup that you probably knew I didn't need.

I wanted that editor to stop edit warring, stop attacking others, stop getting into fights with admins at RFPP, and at long last do things the right way. I tried to redirect that person's energy from the really unhelpful rampage they were on at RFPP to accomplishing content-related things at the article's talk. You can disagree with my approach but you can't deny it got results. CityOfSilver 02:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The policy is simple, nothing alphabet soup about it. The fact it was not recognized nor followed from the get go is the problem. As far as I can tell the behavior you're speaking of is entirely proper requests being resisted outside of policy. Had I been involved from the start the IP's request would have been implemented immediately, as proper, there would have been no edit warring because such edits could not be reverted within policy, and all that would have been explained because this bedrock policy would have been at the fore.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Birth date and age and Template:Bda[edit]

Greetings, Template:Birth date and age and Template:Bda appear to be no longer cascade protected and could be put to template protection now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Glossary of bird terms[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 18 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glossary of bird terms, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the feathers of birds are considered the most complex integumentary structures found in vertebrates, and a premier example of a complex evolutionary novelty? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glossary of bird terms. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Glossary of bird terms), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Radius not a carpal bone[edit]

Please check recent edit in Glossary of bird terms, I think this is wrong. Radius is one of the forearm long bones, carpals are wrist bones. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Thanks for noticing. Will look later. I was very rushed – on my way to work, where I've just arrived – the link that was there, to "radiale" was going to an article on a radio station, and when I threw it into Google with "carpal", one of the first links was radius so I jumped it seems too fast.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I just checked, radiale was correct (see Carpal_bones#In_other_animals), but the link was wrong. I will fix it. Check when you have the time. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Was having trouble making userboxes on my user page have a "word wrapped look," (rather than being above or below text, taking up huge amounts of space) so I asked how it is done on the help desk, Fuhghettaboutit, rather than just explaining it went to my user page and made it look exactly as I described, and explained the process. McSqueegee (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks McSqueegee!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision suppression in Features new to Windows 10[edit]


Thanks for attending to the matter.

However, you must still suppress revision 778991087. Yes, it is my revision. But it has copyright violations as well.

Sorry for the inconvenience. It is entirely my fault.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Done! Missed it. Thank you for the copyright tagging—it's really important work. By the way, I noticed some time back that many, many people, probably because they are so used to looking at diffs which start with the revision before the changes, will do something similar when asking for revdeletion using {{Copyvio-revdel}}, starting with the oldid of the revision just before, rather than with the revision that added the copyright violation. Because of this, I updated the documentation at the template to address this: "Template:Copyvio-revdel#Targeting the correct revision "oldids". This was the case here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

doubled up contributions[edit]

Hi there. Just letting you know out of courtesy that I'm C&P'ed my query from the helpdesk to the Village Pump, but for convenience I've also included your comment: doubled-up entries in contribution history Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...[edit]

You speedy deleted an earlier iteration of Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority. Could you please graft the revision history of the earlier iteration to the current article?

Did you delete it after someone placed a speedy deletion tag on it?

I that case, please include that revision.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan. The current article is not a repost of the former but new content unrelated to the former. We do not perform history merges unless two pages have the same origin, for example, a single edit history for content that was split by a copy and paste move divorcing the attribution, and we also never undelete copyright violations, which as you can see from the deletion summary, this was. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation? I don't have all the speedy codes memorized. Okay G12 is unambiguous copyright violation. G11 is unambiguous advertizing.
It seems I created a redirect to the article. Can you please check the revision history, does it show I also made a contribution, or contributions, to the article itself?
I've found the robots that look for copyright violations to be unreliable. The wikipedia is not the only wiki I contribute to. Sometimes there is a topic I found some references to, which I want to write about, but which I don't think measures up to the wikipedia's inclusion standards. So I will start it at a non WMF wiki, with different inclusion standard. Later, when I find more references, and I think that topic then does measure up to the wikipedia's inclusion standards, when I port it here, the robots that look for copyright violations flag that recently ported article as a copyright violation.
Obviously I retain the right to contribute my own text to multiple wikis, and doing so is not a copyright violation.
WRT WP:Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves -- you surprise me. Yes, a speedy deletion due to a genuine copyright violation is a different matter. But in my experience, history merges of articles deleted due to A7, or deleted at AFD, where a new version has been created, are routinely performed. Some deleting administrators decline, but, in my experience, a more helpful administrator will always merge the history, when the deleting administrator declines, when a request is made at WP:REFUND.
The deletion was some time ago. So you can't be expected to remember any details. Does this article history show you deleted it after a robot or another contributor flagged it as a copyright violation? Geo Swan (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi again Geo Swan. No, you never made any edits to the page at all (I would have told you in my first post if you had). The first edit to the page apparently copied from a website here, which has gone dead (the Wayback Machine has nothing; please note that the user who started the article was warned at least here, here and here about copyright problems in their edits). The next edit of any substance was a blatant and wholesale copy and paste of the content from here—word-for-word; a "true copyright violation", as you say:-). So there's nothing that can be undeleted, or would be useful if it was.

Meanwhile, I don't think I've ever deleted a page as a copyright violation without checking to see whether the report of the violation is true – and you're absolutely right, the robots are unreliable, do not understand backwards copyvios (i.e., the content started at Wikipedia, and the copying is from here), nor do they check whether the supposedly-copied-from source bears a suitable free copyright license or is in the public domain.

As to "helpful admins" doing history merges, it really depends on the situation (btw I am a regular at WP:REFUND) but engrafting page histories with different origins creates a 'Frankenstein's Monster page history', is often confusing and detrimental, and usually should not be done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply Geo Swan (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My edits to the Daylight Saving Time page.[edit]

The only reference you have taken out of the Further reading section near bottom is the one by Pearce. You have left the two by Bartky and one is referred to in the text. You have also left the one by Downing and the one by Prerau and both are in the text. The books by Downing and Prerau are the ones I added back in as they seemed to fall off yesterday. I believe they had been there for ages.

You have also deleted the book by Pearce from footnote 1 for some reason.

The other edits I made, to the History section, have also been deleted for some reason.

Any reason for reversing all my edits to this page?

Thanks. chrispy52 Chrispy52 (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it was Jc3s5h who deleted the edits and I have replied to him/her. thanks.

Need advise on how to edit and correct the draft[edit]

Thanks for the wonderful feedback and guiding me with respect to the post I wrote on the below link.

Could you help me with how do I go about editing the draft with your suggestions, as you mentioned that the draft was deleted.Could you help me with that.

Any guidance or inputs on what I need to do to release as a public domain or release it under free copyright license?

Any help would be appreciated.I just don't want to violate any policies of the wiki.

Awaiting reply from you.Please do once you get time.

Thanks IPSid (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

carpal bar[edit]

Hi Fuhg: If you're looking for a better source for carpal bar, how about the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Eastern North America? MeegsC (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wing bars[edit]

And for wing bars, how about the National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America? MeegsC (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As always, MeegsC, thanks so much for looking and helping! My main concern was the use of that random website, SPS. I've used the Field Guide cite for the wing bars entry. I was not able to source their fading with age, that the self piublished source was used for, so I got rid of that text detail. The Smithsonian Field Guide to source carpal bars seem fine, so I didn't see a need to replace that one. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, they don't "fade", per se, but they do often get narrower or disappear through feather wear. The Helm Guide to Bird Identification talks about it on page 18 under "Feather Wear". MeegsC (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Excellent,. I'll use that to add the detail back (though not quite as it was before). Maybe something about fading as feathers are abraded, or use "worn plumage"... have to see.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 269#Viaden Media[edit]

Hi! Thanks for the detailed answer. Unfortunately, while I was away, I did not have time to reply. And the discussion went into the archive. If I understood correctly, now I can move the article to the main space. However, at first I incorrectly renamed the draft :( Secondly, it turned out that the name is protected from re-creation. So I need the help of an administrator in this task. --ELindas (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ELindas. Since the previous article on this topic was deleted (twice) upon community consensus at after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viaden Media (2nd nomination), you need to speak with the deleting administrator first, Courcelles. The only option I know of after that is to go to deletion review and request a review under the idea (quoting from WP:DRVPURPOSE) that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Otherwise, a move of a draft to the mainspace on a topic that was previously deleted after discussion will likely be quickly deleted as a repost under CSD G4. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello again! According to your advice, I wrote to him, but never received an answer. And this is predictable. He has been inactive for a long time in Wikipedia :( What should I do? --ELindas (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
=( --ELindas (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi ELindas. Per above: "...after that ... go to deletion review and request a review under the idea (quoting from WP:DRVPURPOSE) that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Serial copyvios[edit]

First thanks for your comment about handling a copyvio when the prior version is a dab. I like to follow the four eyes principle when possible, so I've been nominating for CSD rather than simply deleting so that someone else sees it. However, it just sunk in that this isn't the right approach when it is a new article on top of the dab, that's fundamentally no different than a copy right issue dropped into an existing article. I will amend my processes although I don't think I've run across this many times in the past. Thanks for your note about dealing with other issues from this editor. I was in copy patrol which picked up two of them. I looked at user contributions and saw how many to my dismay. I did address one of them, but I was toying with asking you to look into others and struggling to figure out how I would respond if you said I should do it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Thank you for the CSD work! Yeah, there were quite a few, as well as images uploaded for each (which I've F5'ed). (I think I got them all.) Yes, the dab is handled no differently than an article with a copyvio added. I wouldn't have turned it back on you if you'd asked! (but if I did): most of these were straightforward, G12s, plus F5s for the images. Other than the dab page, there was one more that needed revdeletion: see the page history here. If you ever want someone to take a look at a copyvio situation (or anything), please stop by anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Declinedsd[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Declinedsd 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
15:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Mark Bright (Record producer)—question[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, I hope I haven't made a mistake here —take a look at Mark Bright (record producer). The existing article was a mess, as it's history shows: suspected vandalism, paid editing WP:COI. Rightly or wrongly, I felt the need to paste a copy of the body of the article into my sandbox to work on. I edited the sandbox copy (under a different title), got carried away, and more or less finished rewriting it HERE, not realizing that both source and target now have their own histories. The copy and paste was May 11, 2017, and it appears that no edits on the source or target page between then and now have been made by anyone but me. Since both articles have the same origin, can you replace the target article with my sandbox article preserving the histories? I did delete the categories in the the sandbox version, so I want to preserve the existing categories that are on the target page. I have some other questions about the article, but first I want to get it out of the sandbox. Thanks for helping, as always--Eagledj (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eagledj: No problem! I'll do a history merge later today. However, just be aware that when I do this, I will graft the page history of your draft into the existing article, and will delete your other edits—those you made directly to the article in between during the same time period. Otherwise, this would result in a strange shuffling of parallel edits, and a garbled history. Okay?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Eagledj: History merge completed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fuhghettaboutit: You're the greatest--many thanks--Eagledj (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Joy Fielding, Liane Moriarty and Paula Hawkins's novels[edit]

Hello. Those articles shouldn't have been deleted. It was part of the bibliography of the New York Times bestselling and award-winning authors Joy Fielding, Liane Moriarty and Paula Hawkins. You could delete the synopses of books if you think it's a direct copy from a website and consider it as WP:G12, but removing the articles from Wikipedia is destructive for the encyclopedia and please stop calling me a 'Serial violator' and don't threaten me with blocking, I didn't do it intentionally. I was not aware of this policy that if you add the synopsis of a novel from a source that'd be considered as copyright infringement. I did not create those articles with the aim of violating the WP's rules I made the articles because they're best selling and critically-acclaimed books but there's still no information or article about them on Wikipedia. CerberaOdollam (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi CerberaOdollam. Placing copyright infringements is destructive of Wikipedia. When an article is created with only copyvio text, there is no version to revert to that is not illegal content and so deletion is what will happen. The act of creating an article is not sacrosanct. If it was we wouldn't have speedy deletion. Whether we should have an article on a topic is entirely separate from whether the one we have right now is a proper write-up, as opposed to being thoroughly tainted. These were the latter. I hear you: you did not understand what you were doing was a problem, though I always wonder how it happens that people don't understand copying other's writing is plagiarism and violates copyright (these are not just "Wikipedia rule"s, they are laws and norms of ethics essentially across most nations of the Earth). But the fact you say this means to me you are assuring me you do now, and won't repeat this behavior. So, if you want to create articles on these books, this time with proper content (which by the way, would involve, citations to reliable, secondary, independent sources to verify the content, in a transparent manner (rather than citing raw urls) is up to you. If and when you do so, you can drop me a note and I will undelete the fair use images for use in them (though be aware, fair use images must be reduced to low resolution to meet WP:NFCC#3)—I'm not saying these weren't but I never checked).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A copyright question[edit]

I'm going to take you up on your offer to discuss a copyright issue. It involves lists, one of Moonriddengirl's favorite copyright topics :) I'm looking generally at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Corkythehornetfan#Articles_1_through_20 this, specifically List of Seton Hall University people.

From MRG, I have taken away that lists can be moderately complicated when it comes to copyright issues. A list, however long, if noncreative, should not be a copyright issue. For example, if someone makes a list of the hundred largest cities in some country, even though it may take some work to compile, its noncreative. In contrast, a list of the 10 best places to eat in a location is a creative list and is subject to copyright.In this specific case, there is a site listing notable faculty and alumni of the school: Notable faculty and alumni. One question is where this falls on the creator versus noncreative spectrum and I think it's creative. That said, if I identify someone on this list, and then confirm there is an article in Wikipedia about them, I don't think I have any difficulty justifying that the name could be added to a list in Wikipedia of notable faculty and alumni of the school.

The list is not a raw list of individuals, it is grouped into categories such as business and media. One might argue that there choice of categorization show some creativity but I think that's a bit of a stretch to identify as a concern. I am somewhat more concerned about the red links, as this is clearly not a case where Wikipedia has determined that they are notable, this by definition is a case where the school has identified them as notable and we are including them in the list.

Finally, and arguably most important, is one thing to use the exact version of a person's name, hardly a copyright issue, but to use the exact description for each individual may be intruding into copyright issues.

Thus, my current conclusion is there are issues that need to be addressed, but my hope is we can do something less severe than blowing away the entire article.

I have some thoughts, but let me stop here and see what you think first.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Sorry but I have to make you slap your forehead. There's no issue because the page at the Seton Hall University external site is a copy of the Wikipedia article (rather than the source of the content). See the bottom of the page: "Source Wikipedia". (It is, however, a copyright violation – by them – because they neither link the article where the page history is available, nor link the free copyright license of the Wikipedia work or reproduce the license in its entirety [and the balance of the content, outside of the list, comes from the Seton Hall University Wikipedia article]).

Back to the issue though. Since this specific one is academic, let's treat it as a hypothetical, as if this was content originally from there. If so, I think the copyright issue would not really be a close call at all – it should be deleted as a copyvio. The first overarching consideration is that we err on the side of caution when it comes to copyright. This is, for example, encapsulated in in the non-free content policy (btw, note point 4 at WP:TOP100), where we have intentionally made the criteria more strict to avoid edge cases and to err on the side of only allowing clear exceptions to the exclusive grant of copyright. Years ago the WMF lawyer(s) issued a statement on this. I simply can no longer recall where it might be, but it was to that effect.

So, as to this list, we err on the side of any creative assessment going on in creating it invalidating it – and this is no stretch, no real need to bend over backwards. Consider that the U.S. Copyright Office provides that works that are unprotected are those "consisting entirely of information that is common property and [that] contains no original authorship" (emphasis mine). Note also Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. – "The standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright."

Here, the list, as you note, is "grouped into categories", so it has creative arrangement, and there's no way the selection of who to include and who not to include has no creative selection or assessment involved—creative choice being exercised as to who is worthy of mention and who isn't. Staying with our premise that this was created elsewhere and wasn't a backwards copyvio, you also have no idea of the criteria used by the selector who originally compiled the list. Without knowing that, you may not be able to assess whether creativity, or what degree of it, was involved in its creation. One more factor is that this list also contains information next to the entries, describing the entries on the list, that, duplicated en masse, adds an additional lay of creativity to the list as a whole. So were this list copied from there, I would come down strongly on the side of removal. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm Good call. Yes, I do know to check for that but sometimes get down in the weeds and forget to check. Thanks for skipping over the simple answer and going through your thought process that would apply had it not been a copy from Wikipedia. I think what tripped me up is that the edit in question was the initial edit to a page. In retrospect, the fact that it was a list article should have been a signal that I should check to see if the material ultimately came from the school.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and Question[edit]

I was able to get rid of the redirect last night and woke up to it being implemented again. A wiki person called it pure promotion. That is not my intent. I'm trying to put it facts with backed up links and data. Below is what I put last night. I removed the link to The Base Caddy, perhaps they think this is promotion? I was just trying to show an image. Anyway, I deleted the link. Do you see any other issues or know how to remove the redirect issue?   Eric Leach (born April 19, 1965) is an American rock vocalist, lyricist and a founding member of the band Symbol Six which emerged from the early 1980s Los Angeles punk rock scene along with Social Distortion, Bad Religion, T.S.O.L., SIN 34, 45 Grave, Youth Brigade, Descendents, RF7 and Agent Orange. Symbol Six was signed to the influential independent punk record label Posh Boy and released their debut record in 1982. Eric released is first solo record, Perfect Life, in February of 2016.

Leach also fronted the band Shanghai with members of L.A. Guns, Faster Pussycat and Patrick Muzingo of Junkyard. Shanghi was managed by The Runaways creator Kim Fowley Eric Leach also was the lead singer of Stahlin, a band formed with Izzy Stradlin of Guns N' Roses.

As the singer, frontman and lyrist for Symbol Six, Eric is noted for his high energy performances and lyrics.

Between 1984 and 1987, Eric worked as a graffiti artist and went by the name EAZ. He worked with hip hop mogul Lyor Cohen and created custom logos, backdrop murals and video set design for the Run-DMC & Beastie Boys Raising Hell tour. He did the same work for Jermaine Jackson, MC Hammer, Ice-T and Paula Abdul's Straight Up video. His designs were prevalent at the infamous Radiotron, Los Angeles' first underground Hip Hop club with regulars such as Ice-T hosting as MC.

He attended the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California.

Eric is a patented inventor of "Transporter for bases for baseball and softball games", patent #USD502304 (Feb, 2005).

Thank you for your help, Thetruthtoo

Deletion of Cycnus (son of Ares)[edit]

Please refrain from deleting the page I created, it is unfair to delete a certain because of a recommendation of a trusted user. It is bias for me as I can see it because only of familiarity you just deleted a certain page, in fact that article is in the page itself and I just copied the content not copyrighting the content from an untrustworthy book that was a Wikipedia page in a pdf form. You must verify first the said source material and take a better judgment on the matter. If you did it again I will block you myself. I may be new in editing and just learning the process but I have the common sense and critical thinking in doing the right thing. Thank you. Think about it what I said. Markx121993 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please make a page pertaining the said article you just deleted. You must come up with it and find reliable sources. My suggestion on the matter.Markx121993 (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Hi Markx121993. You cannot block me, because you are not an administrator:-) However, I will certainly look into the matter, You seem to be indicating this was a "backwards copyvio". I will take a look. If it turns out it was or other circumstances arise warranting it, I will undelete the page. If it turns out it wasn't, I will explain the issue to you better. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit Thank you for considering my thoughts on the matter. Please readily solve the problem at hand and verify the source material which is a copyright infringement from Wikipedia. Godspeed.Markx121993 (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung, Markx121993:  Done. That 2016 "book" rips off Wikipedia's content (without any copyright attribution to the editors here I can see) from the Cycnus page dating from at least 2015 and earlier.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit Thank you for paying attention to my insights. Hope to work with you in the future. Markx121993 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Page undeleate ...[edit]

Hi ...

I would like to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement ... and Merci ... It is nice to receive your next email soon ...

Thankfully ... Yasir I. Kashgari 00:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ykashgari: – email sent. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The future of NPP[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page, with a lively parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC#Moving forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017[edit]

My English errors[edit]

  • Thank you very much for explain the errors in it to me.
  • An example When we approach a horse, we hide a riding crop, to respect horse's feelings - probabaly should be When we approach a horse, we hide a riding crop, to respect the horse's feelings?Xx236 (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • However lack of freedom of press was only small part of the totalitarian censorship system, which included any printed matter and removal of books from libraries and individual collections. Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Xx236: Yes! that sentence absolutely requires the "the". However, there are some other problems with it as to grammar, syntax and awkward phrasing/non-standard usage.

The tense feels off, especially because "we hide a" in the surrounding context would not be said by a native speaker, whereas "we hid..." works better. But it's still slightly off because it implies each of the persons — plurality having been established by the use of "we" – did the hiding. Only one person would normally hide a single item like this. Again, it's not 'wrong', but when a reader feels something off, even if they cannot pinpoint it, it interrupts the flow.

Likewise, the use of "respect" is not exactly 'wrong', but it would not normally be used like this for a non-human. The first "a" in the sentence should be "the". So I would rewrite this as something like: "When we approached the horse, I hid the riding crop we had brought with us so that the horse would not become spooked." It could end with "by seeing it" (after spooked), but I think it's sufficiently implied.

Regarding the second sentence, I would place a comma after the opening "However"; the institution is usually referred to as "the press", not just "press"; there must be an "a" before "small". Thus → "However, lack of freedom of the press was only a small part of..." The balance of the excerpt reads fine to me. Also, it may have just been a typo, but given the topic we're on: probabaly → probably.

Lastly: yes, you correctly added "it to me" between "explain" and "me", but now your use of the verb explain is in the form of a present participle, and so it must be "explaining". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the horse, I have wanted to use an impersonal form, which should have been you or one, not we. I wanted to say that politicians (including Lenin) don't respect, but they go as far as they are allowed to (can ?), but I failed.
My dictionary doesn't even list hid.
Thank you very much for the lesson. I hope you'll need some day a little help in Polish.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Username blocking after warning[edit]

It was my understanding that when a user is asked to change a username, as I did with User:EngineHouse16, placing {{uw-username}}, it is normal not to block that user for an improper username until the user has been given some time to act on the request, unless further disruptive or promotional edits are made. Certainly this pause is mandated by the instructions at WP:UAA where it says: Do not warn someone about their name and then immediately report them to UAA. The entire point of a warning is to give someone a chance to stop doing something wrong. Don't ask someone to give up their name willingly if you're going to ask an administrator to block them. Either discuss or report.

Is this convention followed when not going through UAA? Should it perhaps be? Particularly for softblocks where no current harm is in progress? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey David. I know we're not talking about policy per se here, but the instructions at UAA (where they are about names that have promotionally edited already and their names are clear violations, as was the case here, rather than about clear violations but who have not edited yet or promotionally) in my view are about not taking up the time of responders, rather than a mandate not to block. But the reason I blocked was because at the time you noted the username problem, the page had not been discovered to be a copyright violation. After I saw it was, and noted that in the deletion log for the deleted page, I saw this as much more serious violating user, as coupled with the clearly inappropriate name. I feel that if a username block is possible within policy, and the user has posted copyright violations, they should be. But I apologize if this feels like I stepped on your toes.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually you have the sequence slightly incorrect. It was just after I discovered that the deleted page had been a very blatant copyvio (including the copyright notice yet), and posted to that effect on the teahouse, that I issued the warning. My reasoning was that here was a classic clueless but well-intentioned newbie, the kind that warnings and friendly instruction might actually reach.
I quite agree that your block was within policy, nor do I feel my toes in any way stepped on. My concern is entirely with WP:BITE or perhaps we should say the penumbra of bite. If I am correct and this is someone who could be reached by warnings, a block won't help. This is not a sly, deceptive vandal -- posting the copyright notice makes that clear. This is not someone doing as much damage as possible all over the wiki. This is not a corporate promoter. This is someone who wants to draw attention to a beneficial community structure and its uses, and who badly fails to understand how Wikipedia works. That is why i thought a warning the better choice. I did rather expect that this would in effect preempt a block for, say 24-48 hrs, assuming no further negative acts by the user. I do see how you looked at it, and i can't say that you were surely wrong. Can you see how I was thinking and why I acted as i did?
I do patrol UAA quite a bit, and it is common for responders there to say, more or less: "you (or someone else) warned the user and asked for a change of user name, and so our hands are tied until the user has had a reasonable time to act. Report dismissed." I have done very little username blocking outside the UAA context, and so i was seriously asking if the conventions (not the policy) was different in that sequence. (And UAA does get quite a lot of reports about users with zero edits.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Db-revise[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Db-revise has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Datone Jones[edit]

Hi @Fuhghettaboutit: could you please reply to my message on Talk:Datone Jones. Thanks! --UCLAgirl623 (Whats up!) 04:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey UCLAgirl623. I am happy to help out with some things, such as providing the review I did. But when it comes to the nitty gritty of rewriting an article, adding significant content and the like, I have my own interests. I am simply wholly uninterested in football players. Hopefully you can drum up some interest at that talk page or maybe post a message to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League or another related wikiproject. Once you're done, you could ask for a copyedit, and then a peer review. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Aww thank you so much! I am glad you told me. Love you! --UCLAgirl623 (Whats up!) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a question about the article Datone Jones.[edit]

@Fuhghettaboutit: you told me a couple days ago the article lacks a lead section. Could you explain to me which parts of the article lacks a lead section (like giving me examples of which and how I can fix it)? --UCLAgirl623 (Whats up!) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: Not answering b/c above user was blocked as a sockpuppet (not by me).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)


User:Tictocdocs ignored your message on their talk page and edited Eddie Rosenstein again. They obviously were either paid to create that article and to keep it maintained and updated, or they have a close personal connection to Rosenstein. Tictocdoc's user page even says the account is used by "Passionate documentary filmmakers", the industry Rosenstein is in. Also, I don't know if it's allowed, but the ONLY reason the Tictocdocs account exists is to make Eddie Rosenstein edits. Every one of their edits is for him. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:44A2:2F56:E172:3C6 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Agreed. I have added a second level template to the user's talk page ({{uw-paid2}}). However, I would note that the template messages I left on the article may have had some effect because the user's recent edit reads to me as trying to tone down promotional wording. Regardless, disclosure is easy to place and mandatory.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The page quotes mainly IMDB, which isn't relaible, so it's almost unsourced.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017[edit]

Your revert on Help:Maintenance template removal[edit]

You reverted my edit on that page with the edit summary Not an imporvement.. Aside from the typo, would you mind explaining to me why it is not an improvement? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Were you aware of these?[edit]

Some haven't been blocked:

Since you seem to be going after them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

:-) Nihonjoe I was just in special list users (gmta), and had blocked Badri Vishal 3 (created today), and I was looking for others started with Badri created nearby in time. Some of these are so old the person probably doesn't have the password and I'm not sure the name could not be coincidence. But Badri K Vishal is certainly another, created this month plus their one edit is extreme quacking evidence (see User:Badri Krishna Vishal).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:U.S. federal jurisdictions[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:U.S. federal jurisdictions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

error in glossary[edit]

I've just discovered that the glossary link for "moults" doesn't work from the "Wing bar" entry — I'm guessing it's because it's plural, but I'm unsure how glossary pipes work, so I'll let you do the honors! ;) MeegsC (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As always, thanks for looking! I'll report back.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)
@MeegsC: Yep, I missed it in the moult entry's anchors; as simple as this. Thanks again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Petra Pudova[edit]

Hello, page Petra Pudova was deleted unreasonably. Someone has tagged this page this page "Speedy deletion nomination of Petra Pudova". So we used "Contest this speedy deletion", have explained that we are the holders of all rights and also send attached permissions by email to [Ticket#2017070210006526]. I am a creator of this texts and holder of the rights and I would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use their own previously published work. I am author of all published texts on the website a wiki page Petra Pudova. What we can do more so that the page is restored? Panther PRG (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Panther PRG. It was not deleted unreasonably because we need the release first and any release you attempted to provide by assertion on Wikipedia is a waste of time because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. It sounds like you may have done what you needed to do for the content to be undeleted, once the release is reviewed and accepted by the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team.

It also may be, though, that you have not, because you use the words: "I would like to grant permission to Wikipedia to use..." You might have just been speaking in shorthand, and your "OTRS email" contained a suitable release (such as by following the Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries), but the wording I excerpt makes it sounds like you may have only provided a one-time license for Wikipedia to use your material here, while retaining its non-free copyright elsewhere, which is also worthless. The way copyright licensing works here, you have to release the content to the world, irrevocably, under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain), which would then allow anyone to reuse the content, even for commercial purposes. Methods of verifiable release include:

i) posting the release of the content at the external website (i.e., replacing the current copyright notice with a suitably-free license notice), or
ii) (as aforesaid) demonstrating you are the owner by sending a suitable release from an email address associated with the domain name and it being archived through the OTRS system.
iii) For more detail on the exact methods you might use and instructions, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and specifically the subsection of that page known by the shortcut WP:DONATETEXT.
However, please note that clearing up the copyright issue does not necessarily mean the content is appropriate for use here for other reasons (I don't know if it is or isn't; just trying to give you full disclosure). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for your response. I sent from official company email to email this (attached the copy on the letterhead with signature and stamp) - written according to the pattern (the copy was also sent from the email address listed on the website I hereby affirm that company Millennium CZ is sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the picture Petra Pudová.jpg and all website content (image/text/design) – a parts of the text were used on the page Petra Pudova - and have legal authority in my capacity to release the copyright of that work.  I agree to publish the above‐mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution‐Share Alike 4.0 International.  I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.  I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.  I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.  I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project... I hope this is right and the page will be restored soon. Panther PRG (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC) 

Hey Panther PRG. It looks like you did it correctly. When an OTRS volunteer gets to it, and barring some problem with the form, it should be undeleted then. I have no control over that, nor ability to hurry it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Admiral Edward Middleton[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit. I hope I am doing the talk correctly. You made an incorrect comment on [Admiral Edward Middleton]. I can see how you might be confused. However, this content is already in the references. The book you are pointing to is a copy of Edward Middleton's original obituary. This was written by Edward's wife, Elida who is being referenced in your link. I may have done it wrong, but the obituary ran in the San Francisco Evening Bulletin is a source and is already referenced. Thanks.

Hi Leeburbage153. You copied the words without indicating you were quoting, through the use of quote marks. We cite sources to show where we obtain information not words and sentences. If you use someone else's words, you must indicate that. For a public domain source like this, there is a compromise. You can avoid using quote marks by indicating in the references that the article incorporates text from a particular source that is in the public domain. For example, using a filled out {{PD-old-text}} template. By the way, on talk pages like this (but never in articles) you should sign your posts by placing four tildes after the post (~~~~) which will automatically format as your signature with a time stamp when you save. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, NJMobster person. I think I've cleaned it all up. Have a good one. Leeburbage153 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have completed all the asks you had including the photo. Let's show the world. Leeburbage153 (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Leeburbage153: Fuhgedaboudit, whatever the spelling, is an ethnic Italian expression of great commonality. You apparently only know it from introduction through the Sopranos, and assume (incorrectly in this case) that it is my intention to invoke that association, rather than because of its commonality, or that I might have an affinity long predating that show.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
@Leeburbage153: No you did not fix it. You are still listed as the author, and you have listed unknown as the source. The source is not unknown, it's where you got it from. It could be family memorabilia if you're related. It could be some book you took it from. Only you know. If you don't know who took the photograph then the author is unknown.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks, i also think i fixed all the minor edits you taught me like where the punctuation goes. And added an important missing page number in one of the references (It's a big book). thanks again for your guidance. Leeburbage153 (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Should this user be blocked?[edit] made various edits to Are these edits accurate? Should he be blocked?

User:Aelimian21 block appeal[edit]

This user, who you recently blocked indefinitely due to repeated copyright violations, has appealed in UTRS appeal #18688. They were asked to compose a paragraph of original prose to see if they now understand how copyright works on Wikipedia, which they have now done. The text below is what they posted in the ticket. At the moment I'm neither supporting or opposing the appeal, just conveying the message to the blocking admin. Please let me know how you would like to handle this request.

Ok, thank you for the clarification, The Wordsmith

My edit on Sinn F?in:

Sinn F?in believes that Northern Ireland should be given special status within the EU because Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU. Remaining part of the Common Travel Area is also a position Sinn F?in takes believing that border checks on Ireland goes against the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The party also supports continuation of access to the single market for the North and protection of Northern Ireland's EU access to employment, social security, and healthcare. Sinn F?in also argues that Brexit would cause a loss of an average of ?10,184 per farm in Northern Ireland which could be avoided with designated special status. Due to Brexit, 73 MEPs must be signed to other nation Sinn F?in argues that least 3 more MEPs for Ireland should come from that.


-The WordsmithTalk to me 16:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey Wordsmith. I know we do this—ask people to compose some text to demonstrate some understanding of the reason for the block and can avoid falling afoul of the same issue—but I've not seen this used in the context of a user who engaged in serial copyright violations, and I'm not sure it tells us much. This user apparently did not understand the issue despite my explanatory text to him, essentially defended his copyright violations, certainly dissembled, and demonstrated in response to a number of follow-ups and attempts at further explanation that he continued to not understand the issues involved. I can make little out from the above. We have a link to a 24-page, PDF rather than a pinpointed page from it using a well attributed inline citation, placed to show which part of the text comes from which part of which document. So, determining whether this is a proper paraphrase is quite burdensome.

Strike that. I composed the above before looking at the more manageable, 3-page second source, The answer is very clear to me now. The user should remain blocked because he could not have more effectively demonstrated he does not understand, or at least cannot be trusted to paraphrase. That is, in this composed text, in which he would be expected to absolutely make sure he copied nothing word for word:

"...loss of an average of ?10,184 per farm"
and from the second source (first bullet point, page 2):
"...loss of an average of £10,184 per farm"
Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I wasn't the admin who asked him to write that, just the one who handled the next ticket he filed. I agree that declining the appeal is the right course of action. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Zotezo[edit]

Hi @Fuhghettaboutit ! Your review on Zotezo is much appreciated. I am thankful to you for taking time. I would like to inform that Zotezo is a prominent eCommerce company in India, like Amazon, FlipKart, Nykaa, Paytm etc.It is in business since 2014 and has 1500+ brands & 100,000+ products listed with it along with 100s of Small & Medium Business, directly or indirectly promoting it. A couple of independent links/business listing sources are listed below for reference: CashKaro Keyursavaliya FileShope CouponRaja CouponDunia BeautyAndHealth

And hundreds of more 3rd party sites are available on which Zotezo has no control. Zotezo is well known and trusted brand in India especially for beauty, personal care, and wellness segment. It has also launched a beauty box for Indian female audience, called Zobag. You can search on Goolge to know about it. I would request you to please reconsider the deletion of Zotezo. Your views, comments, and guidance would be much appreciated. Iwikihero (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iwikihero. Your post above is written in blatant advertising language. I deleted it as blatant advertising as you can see from the deletion summary in the deletion log. So what you're saying about is being prominent, and notable and all that had nothing to do with the basis upon which I deleted it. It had been deleted previously by other admins as failing to assert importance (when it had different content). I did not delete it on that basis (nor did Onel5969 tag it on that basis). You sound exactly like a corporate shill for this company, and probably are, and cannot write about it in a neutral manner, or certainly have not thus far. In that regard you have not complied with mandatory paid editing disclosure.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit,

Thank you for sending reply. I have tried to put my wordings as per the data, my research report and by following wikipedia pages as mentioned in my above reply. It may be that the wording should be more natural. I have gone through some of your pages and I know that you are a very valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I would like to request you to guide for creating this page. I will try to put a nutral tone in the wording for Zotezo. Waiting for your reply. Iwikihero (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah good. First comply with paid editing disclosure, linked above. Then please read neutral point of view and WP:PEACOCK. Then in any entry, mercilessly remove anything evaluative, flowery, hawking, etc. ... just the facts, while citing to published, reliable, secondary, independent sources that have written about the topic is substantive detail.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Request for help completely revamping an article[edit]

Hi and thank you in advance for your time! I work for the Zoological Society of Washington (ZSW) which is the governing body (501c(3) non-profit, tax exempt, charitable organization) for Cougar Mountain Zoo. We would like to update the Wikipedia article on Cougar Mountain Zoo. However, when I edited in all the new text (logged in as user CougarMZoo) all of it was removed and switched back to the old text along with postings in the talk page and messages about COI and NPOV. So then I tried posting the entire edit on the talk page attempting to explain that I work for ZSW. Once again denied. I believe you can see all of what I put on the talk page. But if not, I can email you with the proposed new article (less pictures and an updated info box). My email is I realize now that while I am employed by ZSW I was only paid to upload the material, not to come up with the material. The ZSW Board came up with the new text and they do not receive any compensation for their efforts from ZSW or Cougar Mountain Zoo. Can you help? Thanks again. Misty Cougar Mountain Zoo 21:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Misty. I am more sympathetic and willing to help a zoo seeking to have a better article, than I am that of a pure commercial venture (which constantly post commercials here), but the prohibition against the misuse of Wikipedia as an advertising platform is in no way limited to commercial organizations, and the edit you posted was a blatant commercial—promotional in tone and content and reading very much like an advertising brochure touting the virtues of the subject and written to convince readers to visit this wonderful place, and very much not like a neutrally-written, encyclopedia article.

I gather from your talk page and above, you now understand some of these matters, including that article subjects, rather than having control over articles about themselves, are considered to have conflicts of interest in editing articles about themselves, and such edits are scrutinized for self-serving content and the like. That does not mean those with vested interests cannot suggest edits, ask for misinformation to be removed, and so forth – and successfully have their suggestion acted upon – but I think you (and/or the ZSW Board) need to know more to do so effectively. This is actually easier to do for this not-very-well-developed article, than it would otherwise be.

Let me provide a rundown of specific problems with the reverted edits you made, that might help with your/the ZSW Board's next effort. I will get into the procedural aspects of what to do near the end. Up front, please understand that this text was so unsuitable and lacking in certain conditions precedent for inclusion, that there's no easy path from looking at it, to making any changes to the article. You (and/or the ZSW Board) need to put in time to understand what would be needed, and do the work to make suggestions that can be acted upon. The balance of this post is my advice to make that task, if taken on, more likely to succeed.

First one technical issue. Your username is a problem and I would not be surprised if you were blocked soon in the ordinary course, with a note advising you to change it (I will not do so). It is a violation of WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. I suggest you change it before doing anything else, so that this is not an issue later. You can create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual, or more formally request a change of username. A name like Misty at CougarMZoo is allowed. On a related note, your signature is also a violation. Sorry. It must contains a link to your user page, talk page, or contributions. Here, I think all you need to do (or will need to do for a new name, if the same issue crops up) is go to your preferences and take the checkmark out of the box for "Treat the above as wiki markup".

  • 1) Take a careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial. It will teach you some of the things I mention below and others in a guided fashion.
  • 2) Probably the most crucial and overarching point to understand, Wikipedia runs on reliable sourcing. Expanding on that:
  • Content must be verifiable in reliable sources and we cite sources using inline citations to verify content additions.
  • To learn about how to cite sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1, and then seeing Wikipedia:Citing sources for a more involved treatment, noting that each contains see also sections linking to additional help pages, guides and tutorials.
  • The Lion2010.jpg's share of content should be cited to secondary sources that are entirely independent of the subject of an article. Primary sources can be used to verify information, but their use is limited because the content they can be used to verify must not be unduly self-serving, and can only be used for straightforward statements of fact, rather than any analysis, evaluation or synthesis, where secondary sources can be used for those puposes.
  • 3) In your edit you cited no sources whatsoever, and also removed some sourced content (this will trigger a near knee jerk revert in many editors).
  • 4) Use resources like Google Books to your advantage to hunt down independent reliable sources, e.g., maybe some of those found here. Then write what can be verified from those you locate, rather than writing what you known or what is contained in unpublished sources (which cannot be used).

    This is much easier than trying to back into proposed content you've written first by trying to locate sources for it later, if they even exist. (Remember, do not copy the words, which outside of short quotes, marked as such, would be a copyright violation; sources are used to verify information, that editors write in their own words.) The former approach is what makes writing a suitable Wikipedia article so difficult for many. In short: gather sources first; digest them; and only then put 'pen to paper' (fingers to keyboard).

  • 5) As I've already mentioned, the edit was replete with promotional language. It contained touting, empty buzz words and peacock adjectives and puffery. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It also contained much evaluative content in Wikipedia's voice. An example: "The manifestation of their deep devotion to all creatures large and small..." This is pure evaluation, appropriate at, say, the Zoo's own website or Facebook page, but never here except possibly as a quote from a secondary and independent source, using quote marks, and cited to the source using an inline citation. (Side note: much of this type of material violates the principle of effective writing, show, don't tell). Anyway, Just. The. Facts... and only those that are verifiable in the right type of reliable sources, depending on what is being verified. Maybe this will help:
  • X mark.svg "The Cougar Mountain Zoo is centrally located in the friendly alpine City of Issaquah, Washington. Nestled on the north facing slope of Cougar Mountain, the scenic grounds offer a breathtaking view of Lake Sammamish and the rugged Cascade Mountain Range."

    Yes check.svg The Zoo is located in the alpine city of Issaquah, Washington on the north facing slope of Cougar Mountain, providing a view of Lake Sammamish and the Cascade Mountain Range.[1][citing a reliable source]

  • X mark.svg "Visit this magical place where art and the beauty of wildlife merge to speak a common language. Enjoy the view, great photo opportunities, feed the animals, sit and relax and admire the largest bronze animal collection of any Zoo in the Country."
I can't do what I did for the one above b/c almost everything is wrong here not just in its adjective-filled, evaluative wording, but in content. An encyclopedia article does not urge people to visit anything or postulate what enjoyment people might get out of doing proposed activities.
Yes check.svg This exhibit _______ and houses the largest bronze animal collection of any zoo in the U.S.[2][citing a reliable source]
  • 6) Some more minor style notes:
     • At the first mention of the subject in the opening sentence it is placed in boldface (by enclosing it in three '''apostrophes''' – which you removed in your edit). BTW, please read WP:LEAD.
     • After the first mention of a subject we do not repeat its full name at every subsequent mention.
     • We generally do not use html markup: ===Magic Forest===, not <b><u>Magic Forest</u></b><br/> (see MOS:SECTIONS).
     • Wikipedia uses sentence case for headlines, so only the first word and proper nouns are capitalized in them: "Notable animals", not "Notable Animals".
  • 7) Once you have composed suitable text, open a section at the article's talk page (the article's talk page, Talk:Cougar Mountain Zoo; not your talk page) and lay out your suggestions. If it does not follow what I've advised about citing reliable sources (among other matters), it will surely be rejected.
  • 8) Place above your suggestions this template, to draw users to your request: {{Request edit}}. Read that linked template's documentation for other instructions. Please do not expect a response within an hour or a day, and maybe not even within a week. Wikipedia is a slow motion place.
I am going to copy this thread to the article's talk page (so if you're reading this response there, the request edit template, and suggestion for content would go in a new thread at the bottom of that talk page). I think it best if discussion of the article takes place on the page that exists for that purpose. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017[edit]

Jason Kandybowicz[edit]

Hello. Thanks for taking the time to review my submission and also for the helpful feedback. I understanding the issue of sourcing and demonstrating significance/impact in an entry, but am a little confused about how to do it. For my resubmission, I consulted the Wikipedia pages of two linguistics whom I also represent (Mark Baker (linguist) and David Pesetsky) and provided what I thought were comparable sources and citations. Specifically, for the Kandybowicz resubmission I added 1) a link to WorldCat to reference the author's books in libraries and other public holdings (reference #2); 2) an independent peer-reviewed review of Kandybowicz's influential book "The Grammar of Repetition" (reference #5); 3) links to the author's various books by their respective publishers (references #4,6); and 4) a number of Kandybowicz's most influential scholarly journal articles with links to the publisher's web page for proper citation/sourcing/documentation.

If I understand you correctly, these are insufficient sources. This is the point I find myself confused about. As I mentioned, for this edit I consulted the Wikipedia entries for Mark C. Baker (linguist) and David Pesetsky. In the case of Mark C. Baker, there are absolutely zero references. The only piece of citation is a link to his website. How was that entry allowed and Kandybowicz's denied, when Kandybowicz's submission contains far more citations, links, and sources? In the case of the Pesetsky entry, I found two sources (notes 1 & 2 on that page). All other supporting information in that entry consists of citations of scholarly works/papers (as was provided in the Kandybowicz entry) and a link to his works on WorldCat (also as in the Kandybowicz entry).

As a representative of Dr. Kandybowicz, I have been tasked with creating and maintaining a Wikipedia page. I would appreciate any insight you could provide as to how I can revise the submission so that it conforms to Wikipedia's sourcing standards. However, when I look to other similar entries, as mentioned above, I do not find the help I need to adequately address your requirements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badwin goodminton (talkcontribs)

Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide!

Hi Badwin goodminton, Please read WP:WAX by analogy. In short, you can't generalize from the fact that you can find similarly situated articles that "made it through". Because of the decentralized way material is reviewed, the fact we have bad content that shouldn't have made it through, or should be deleted, or rewritten, or was poorly reviewed, or was written when standards were looser, etc., is no reason to allow new content that does not meet our policies and guidelines. Did you understand the part I wrote about the types of sources being so important? Reliable sources entirely unconnected to him, discussing him or his scholarly impact in substantive detail? Try to find some, add those to the article, with statements they support and resubmit (probably someone else will be the next reviewer upon resubmission). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Stephanie Martin (Writer)[edit]

Thank you for your review of my submission for Stephanie Martin (writer). I understand that you believed there was a copyright infringement but I own the copyright to all of the materials and was in the process of editing and resubmitting. You deleted my work-in-progress page, so could you please advise if it can be restored so I can continue working on it? It was hours of work and I have no copy. I'd like the opportunity to continue working on it so it does meet all of Wikipedia's standards and guidelines.

Thank you for your response in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skmartin111 (talkcontribs)

The way copyright works at Wikipedia, any material you want to copy and paste and use here would have to have it's copyright irrevocably released not for use here but to the world, under a suitably-free copyright license (or into the public domain), which would then allow anyone to reuse the content, even for commercial purposes. This has to be done in a verifiable manner, Not by your assertion. Methods of verifiable release include:
i) posting the release of the content at the external website (i.e., replacing the current copyright notice with a suitably-free license notice), or
ii) demonstrating you are the owner by sending a suitable release from an email address associated with the domain name and it being archived through the OTRS system.
iii) For more detail on the exact methods you might use and instructions, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, and specifically the subsection of that page known by the shortcut WP:DONATETEXT.
However, please note that clearing up the copyright issue does not necessarily mean the content is appropriate for use here for other reasons (I don't know if it is or isn't; just trying to give you full disclosure). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Locking yourself in an ATM[edit]

I've deleted User:Fuhghettaboutit/common.js entirely, so now you should be able to leave edit summaries; please restore it as you see fit :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Much appreciate the help! (Re: your note at WP:AN, the good intent involved is everything; matters not at all whether it resulted from a misunderstanding.:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

De-orphaning my article[edit]

@Fuhghettaboutit, thank you for your explanation of an orphaned article. I have found some articles link to my article. So what do I do with them in order to de-orphan my article Whiteplains British School? Could help me do the de-prphaning it?--Nwachinazo (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nwachinazo. Another user has already taken care of this. For future reference, please read Help:Maintenance template removal. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of article[edit]

You deleted my article Professor Valentine Joseph beacuse you said I was violating copyright. I have got the authors permissions and I will re-write it /remove it. Please can you undelete this article so I can amend the violation. Thank you. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This post is responded to at Wikipedia:Teahouse#How do you improve the tone and neutral point of view of an article?.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice on the teahouse. I have some questions (apologies if they are slow :) ). Just to confirm, I cited/referenced that pdf in my article, and that needs a suitable free copyright notice (The date 2016/06 marks the time when the article was first created in word). I will add "The text of this document is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." to the document and try to get that uploaded onto the original link (apologies, mistake - I wrote it). Also, do I need to specify who is releasing the copyright, or can I just write "The text of this..."? However, if I can't get it uploaded on the original link to that website, what should I do? Should I get that article removed and my altered one uploaded instead? Should I follow your second piece of advice? I am confused about what you mean when you say "email from an address associated with the original publication". Thank you very much in advance. Heptanitrocubane (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Heptanitrocubane. Since the document is where the material appears, your ability to edit it alone is a verifiable method to demonstrate your authorship. In short, I think adding a suitable release to it, without your name – "The text of this..." – is fine. The other method I went into from Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, indicates that a release should come form an email address associated with the publication, to demonstrate authority. It makes sense right? If content is taken from a website, say,, and then a person provides a release from, that demonstrates the person's association with that entity and is verification of their authority to provide that release. I'm not part of the OTRS team, so I don't know how they view releases where that's not possible. That is, if there's no way to do so here for this PDF's source URL (e.g. But if you post the release in the PDF, I will undelete, as soon as you tell me you have and I then view it. If you can't do any sort of verifiable release, I'm sorry, but you would have to start writing a draft with new text, not copying from your previous writing, that has been posted to the world under as non-free copyright license, and which you can't prove was authored by you. I would, however, be willing to provide to you a "skeleton" from the draft to start that, but not the copied text. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! I am going to try to update the pdf. However, if I can only upload a second updated pdf, so there is one with the copyright release notice, and one without, would that be sufficient? Or would I have to replace/remove the old version of the pdf? Thanks again, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Anish Mariathasan: Ah, very good idea. Smart. I think if you can upload it to the same site, that's also fine. This is not a court of law.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I have managed to get it uploaded and have got the link, you can find it here. Thanks for the help, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC).

Hey Heptanitrocubane.  Done, Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph restored, with text release noted in log. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit! Heptanitrocubane (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Fuhghettaboutit - I fixed my problem so I removed the previous message that was here. Regards Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Weird content at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion[edit]

FYI, that weird stuff about thyroids was added in this edit, years ago. Note the misleading edit summary; that was quite a bit more than a copyedit. Needless to say, I think it should stay gone. Reyk YO! 14:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Reyk! Hmm, added by a very experienced user. Anyway, almost every part made no sense there. Almost by definition, if an article is being nominated at AfD, then the basis for the nomination we would be informing "interested people" of would never be "recommending that [the] article be speedily deleted"! It's sort of alarming that such very obviously incongruous text can persist in a prominent page like that for 8 years.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Your explanation in the Tea house was super. Thanks for taking the time to explain so well. Rhadow (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017[edit]


Hello Fuhghettaboutit

I'm seattle singer songwriter Jill Cohn and over the 20 years I've been an active touring musician, my fans and other sources have added to my Wikipedia page. Last night, i noticed that it's been entirely deleted and so I reached out to "info @ Wikipedia" and they said that YOU were the responsible party for deleting my page?

here is a COPY of my page and if you would kindly restore it (UNDELETE) I would appreciate this so very much. thank you! Jill Cohn

Here is my page PLEASE RESTORE IT OR TELL ME WHAT IT VIOLATES AND I'LL fix it! Thank you!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jillcohn (talkcontribs)

<article text removed; the title is all that's needed to locate and posting it here presents a copyright problem>
Hi Jill. The page at Jill Cohn was proposed for deletion because it was a subpar article in many ways. It was nominated by someone else, and I implemented the deletion on January 1, 2015. You can see the deletion log entry here. This is not a reflection on you, but on the poor quality of the write-up on you, which, by the way, is very much not "your artist page" but was a poor attempt at an encyclopedia article about you. That distinction may seem trivial, and of course I'm aware it can just be a manner of speaking (and also, based on context, that you are likely not very familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and jargon), but what that language implies can be important.

Please be aware that Wikipedia is not a social networking site; is not to be used for marketing or promotion; subjects of articles have no control over them; no one is entitled to an article; and because of our policies and guidelines, the nature of an encyclopedia, and the fact that it is impossible for someone to write about themselves or things close to them impartially, we strongly frown on people directly editing any articles that are about themselves, their family and friends, their businesses, or otherwise are on topics they have a personal stake in. See the conflict of interest behavioral guideline.

Getting back to the substance: the basis for the deletion nomination was "unref blp; doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG". Let me unpack that for you.

"Unref"=Unreferenced. This refers to the fact that this article did not meet Wikipedia's most basic standards for an article: it was not corroborated by citations to any reliable sources that verified the content it contained;
"blp"=biography of a living person – for which sourcing standards are stricter than for other types of topics: we cannot have articles on living persons with just unsupported, anecdotal content. Please read that policy. It is actually there to protect people like you; and
The two links, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG are both notability guidelines. The first is specific to musical artists and the second is the general guideline. In short, not every topic in the world is suitable for an encyclopedia article, and the notability guidelines attempt to set forth standards to determine which topics do (far too permissively in my view).
Sometimes notability issues comes down not to whether a topic actually warrants an article, but rather, whether the current write-up demonstrates that they do. Once again we're back to reliable sourcing, the lifeblood of a Wikipedia article. You might be notable, but the write-up did not demonstrate that by citing 1) published, 2) reliable 3) secondary, 4) entirely independent sources, that 5) discuss you in substantive detail (not just mere mentions), in order to demonstrate that an article is warranted.

That being said, because this was deleted through a PROD for which undeletion is usually granted fairly freely, I will restore the article. But it needs a lot of work, and this does not mean it will not be deleted on the merits upon a deletion discussion, e.g., at article for deletion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of the Daily Caller and other opinionated sources[edit]

This is a continuation of our discussion at the Teahouse on this topic.

I totally agree with you about right-wing "alternative facts", and about confusing fact with opinion, but the reliability of the Daily Caller is a separate question. After posting to the Teahouse, I looked around, and found the Reliable sources noticeboard. A search on "daily caller" there revealed this discussion, which concludes that "At best, it's reliable but should be avoided in favor of more neutral media whenever possible, just like with any other blatantly partisan source." On the other hand, the topic appears to have been highly contentious, with repeated, lengthy Noticeboard discussions.

To me, the critical question for any opinionated source is whether or not it can itself keep opinion separate from fact. This question affects far more than just right-wing sources; I see it as a fundamental problem for Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines. For example, I don't see why WP:RS would say that editorials and opinion pieces are "rarely reliable for statements of fact", or why WP:NOR (in a footnote!) would classify them as primary rather than secondary sources. An editorial or op-ed in an otherwise reliable source is not much more likely to get away with misstating basic facts than a news story in the same publication, no matter what inferences it tries to draw from them.

To be concrete: My current draft on Documenting Hate cites this opinion piece. Under present policy and guideline regime, it would probably be disqualified as an unreliable primary source, useless for establishing notability, rather than a reliable secondary source, simply because it argues for a conclusion as a matter of opinion. But it appears to me to be meticulous in its separation of fact from opinion, and I would trust its factual assertions no less than if it were purely descriptive reporting. I feel it ought to be classified as a clear-cut case of secondary-source analysis of the primary sources it links to — not even a gray area. If Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines dictate otherwise, then they need to change.

The present policy and guideline regime appears to make it nearly impossible to classify news sources, other than very lengthy ones that approach the status of scholarly sources, as reliable secondary sources. If they stick to the facts, they're primary, even if reliable, because they do no analysis or synthesis. If they do engage in inferential analysis or synthesis, then they're supposedly unreliable opinion pieces — and, as such, again they're primary sources. Heads I win, tails you lose.

I feel this has to change.

Syrenka V (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Misty at Cougar Mountain Zoo here[edit]

First, a heartfelt thank you for your detailed notes! I have been occupied with other pressing projects and am now getting back to the Zoo's Wikipedia page.

I have requested a change to the username CougarMZoo to Misty@CougarMountainZoo. Waiting on that before I attempt to do anything else. I have also sent in an email to try to get the jpg of our new logo uploaded. That was also deleted. Once I hear back on these two things then hoping to try suggesting some edits to the Infobox as a start to fix incorrect info. and add a couple of things. Also have your notes on what to do once the username has changed to also help try to avoid issues.

In reading through some of the articles I have come across it seems once the username has changed I need to create my user page. And it also sounds like I need a paragraph there outlining my relationship with the Zoological Society of Washington (ZSW) and Cougar Mountain Zoo. Or is just this enough on my userpage;

UserpageCOI.svgThis user has made a public declaration indicating that he has a conflict of interest with regard to the following Wikipedia article(s):

When I request an edit on the Zoo's talk page I'm trying to understand how to best disclose my COI. I'm not paid to come up with the information; just try to get it on there. So would I use the connected contributor (paid) template as follows:

The ZSW Board has gone through and re-written everything based on your comments and example to remove NPOV. Still severely lacking sources (don't seem to be any out there, even in Google books as you suggested) other than the Zoo's website. Those are used in the current accepted Wikipedia article. But per my research that normally isn't allowed, right? Or am I mis-interpreting something? Are Yelp and TripAdvisor reviews allowed as sources? Guessing no, but it never hurts to ask :)

Two more questions; 1) Do you think it is better to try to get everything in all at once or a section at a time? Can you point me in the right direction to find the Zoo Infobox template so I can see the list of allowed parameters in there?

Thanks again for your continued help!

Misty Misty@CougarMountainZoo (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Misty. Yes, simply posting the filled-out {{Paid}} template and {{UserboxCOI}} to your user page (once the name change goes through) will take care of mandatory dislcosure. Really nice to work with someone willing to read and comply with these simple matters. (You can probably hear my frustration; I spend a lot of time dealing with people unwilling or incapable of complying.) Thank you. However, you need to repost your name change request. It was rejected, and you were advised to choose a different name because while I said you can use a name like "Misty at CougarMZoo", you translated this into a request for a name with the actual at symbol @, which can't be part of a username (an actual technical restriction of the software; it's not possible).

Most templates have documentation with all parameters given and explained at the template page itself – here Template:Infobox zoo – {{Infobox zoo}}. You might also visit, say Bronx Zoo, and look at the template's display there, and also click edit to see the code resulting in the display.

Regarding use of the zoo's website: please read the policy at WP:PRIMARY and the supplementary essay at WP:PRIMARYCARE. In short, I think you'll be glad to know that it is not correct that the Zoo's website cannot be used. However the use of primary sources like this are limited in a few ways. They do not provide evidence of notability which is not really germane here), but what is highly relevant is that they can only be used for straightforward statements of fact, and cannot be used for any evaluation, synthesis, interpretation, and, especially with a primary source that is completely connected to the subject of an article (i.e., non-independent), use will be scrutinized for clearly self-serving purposes. Primary, connected sources are not bad, and often are needed to fill in fact gaps that only a connected source will have, they just must be used with these restrictions in mind. (I don't want you to hamstring yourself bending over backwards. You're doing great so far and are the rare person actually following-up; I am glad to help).

In that regard, while I told you the procedure for posting at the article's talk page, placing the requested edit templates there and the like, I am offering to handle this directly, so no need. Once you think the sandbox is ready for a final look, drop me a message here. (There's also no need to start a new thread; you can just post within this thread--and I will receive a notification for any messages you leave me on this talk page [just as you've probably noticed you get informed whenever anyone posts to your talk page].) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit Duh on me about the name change; request resubmitted. At least I got the new zoo logo uploaded. Once step forward, two step backs :) I've been doing doing the revamp on the CougarMZoo sandbox page; should I move it over to the Cougar Mountain Zoo sandbox page instead? Having trouble referencing a previous reference; supposed to be able to from everything I've read but nothing shows up in "Named references". This would be for both the History page of the Zoo's website and the book. Can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. Andy ideas? Google Books doesn't show the page numbers for referencing. Will that be a problem? And many thanks for your continued help and your kind words of encouragement and support! Misty@CougarMountainZoo (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@CougarMZoo: You never defined the reference name at its first use, and then tried to use it with a name that had never been defined. You also you gave it a name that included spaces but without quote marks (which won't work; you can only avoid quote marks in the cite name if there's no spaces).

Here's an example of first use of a cite, giving it a name, that I added to the draft as an example of a source I found through this simple Google News search (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

The next time you wanted to use that cite (though here, it probably wouldn't be useful to cite again), you'd just type <ref name=Pattycake /> and if you wanted to name it Patty cake, with the space, you'd have to have named it <ref name="Patty cake">...

Page numbers are important for transparency of references. You can only do what you can though. Usually, when you can see any text through Google Books, even through its "snippet view", you can see the page number. Sometimes, it's an e-book, though, and there is no true page number. I'd have to know exactly which you're referring to to advise further. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Thanks for the tips on citing refs. I think I'm getting the hang of it now. Have it all fleshed out with Wiki and external links and refs to Zoos website. Starting to look for more refs that could be added. Now if those refs have text that is not NPOV, is it still best to avoid using any of that? And thanks for finding that online "patty-cake" article. We knew the picture went viral on Facebook thanks to George Takei. Not sure if anyone knew about the article though. Misty@CougarMountainZoo (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, Name change has gone through. I have created the userpage for Misty at CougarMountainZoo and added in the Paid and UserboxCOI to it. Can you take a look and see if I did them correctly? Still researching more references. Yes, one of the books that comes up in Google Books is only an ebook. Weird, today it's not showing up.... So in your opinion do I have enough references to try this yet? Thanks!!! Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, someone named Eagledj has been editing the "old" article the last couple of days. Nice of them to find me a new source :) What they have done and their reasoning makes sense. Sounds like the section on Hours may be objectionable to seem even though we don't have it explicit like what was removed from the "old" article. Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Misty. I am going to look very soon. I have a lot going on right now (in the real world).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Misty, Since the Cougar Mountain Zoo is a nonprofit, and it's mission and motives are fairly clear, it is getting a huge pass for an article that otherwise would have been deleted as being promotional, being written by an employee of the subject of the article, at the request its board of directors. I have tried to help the article by discarding promotional language, and adding some references. I too am a pupil of Fuhghettaboutit, who has been a patient mentor to me, as he is now being to you. It would be helpful to state the number of individual animals the zoo has, and the number of species; also the annual attendance and whether or not the zoo is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, etc.. An example is Nashville Zoo at Grassmere, and, of course the Bronx Zoo as suggested. As yet, I have not found those facts about CMZ in any published source. Surely the Seattle papers must have more articles about the zoo. Please look at my contributions on the "old" article HERE before trying to paste an entirely new one over it. Fughettaboutit can guide you here. We welcome you to Wiki, happy editing !. --Eagledj (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, One of your pupils has done a lot of editing on the Zoo's page (his name appears in the paragraph above). He introduced some typos and incorrect information. And of course I did everything totally wrong in trying to fix them. You can find more information about all of this on his talk page and the talk page of the Zoo. Subsequently I asked him to add/change/fix a couple of and not all of them got done. So there are still a couple of things in the article that are wrong or mis-leading and still some things missing from the infobox. Since the items I asked him to add to the infobox (website; was there and now isn't and list of major exhibits) are in just about every other Zoo infobox that I have looked at this seems a little discriminatory to me. Am I being overly sensitive? I was planning on combining several of the sections into the lead paragraph like he did. And overall I like most of what he did. But the last sentence of the lead paragraph is to me very mis-leading. One might think Peter Rittler had nothing to do with the Zoo between 1990 and 2009. It would sure be nice to get that sentence deleted. When I asked he revised it instead of deleting it. But then maybe my request to him was not clear. Anyway, thanks for listening and any further advice you might have! Hope you aren't anywhere adversely affected by the nasty weather.... Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I did request a couple of edits on the talk page today. Hopefully it won't tick off anyone. I think I did it correctly other than had a couple of things wrong and had to go back in and edit them. Sigh... so many little details. I really admire everyone who can do things correctly on their first effort in Wikipedia! Misty at CougarMountainZoo (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Fughettaboutit, Please refer to the article's talk page HERE for my responses to Misty's comments. Regards,--Eagledj (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion[edit]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit. I would really appreciate it if you could give me your opinion on my article Draft:Professor Valentine Joseph. Thanks in advance, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Heptanitrocubane. You have it in the review queue on re-submission. I am not going to jump the queue and I don't generally do AfC reviewing.

I will say though, without having done an analysis of whether the sourcing is suitable to demonstrate notability—that is, whether Joseph is the subject of substantive treatment in published, reliable, secondary and independent sources, without which no amount of editing will result in a suitable article—that though you've added content since the last review, including inline citations, large parts of the draft remain unsourced.

Any parts that you cannot source should be removed. Any parts that are cited to primary sources must not contain evaluation, synthesis or interpretation and should only be used for straightforward statements of fact, and every single fact in the draft should be verifiable in a source, and best actually cited to a source. The proper way to write a Wikipedia article is to gather sources first and then write (in your own words) only what they verify, citing the sources as you go for the information. Writing what you know and then. later, trying to back into sources ends up with content like we see in this draft, which was written first and possibly with original research included. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much Fuhghettaboutit for improving the bottom of the article. I have removed the material which cannot be verified in the Early life part, is this suitable? I thought I have seen some Wikipedia articles without references in the Early life part.

I have cited links to blogs, but they are blogs of respected people, lecturers at Colombo University and the CUFSAA-NA. Thanks, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Glossary of bird terms to FL[edit]

Nice work. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Thanks! Your criticism was invaluable. It certainly is the article I'm most proud of (and which taught me the most in writing)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Orange bar script[edit]

@Writ Keeper: Per our discussion I'm just noting here that it's still not working. In the past three messages here, only one produced the orange bar. Not sure there's anything you can do, not expecting miracles, and thanks for looking the last time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Timmins[edit]

I understand your thinking here, in terms of creating a redirect and then protecting it, in order to prevent article creation again. My only concern here is the target – while Timmins was on Wingin' It for 3 seasons apparently, I'd argue that she's better known for Ride (TV series), as she was the lead actor on the latter as opposed to just a second-lead, and the latter show aired internationally whereas I don't think Wingin' It did (or, at least, not to the same extent...).

Thus, I'd ask you to consider changing the target of that protected redirect to Ride (TV series). FWIW... --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey IJBall. Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Logo Re: THQ[edit]

I... Don't myself even really begin to understand the legal series of flooded basements that is copyright law. But... "link plz" is usually sufficient to get the conversation started. Half of these logos don't meet COM:TOO anyway. TimothyJosephWood 01:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

My attempt in response to most questions is to try to give maximum information that I think the person might be able to take in. This user was given incorrect and way oversimplified information, and was making guesses based on that that were all over the place. I gave them a bit of the copyright playing field that I thought was relevant in an area in which I am heavily involved. Sure, it's possible this doesn't meet TOO; I didn't want to get too far afield, trying to balance information with understanding. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I'm reading your post as a chastisement, and an attempt to stifle and unless I'm reading that wrong, it's not appreciated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017[edit]


Hello Fuhghettaboutit, the article LawzGrid is corporate spam and has been created twice in the last week. Could you salt it to block any further re-creation? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Loopy30: Done. It was also a copyright violation. I have cleaned up elsewhere, including Draft:First Article, which was also spam for the same company (and also a copyvio). I have left a final warning for the user here. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

added info on pancreatic cancer[edit]

I don´t really understand why my additions (both text and links) were reverted on the pancreatic cancer page?? It is not copy-paste from the corresponding webpage on pancreatic cancer at the Human Protein Atlas. It does add important information. Wrong format? wrong place on the wiki page? wrongly positioned links?? Please advise me so that I can add important information and relevant links to wiki pages dealing with the most common forms of human cancer!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talkcontribs)

Hi Figgep. Having further edits also reverted, or good changes included with edits that also added copyvios, is a risk that is run when copying. When I see a clear pattern of copying, all from the same source, and have confirmed for 5 of say 15 similar edits that copying is taking place, I am going to use that sample as evidence of the whole. But, regardless, this too included a copy-paste. Source:
"...genes are suggested as prognostic based on transcriptomics data from 176 patients..."[1]
Your edit:
"...genes are suggested as prognostic based on transcriptomics data from 176 patients..."


  1. ^ "The pancreatic cancer proteome". The Human Protein Atlas. 
You seem like you have a lot of knowledge to contribute to medical topics. I don't want to discourage you and am glad you've acknowledged you understand the issue and seem to be taking this in stride. Best regards.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated Fuhghettaboutit, thanks! I am getting a bit more for every try + feedback, so please continue so that in the end my contributions will be of high quality and stick. Guess my early problem was that I am also the main author of all medical texts on the Human Protein Atlas, and thought that since we adhere to the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" for all copyrightable parts of our database, I was quite free to just take out parts of sentences from the sight and only slightly modify. Clearly related is the allowing of direct copied text from other sources such as RefSeq?? Example from Caspase 14: In wiki: "The CASP14 gene encodes a member of the cysteine-aspartic acid protease (caspase) family. Sequential activation of caspases plays a central role in the execution-phase of cell apoptosis. Caspases exist as inactive proenzymes which undergo proteolytic processing at conserved aspartic residues to produce two subunits, large and small, that dimerize to form the active enzyme. This caspase has been shown to be processed and activated by caspase 8 and caspase 10 in vitro, and by anti-Fas agonist antibody or TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand in vivo. The expression and processing of this caspase may be involved in keratinocyte terminal differentiation, which is important for the formation of the skin barrier."

In Entrez gene (NCBI): "This gene encodes a member of the cysteine-aspartic acid protease (caspase) family. Sequential activation of caspases plays a central role in the execution-phase of cell apoptosis. Caspases exist as inactive proenzymes which undergo proteolytic processing at conserved aspartic residues to produce two subunits, large and small, that dimerize to form the active enzyme. This caspase has been shown to be processed and activated by caspase 8 and caspase 10 in vitro, and by anti-Fas agonist antibody or TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand in vivo. The expression and processing of this caspase may be involved in keratinocyte terminal differentiation, which is important for the formation of the skin barrier. [provided by RefSeq, Jul 2008]"

Some redundancy with texts on other databases is apparently allowed, should also be possible with the Human Protein Atlas database!?!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talkcontribs)

@Figgep: First let me just note that I am focused upon the copyright/plagiarism issue, and have not thought about or approached any of these edits from other viewpoints. What I mean by that is that sometimes text people want to use is okay to copy and paste here from a copyright/plagiarism view, if done in a particular manner, but does not belong for other reasons of encyclopedic judgment; conflict of interest; promotion; is placed in the wrong place; is not edited to fit here in a seamless manner, etc.

If you aren't aware, and you very well might be, plagiarism is an ethics concern, where copyright involves the law. To give an example, public domain text is by definition free of copyright. That means that you can copy and paste it anywhere and copyright is simply uninvolved. However, this can still constitute plagiarism, if you use a PD source's text without suitably acknowledging it is someone else's words (e.g., by the use of quote marks or set off coupled with citing the source, or a notice of incorporation of PD text in the references section). Citing the source alone is not enough, as it does not disclose copying. One has to acknowledge the words copied as someone else's.

This gets us to another issue: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. What I am referring to is that you have said above that the content from the database was actually written by you. It's true that it is not possible to plagiarize yourself. If you are the author, none of your use, even without quote marks, etc., is actually plagiarism. The problem is that we are all anonymous people sitting behind keyboards, so while I believe you, it's simply not enough for anyone to assert it is their words. The same is true of copyright. For example, when someone says "but the content is mine and I release it!!!", we tell them, 'that's nice, now provide the release in a verifiable manner—by a method that evidences you actually own the copyright, and so have authority to provide the release (and to the world, not just for use here – into the public domain, or under a compatibly free copyright license" (such as by a method suggested at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials).

Now, sorry, but some bad news about the copyright. I do see that the content of THPA is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. This license is not compatible (for text; it is okay for images) with our (mostly) dual copyright licensing scheme (that is, CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License and the GFDL). You asked about RefSeq. By contrast, the parts of RefSeq that are actually written by employees of the U.S. Federal government, as part of their official duties (as opposed to content of others hosted there, work of contractors, or quotes used there), are in the public domain – see 17 U.S. Code § 105. This gets us back to the plagiarism issue though. To use such public domain works, they need to be quoted and cited, or a notice provided when used (see, e.g., Category:United States government attribution templates).

P.S. in all the posts above and below I have signed for you, using the unsigned template. For future reference, all posts to talk pages and other behind-the-scenes forums should be signed (as opposed to additions to articles, which should never be signed). Please read Wikipedia:Signatures.

I hope some of this is helpful. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for explanatory text on copyright and likewise! Also thanks for teaching me how to write, e.g. sign on talk pages etc. (will take some time to learn all tricks when writing on edit source pages)

The copyright/plagiarism ethical codes are as such interesting and how grey zones should be interpreted. I experience similar things as part of my work when approving student´s thesis, writing scientific papers, texts for the internet etc. Each community has a bit of its own flavor and I am trying to understand how I can contribute to wiki, and first hurdle appears to be copyright related issues. I can also feel that there are lots of more hurdles ahead regarding the things you mention, e.g. encyclopedic judgment; conflict of interest; promotion; is placed in the wrong place; is not edited to fit here in a seamless manner, etc. However, I think wikipedia is a great resource and as I have understood it is a community-based resource dependent on contributions from people that have time and knowledge to spend on creating this educational resource. As always, there are politics and one needs to learn how to interact to convey new and important knowledge into the correct format. What I know for a fact is that these last additions I have made, have been written off the top of my head without any copy-paste.

The background for why I am willing to spend time on this is that I have the last 15 years worked in an non-comercial academic project supported by a non-profit organisation. Over 1200 man years have been spent on this project and the outcome is made publically available without any restrictions at our web portal: Aside from scientific data and interpretations of results, there is also vast descriptions of background, validation, organisation, downloadable data, licenses etc. etc. We receive up to 200,000 visits per month and the site is becomming one of the most used databases within the biomedical field. As for questions regarding validity of the scientific knowledge that I try to add, all given data has been published in absolute top, peer reviewed scientific journals, justifying qualification as knowledge that can be presented on a wiki page!

So, how does this relate to wiki.....well, I strongly think that the basic results presented at the Human Protein Atlas should be of common interest and importance. The summarized knowledge, with relevant links for deeper information, regarding the gene expression landscape in our normal organs and tissues provides the fundament for what makes a certain tissue type just that tissue type. It is the differences in global gene expression patterns that underlie the differences in anatomic appearence, histological composition and cellular functions, between different organs ind tissue types in our bodies. Moreover, this provides a basis to understand the different diseases that effect different organs. I will try to comment on all other comments I have received as others omit what I write. Not sure how to best proceed though....

Figgep (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations based on other edits by user[edit]

Why was my new text reverted from the REEP2 page? If this is a copyright violation, I need to know what more exact what in these 5 sentences that I added is considered as a copyright violation? For genes and proteins lacking much information as to function and expression patterns, I believe that descriptive sentences should be kept short and concise, which also means that there is a degree of redundancy with other databases. I can rewrite lengthy sentences, but this appears as a contra-productive strategy to avoid being reverted due to alleged copyright violations. Please advise— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talkcontribs)

See above. But also, the moment I drop a snippet into Google in quotes...
"...ability to enhance cell surface expression of a subset of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)..."[1]
Your edit:
"...the ability to enhance cell surface expression of a subset of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs)s..."


Caspase 14 text[edit]

The descriptive text I had added with relevant references under "Caspase 14" were removed. Why? I do not understand what was wrong with the added information. There was no copy paste. However, the only text that is now present on the reverted page is a precise copy from the text provided by RefSeq in July 2008. I think it is OK with this redundancy in the form of short descriptive sentences. I need to understand why my added text was omitted!?!?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Figgep (talkcontribs)

Again see above. This one, alone, I did not see copying when googling, so I'll revert.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A nice soothing cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg It seemed like you could use this. Rest, relax, refresh... then back into the breach! GrammarFascist contribstalk 01:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
:-) Thanks! The entitlement in posts like that gets to me. "I'm here to promote... how dare you stop me from my improper purpose"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel you, my friend, I feel you. We've had too many editors like that at the Teahouse recently. That one poster really crossed the line, too. Some people there's just no getting through to. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi. When I think about it, I'm not sure that this is a good idea. First-time users wouldn't even know there was an old rule, so they shouldn't be bothered with the new one. This is why we decided to take down the watchlist notice too. In fact feedback going back a while from new users tends to demonstrate that they always already thought this was the case. Even some admins were convinced that ACTRIAL had been permanently implemented back in 2011. I think this is probably due to the fact that when voters saw the huge consensus, they assumed it would be rolled out and never knew that the WMF had refused it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung. Maybe the information could be integrated into the page better but why would something that will actually affect large numbers of users' ability to create new articles, on a page dedicated to that subject, not be highly relevant if not vital information to include on that page?

To give you an example, we constantly get questions at the Teahouse from not-yet autoconfirmed users trying to move a page about the inability to do so that they come up against. Without this information, I would expect to leave lots of users in that same boat. Is there some underlying concern you aren't saying—like maybe that it would be good for us, for some unarticulated reason, to leave people ignorant on this?

I can postulate such an argument. For example, I could see someone arguing that by providing this notice, we inform users how to "get around" autoconfirmation (but by telling them what it is). They would still have to wait out the four days though, and find ten edits to make. And this is swimming upstream against our openness ethos.

Anyway, it it's something like that, you haven't said what it is, and I don't see why we wouldn't include something like this otherwise. The fact that some subset of users were confused about new users' ability to create articles immediately seems neither here nor there. Certainly, newpages itself shows us that that lots of new users created articles on their first edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't expect you to shoot me down! I think you misunderstood my motivation. I've gone ahead and edited it to what I think is sufficient for new users to know. It reflects the current situation. As you and I both know only too well, people don't read instructions anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Ah, Total misunderstanding (though I think if you read your post, you'll likely see what I misunderstood). With the context of the edit you made, you meant that including the information about it being part of an ACTRIAL trial, was unneeded (rather than that the main information about autoconfirmation being needed to create articles, was unneeded which is what I read your post as saying). No, I have no problem at all with the edit you made to remove the trial information!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


Good work. Glad to get a second opinion on that, as their not-beginner editing proficiency is all I had to go on that I'm not WP:BITEing them. Are admins now being more proactive about paid? Your response impressed me. Widefox; talk 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Widefox. No, unfortunately, only me. I think it's the greatest failing of the community (after not having a pragmatic verifiability deletion process for all new unsourced articles, and not just for BLPs through sticky prod, and by allowing WP:COI to be a fangless, recommendation guideline). We finally have a way to actually enforce curbing promotion through mandatory paid editing disclosure (telling people "you have a COI, which does not prohibit anything, but we strongly recommend..." has done nothing) and yet we have not taken advantage of it.

That template series (I posted the first one at the talk page) was created for this purpose and no one is using it, because it's not in Twinkle, and not shown at WP:PAID, as rejected from both, resulting from the elevation of not biting and assuming good faith (principles I actually believe in, but not to the exclusion of any pragmatism) to such heights of near religion, that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face. I fear there's not much that can be done at this point.

We have all but given free reign to the promoters, and so hundreds of promotional articles actually make it into the encyclopedia every week (probably half of them copyvios), which I believe is ultimately a great driving force in the inability to get the numbers of new users we need to write and improve real encyclopedia articles, or to man new pages to keep out the dreck; a viscious circle. People who would be inspired and start to care about the encyclopedia for its noble mission never arrive and get hooked because we no longer resemble the aspiration of what we said we were building. People see commercialpedia because we are quite a ways down the road of becoming that. And the hole is so deep now... I'm not sure we can fashion a shovel that will save us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel as strongly as I do about it when the consensus seems to be stuck on acquiescence. Views seem polarised and fundamental, plug my essay WP:BOGOF. Worth pushing for paid & Twinkle again? Regards Widefox; talk 21:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I started an ANI about Junopolo, and thought best to mentioned you, so obligatory notice...

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Widefox; talk 22:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

changing license[edit]

Hi, if we change our copyright license in the Human protein Atlas to CC-BY-SA 3.0 for all copyrightable parts of our database, would that enable use of images, tables, figures and text to be displayed on wiki pages without infringment of any copyright restrictions? Figgep (talk) 09:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Figgep. In a word, yes! You still have to disclose the copying. Here, probably by a notice placed in the references each times you used a page from the site. For example:
{{CC-notice|cc=bysa3|url=|author(s)=[[Human Protein Atlas]]}}
Which would format as:
CC-BY-icon-80x15.png This article incorporates text by Human Protein Atlas available under the CC BY 3.0 license.
Again, none of this has anything to do with integration of the text or others' views of its use for other reasons, but that would take care of the copyright issue.

On a side note: we see so much problematic copying that sometimes, if the license is not clear, a site that really is licensed under a suitable free license or is PD will be tagged as a copyvio if the notice is not easily seen. What I mean by this is that at the HPA site, the only way to see what license the content bears is by noticing and clicking on the link for "LICENCE & CITATION". If each page in the Atlas, instead bore the notice, this problem I foresee would likely go away or be much rarer. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi and thanks again for valuable information! I will pass this on and we will have it in mind when we get to that part of our ambition to incorporate basic knowledge into gene/protein pages on wiki. Figgep (talk) 09:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Centre for Corporate Public Affairs[edit]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, the CCPA article was recently edited with material lifted directly off their website. I have deleted the offending material as copyvio, but could you erase the page history to remove the traces? 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Loopy30. Done. Ask me anytime.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Because the community has failed...[edit] forbid people like you from creating crap like that...

I'm not gonna lie. I got a chuckle out of that one. GMGtalk 18:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

:-) But in all seriousness, it is a predicament of huge scope, and may be our downfall.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Eh, ACTRIAL seems to be working out okay on some fronts, and frankly I was getting tired of so much NPP. So I'll mark it up as a small victory. GMGtalk 18:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Agreed. In fact—imagine this—I've actually seen CAT:CSD being entirely empty more than once the past few weeks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, after probably a five week uninterrupted string of doing little else but NPP prior to ACTRIAL, I've actually managed to make it back over to AfD for a change. I'm not complaining. GMGtalk 16:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017[edit]


Greetings Fuhghettaboutit,

I am the developer of VisualBash, and I am afraid I do not know as much about media wiki as you do.

I would like to get a small article on Wikipedia about VisualBash, but I am afraid I do not even know how to contact you correctly much less successfully submit an article.

My email address is I am very comfortable with ASCII email.


Paul Flint Flintiii (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flintiii. The links I provided at your talk page are the places to learn about what is needed to make a suitable article, if that is possibly for this topic (sorry, but I suspect it's not possible, because no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability; the sources that are needed to demonstrate that a topic is notable and warrants an encyclopedia article either exist, or they do not). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current-HCOTM[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Current-HCOTM has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 07:00, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Template talk:Uw-paid1[edit]

It's a bit strong isn't it, when a paid editor not only has autopatrolled and New Page Reviewer rights, and believe it or not, also OTRS, starts wanting to rewrite the paid editing rules. And then people wonder why I sometimes have steam coming out of my ears... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Wow. I had no idea, thanks for the heads up, and I'm... uh... not quite neutral on the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Air India Flight 182[edit]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, could you hide this edit? I have restored it to NPOV but figure the racism part should be stricken completely from the history. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Loopy30:  Done. I didn't think of this as something I would have on my own thought of as grave enough for redaction, but I also don't think its outside the bounds, so no problem doing so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, allowing unreferenced statements claiming that a specific group of people have a higher rate of illegal activity than the general population feeds into the perception that the group is a detriment to society and not welcome. This in turn supports a climate where racism against the group can thrive. I appreciate your understanding and assessment of this. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Loopy30: There's nothing in your post I disagree with. I just think of this as registering as "obvious crank with agenda is obvious crank with agenda", and no targeted and named individual is tarred (which always elevates such filth to potentially actionable defamation).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification[edit]

Hi, Fuhghettaboutit. I'm just posting to let you know that Glossary of bird terms – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Asian Workers Development Institute, Rourkela[edit]

Another set of copyvios to remove from the history. All edits from 11 Oct (today) are directly lifted from the institute's own website. Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017[edit]

OCTA Innovation[edit]

Hi, I am wondering if you could return this page or send me the page content, so I can fix the parts which caused the article deletion. I now that I have made a mistake by posting this unedited content, and it will never happen again. I hope you could help me, thanks. --Semso98 (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-constructive edits[edit]

Hi Fuhghettaboutit, An editor named Billhpike appears to have edited scores of articles about U.S. schools inserting negative racial remarks such as "...established as a segregation academy" and other inflammatory statements HERE. The edits predictably involve insertion of a racially themed sentence, often out of context. Such statements do not appear to be good-faith constructive efforts to improve the articles, but rather to promote some sort of agenda to shock and to inflict shame on these schools. One of my articles, Harpeth Hall School, has been affected by his edits as have those of many schools in my city and elsewhere. I have read his cited sources, and I believe his conclusions are not entirely accurate or balanced. I have reverted his edits only to have him restore them so I am asking you to weigh in on the matter. Best,--Eagledj (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

My edits are part of WP:DISCRIMINATION. The fact that some schools systemically excluded a substantial portion of the population is a significant part of the school’s history.
If you think my sources are inaccurate, please WP:BB and revert my edits. Please note any issues on the talk page, and I will reply and address your concerns. I may add additional sources or more detailed quotes to the article, such as I did with Harpeth Hall School.
Please also keep in mind WP:OWN and WP:NOTCENSORED.
Billhpike (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Fuhghettaboutit, Billhpike and I have found somewhat of a compromise— I've added a new section heading to Harpeth Hall School entitled "diversity" which addresses the issue of racial imbalance at the school. This time it is told from a NPOV. It's interesting that Billhpike and I used essentially the same citations to come up with markedly different versions. He complimented what I did, which I appreciate, and helped me by pointing out that I don't "own" the article; but what about the many other school articles on which his edits were used like a blunt instrument, without context, using pejorative terms like "segregation academy"? Billhpike regularly blanks his talk page, making dialogue less transparent. I do think we need some guidance from an administrator. Check his block log. I looked at WP:Wikiproject schools but did not find any help. Regards,--Eagledj (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

"behind the eight ball over snooker"[edit]

"Fans behind the eight ball over snooker tournament". Maybe a follow-up article will be "Pool hall snookered by zoning board over expansion plans".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  15:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017[edit]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Fuhghettaboutit. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

12 years of editing[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Fuhghettaboutit. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, Fuhghettaboutit, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! NikolaiHo☎️ 22:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017[edit]

The Signpost: 16 January 2018[edit]

Template:Db-internet listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Db-internet. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Db-internet redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Adam9007 (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 20 February 2018[edit]

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 26 April 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 24 May 2018[edit]

Potential replacement for {{Rp}}[edit]

You might want to have a look at meta:WMDE Technical Wishes/Book referencing/Call for feedback (May 2018) (and in particular my comment block there).  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Reduce protection for Jio Pagla[edit]

Hello Fuhghettaboutit, in October 2017, you have added create protection for a film topic Jio Pagla (redlinked). As the movie has been released and new sources has been came out, so please remove protection from creating article, so that the article can be created. A sandbox draft has drawn by me here.

AnkurWiki (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2018

The Signpost: 29 June 2018[edit]

The Signpost: 31 July 2018[edit]

Peer review newsletter #1[edit]


Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

  • THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
  • Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.


It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...
With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing[edit]

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

  • {{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
  • {{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review[edit]

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising[edit]

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-patrolled[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Uw-patrolled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Danski454 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018[edit]