User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2020

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:The Three Coffins, US first edition 1935.png

Thank you for uploading File:The Three Coffins, US first edition 1935.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear FastilyBot, this complies with the fair use criterion 3a as it's the sole image we have of the US first publication. This is a separate book from the UK publication, with a different title and different cover design. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!, and, but....

Was that your letter in The Times? Please don't do edits like this! Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi John, happy new year to you, too. Do you mean the one on Saturday from a Michael Mabbs? Different surname. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon

Hi. The Wikipedia:The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Database copyright

Hi, hope you are well. I wanted to pick your brains about copyright, and hope perhaps you know the answer, or someone who might know. There is a current debate about including drug prices in articles:

RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices

Some editors have suggested writing bots that extract drug prices from websites. For example:

• Drugs.com diazepam
• BNF diazepam
• GoodRX.com blocked in the UK -- you need a VPN to read this from the US. But an extensive source of actual retail prices (vs Drugs.com list prices).
• MSH Price Guide This website isn't responding for me today, but you can search for diazepam and it gives several formulations and pill sizes and then you can get supplier prices of these in the developing world.
• NADAC US Wholesale List Price. You need to enter "diazepam" into the "Find in this dataset" box.

The latter is a .gov website, which might suggest public domain, but the bottom of the page says "© 2020 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244" so perhaps not. The BNF website footer says Open Content Licence that does not seem compatible with Wikipedia never mind Wikidata but on close inspection the BNF information on the NICE website is actually "Third-party rights that NICE is not authorised to licence".

My concern is that extracting a portion of the database and reproducing this on Wikidata or on the Infobox of every drug would break database copyright. While doing this ad hoc for some drugs, with links back to the website as a bonus, might be permitted, simply ripping the database into Wikidata and claiming CC0 on the results would not. One could imagine for example, GoodRX being quite upset if their traffic got diverted to a WikiDrugs.org website that had the same information without adverts. Where does one cross the line, or is there no line? -- Colin°^Talk 08:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Colin, this depends upon where the database is located. If in any EU state, or the UK, then database right will apply, which would be infringed by anyone who, without consent, "extracts or re-uses all or a substantial part of the contents of the database", whether all at once or by repeated extractions of insubstantial parts. As that rule comes from an EU Directive it should be the same in every EU state. I expect that extracting the entirety of the price information would amount to a "substantial part". Whether a US editor, say, running an extraction bot in the US would be concerned about breaching EU law is another matter.

Other countries including the US don't recognise database right and it would be harder for a database owner to claim copyright protection by showing that the database amounts to more than an uncreative collections of facts (which is uncopyrightable). I'm not too familiar with US law in this area, but I could imagine drug companies fighting hard to prevent their prices being given such prominence. I would expect their first line of defence in any event would be to try to block such bots.

Sorry I can't be more definite. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Does it also depend where the bot author lives or where the bot is executed?

I want to also consider two values which might not be just price "facts".

• The first is defined daily dose. This is a metric created by "WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology, Oslo, Norway". You can look up the DDD for any drug that has one, such as diazepam. The methodology for working out the DDD is given on the Wikipedia article, and the value reviewed on request. The website makes a clear copyright claim, which looks a lot like CC BY-NC-ND. It doesn't seem to me that DDD is a fact, but is the opinion/judgement of an organisation.
• The second is a symbolic representation of treatment costs in the United States publication: Tarascon Pocket Pharmacopoeia. For each drug, they indicate the cost with a $, $$, $$$... symbol. Their methodology is (I quote):

RELATIVE COST

• Code / Cost
• $ = < $25
• $$ = 25 to $49
• $$$ = $50 to $99
• $$$$ = $100 to $199
• $$$$$ = >= $200

Cost codes used are "per month" of maintenance therapy (e.g. antihypertensives) or "per course" of short-term therapy (e.g., antibiotics). Codes are calculated using average wholesale prices (at press time in US dollars) for the most common indication and route of each drug at a typical adult dosage. For maintenance therapy, costs are calculated based on a 30-day supply or the quantity that might typically be used in a given month. For short-term therapy (e.g., 10 days or less), costs are calculated on a single treatment course. When multiple forms are available (e.g., generics) these codes reflect the least expensive generally available product. When drugs don't neatly fit in to the classification scheme above, we have assigned codes based upon the relative cost of other similar drugs. These codes should be used as a rough guide only, as (1) they reflect cost, not charges, (2) pricing often varies substantially from location to location and time to time, and (3) MHOs, Medicaid, and buying groups often negotiate quite different pricing. Check with your local pharmacy if you have any questions.

Again, to me this symbolic price figure sounds like an expert opinion/judgement, not a fact. In these cases someone or some group of people are judging which indication is most common, which dose is most representative, whether the treatment is long or short term, what administration route or pill type is most typical, what's available in that market.

Would these face copyright issues if wholescale reproduced on Wikipedia or uploaded to Wikidata? Ping @WhatamIdoing: who I have mentioned this discussion to. -- Colin°^Talk 21:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It could definitely matter to a bot operator where they live and where the bot is executed from. If the bot is executed in a country where the local law doesn't recognise database right, or this particular type of copyright, then what they are doing on their own computer would be lawful. It may not be lawful in the country of the server, but that might not matter too much to the bot operator since it would be very difficult (probably impossible) for any foreign legal judgment to be enforced in the bot operator’s territory. I'm assuming of course that what the bot operator is doing isn’t prohibited locally for any other reason: anything amounting to hacking or even deliberately bypassing certain server restrictions could amount to a criminal offence in some places.

I don't know enough about US law to comment on whether the inclusion of price data which is determined by opinion/judgement would be enough to confirm US copyrightability, but that is no doubt one of the points that a drugs company would argue.

As I understand it, data can be accepted into Wikidata only on the basis that it is CC-0, but I wonder if there is community agreement about exactly what that means. If it means that significant amounts of data shouldn't be extracted from a protected database, then no EU source could be acceptable in this situation. On the other hand, if it simply means “no enforceable copyright protection under local US law", then there is no need to consider database rights at all, since they are by definition being completely ignored. The latter approach may well be problematic, though, since Wikidata doesn't care to whom it serves its information, and serving into the EU price data that infringes an EU drug company’s database right could in theory at least result in a legal application to block Wikipedia or any other website that does that.

None of this is at all definite either way, but I do agree with you that any proposal to extract significant quantities of price data raises a number of red flags. Extraction of small numbers of prices on a manual or very limited bot basis would be of much less concern MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to note that I don't think it is the drug companies who own this data, but rather the publishers and bodies that collect it. For example, the BNF is created by the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and although the BNF website is freely accessible (to UK readers only), their Martindale Complete Drug Reference is very much commercial. I could imagine that WHO aren't bothered by commercial concerns over re-use of DDD figures, but might be more concerned if a google search for "DDD diazepam" turned up an unreliable number on an openly editable wiki compared to the authoritative source. MEDMOS bans drug dose information in articles out of concern that incorrect or vandalised numbers could cause real harm. -- Colin°^Talk 18:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

update

I recently re-read some of the drama generated by a contributor then known as "Arctic Kangaroo".

I came across AK on the commons, where a discussion was going on over some pretty disruptive activity, after they had requested deletion of some of their images from the commons, and had that request turned down because their images were being used on multiple wikis. They went to those wikis, and tried to snip every instance where their images were in use.

Then their behaviour became an issue here on en.wiki, when it turned out they had been closing AFC, without having the experience or judgement to do that competently, closing close to a thousand AFC.

At some point they claimed they were too young to legally give consent to release intellectual property rights to their images.

I made some general comments, at User:Geo Swan/opinions/Are you NUTS...#Legal incompetency, due to age, about the contributions of individuals who are technically too young to release their intellectual property rights.

The reason I am writing you is that Jkadavoor, who had volunteered to mentor AK, in 2013, told me that, in the end, you were the one who ended up mentoring him. If that is true, would you be the one to ask for an update?

1. If you were his mentor, are you satisfied he took your advice seriously?
2. If you were his mentor, how long did you serve as his mentor?
3. If you were his mentor, did you continue to mentor him until he was legally competent to release intellectual property rights to his contributions?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That was all quite a long time ago and I don't remember the situation in any great detail. I didn't ‘mentor’ AK, if by that you mean some sort of formal process, but I do recall providing some copyright and licensing advice at a time when the editor wanted to delete their images and seemed to be struggling to understand Commons' requirements. Whether that advice was followed, I don't know. At that time I wasn't particularly involved with matters on en.Wikipedia, and your information about the closing of AFCs is news to me. If your query arises from some current issue with this editor, I'm afraid I'm unlikely to be in a position to help. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Okay. Thanks. It was a real mess. During all the acrimony in early 2013, AK particularly singled me out, because I stated we should not take their announcement they were a minor, at face value, and this claim should not affect our decision making, unless he, or his legal guardians, established his age, through OTRS. Various people accused me of lapsing from WP:OUTING, over this. It was quite unpleasant.

• After I wrote you I saw that he was indefinitely blocked in August 2013, about six months after the first drama. That block was rescinded about two years later. Some people argued, at ANI, that he should be blocked for, apparently, still not understanding the rights we surrender when we make contributions. Others seemed to be arguing that he should be blocked simply because he still said he was below the legal age of consent. That may be why his block was rescinded - he told an administrator he was finally old enough to legally consent to releasing intellectual property rights.

  However, he has made fewer than 500 edits since his block was rescinded, at least using the ID he took up, after AK.

  Many people who are indefinitely blocked evade their blocks, create new IDs, or use anonymous IPs, because they can't let the wikipedia go. A large fraction of these people are detectable, because they show up at the same old articles, and having been blocked, they don't see any reason to comply with policy. I think there is a whole other population who evade their blocks, and are able to evade detection.

  I started about 100 articles on the Citizendium, before the steam ran out on that project. It had/has some excellent technical volunteers, and some really nice, competent contributors. I think there are a lot of lessons the wikipedia could learn from it. One important difference was that contributors had to confirm their real identity before getting editing privileges. So, there was no sockpuppetry, no anonymous IP contributors. I think it really improved civility, and contributors taking responsibility for their edits.

• Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The Brother of Daphne

All the information I have added is sourced from the original publications - either the Windsor Magazine or the published Yates books. I plan to add similar serialisation tables to The Courts of Idleness, Berry & Co and Jonah & Co in due course. Presumably as published works they act as their own references ? Alternatively they could be referenced to The Fiction Magazines Index -http://www.philsp.com/homeville/fmi/s/s8922.htm#A231132 and http://www.philsp.com/homeville/fmi/c/clm834.htm#A7431 RGCorris (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@RGCorris: Thanks! I didn't know about those resources - they look very useful indeed. Probably not WP:RS for Wikipedia, so I won't add citations, but as you say that's not needed in any event as the published works can act as their own references. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Adele & Co

I have added the H&S dustjacket but that seems to override the Milton Balch one. Do you know how we could add a separate photo gallery to the page where we could post pictures of alternative covers ? RGCorris (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I've added the US version below the infobox. Not sure whether someone will object, though, as the cover is recent enough to be in copyright, so is allowed to stay on the page only on the basis of a fair use claim under US copyright law. There are quite a lot of book pages that include both UK and US covers, but I have found some editors don't think that a second image is 'necessary' and will come along and delete it. In that case, best to keep your UK version. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I take your point, but the 1950s Ward Lock paperbacks and the House of Stratus editions have covers that would be worth adding, if we could add a gallery of sorts to the page for each Berry book. I was also thinking of adding scans of the Windsor illustrations that were used for the original dustjackets of the first three Berry books. If you are planning to add the Chandos books in due course then the Dent's Classic Thrillers covers are also worth including. "The Stolen March" also had two different attractively illustrated Ward Lock covers. RGCorris (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd love to have articles with all that information, and it's pretty easy to set up a gallery (see for example the ones in Father Christmas). But I'm wary of putting in too much effort that will be wasted if the images aren't considered permissible under the WP:FAIRUSE policy. In my experience the main difficulty is the "Minimal Usage" rule (3a on that page) to the effect that multiple items of non-free content are not allowed "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Some admins argue that one item is enough to illustrate a general article on a specific book, and they definitely don't like galleries. To allow several images to remain there would need to be additional text which specifically references and discusses the variations. Could be done, of course, perhaps with a separate section discussing US publication dates, details and differences, as well as (sourced) text about the individual magazine stories and the corresponding illustrations. Once there is some text covering that, it's much easier to argue that an illustration is needed of the variation being discussed. Smithers has something on the illustrators, but unfortunately that's the only source I have to hand. Happy to do what I can to help if you want to add some stuff. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

In one of the quasi-autobiographies the original 1950s paperback editions are discussed, so that could serve as additional text for including them. RGCorris (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Courts of Idleness

Could you add the full citation to Usborne 1974? It's missing. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the ping. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Perishable Goods

You have given the plot of "Blood Royal" in your "Perishable Goods" article. RGCorris (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear, sorry. Will fix. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also Blood Royal that is compared to "The Prisoner of Zenda", not least by Yates himself (B-Berry & I Look Back page 148). RGCorris (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. May need to look into that a little more, and perhaps expand. Smithers definitely makes the comparison with Perishable Goods. In fact he says (on p 146) "Perishable Goods is The Prisoner of Zenda, with variations." MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Blood Royal

Riechtenburg is not an "Austrian" principality - it is a small fictional country more-or-less equivalent to Liechtenstein RGCorris (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. I think I may have picked that up from here. Do feel free to correct any mistakes! MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Sims is very good but not perfect - note the two different spellings of "Maintenance" in his piece about "Blood Royal" !! It is also Duke Johann in the book, not Johnann as he spells it RGCorris (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Maiden Stakes

My copy has this first published in 1928, not 1929. RGCorris (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, agreed. The BL copy is 1929, but it's not certain that is a first edition. And Smithers gives 1928. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Also the only difference between the Windsor and book versions of "Letters Patent" is the illustrations. The text is the same. RGCorris (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I think Smithers is comparing the later Windsor version with the book's first printing. Could you perhaps be looking at a later edition/printing that has been adjusted to match the Windsor story? Seems odd that Smithers would have got such a thing wrong. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible, but it seems unlikely - I have an early edition, which I suspect is the second printing of 1931 although it does not include a printing date; the previous owner inscribed it 1932, it still has the dedication to Bettine that was replaced soon afterwards, and the most recent book in the "By The Same Author" list is 'Fire Below', which came out in 1930 (there is no 'Adele & Co'). The page numbers - 295 to 319 - are the same as in a 1959 edition. Funnily enough part of the story of 'Letters Patent' is the publishers declining to alter 'Perishable Goods' for a second edition. Still, it would be interesting to try and track down a copy of the first printing (which would be identifiable if the latest books on the list were 'Blind Corner' and possibly 'Perishable Goods') to check.

Smithers' accuracy is less than perfect - his page 140 has 'St Jeames' in the June 1927 'Windsor' whereas it was actually in August of that year; on the same page he has 'Bricks Without Straw' "early in 1928", when it was in the December 1927 issue. On page 144 he has 'Letters Patent' in the April 1929 issue, whereas it was actually in the January issue of that year. On page 236 he has 'Childish Things' in 1927 whereas it was actually in July 1925, 'Vanity of Vanities' and 'Force Majeure' in 1927 when they were actually January and March 1928 respectively. RGCorris (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems most likely he made a mistake then. Let's just take out the bit about the lengths. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The other interesting point is that in the earliest edition I have with dates it has "First Published 1928" then reprinted 1931, 1933, 1936, 1941, 1943 and 1944. I have no reason to believe that is an incomplete list, which makes me wonder how the BL can claim a 1929 edition ! RGCorris (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

They make mistakes too, especially where a book is undated and they try to guess the date. Those are usually indicated with square brackets, thus: [1929], but those don't appear here. Maybe I can go and look at it once the BL re-opens. MichaelMaggs (talk)

I've just noticed that my early edition actually has the date 1931 at the foot of the title page RGCorris (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I have acquired what I believe to be a first edition, with the most recent work in the "By the Same Author" list being 'Perishable Goods'; the pages for "Letters Patent", 295-319, seem to be exactly the same as for all subsequent Ward Lock editions, up to and including the 1959 reprint, so that suggests Smithers was incorrect in claiming that the magazine text varied from the book. Now, this is really puzzling - at the foot of the title page it states '1929'. While this would make the BL entry correct, it makes the 'First published 1928, reprinted 1931' from subsequent editions wrong in that either it was first published in 1929, not 1928, or there was a reprinting in 1929 that was omitted from the list. I guess we will never know the answer for certain. RGCorris (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Good research, there! All very odd. I'm pretty sure I stumbled across a note somewhere about a some Yates publication date being wrong, but I can't find it again and I'm not certain it was Maiden Stakes anyway. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

How to add an unsourceable photo?

Michael, I recently thanked you for your Mondegreen reversion. I see you have contributed many photos. I have a question. This photo came to me from a neighbor (I don't remember who, but they didn't know where it came from). I have not been able to source it. I would like to use it in the article for my town, but I don't own the copyright. I doubt that it is copyrighted. Just to upload it so you can see it, I had to click a box that says I own the copyright. How does one get around these restrictions for old photos that were never important enough for someone to copyright?

File:QueenAnneStation.jpg

Paulmlieberman (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Paulmlieberman: Hi Paul, thanks for the question. The rules on unattributed photos can be pretty complicated, and vary by country. Am I right that this is a photo that was taken in the US? If so, do you have any idea of the date, for example from details of the subject itself? If we can be sure that it was taken and published in the US before 1 January 1925 then the copyright will have expired and the image is in the public domain. If later, then it may still be in copyright, even if the photographer/copyright owner is unknown. A Tin Eye search suggests it was uploaded to Flickr by this user (though it no longer seems to be there). He is a card collector, which suggests that this image may have been published long ago as a postcard. If you could let me know your best estimate of the date, I'd be happy to update the Commons tags for you - as it stands, the image is likely to be deleted pretty soon, as the picture evidently isn't by you! MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Unnatural Death, Sayers, 1st edn 1948.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Unnatural Death, Sayers, 1st edn 1948.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Collected Short Stories (O'Brian book)

The short footnotes for King are ambiguous, would you mind indicating which are King 2000a and which are King 2000b?

Also the year for Tolstoy in the footnotes and in the full citation don't match. Would you mind fixing that too? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have a look. I did get some unexpected citation errors on saving. There is only one King book, but two by Tolstoy. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi MichaelMaggs. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Cabayi (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll just offer a word of caution. When you're reverting from the watchlist, there's not much to show what you're reverting to. I find myself checking the page's history to be safe. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 10:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Cannot Add Sources Through Mobile Device

As explained on my talk page, I cannot or am not able to add sources using my mobile device. If you can, please add the sources for me or give me guidelines on how to add sources using a mobile device. In this case I am using an iPhone. JoshGaming2003 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you show me how? I'll try doing it in the sandbox. JoshGaming2003 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that may be difficult to do. The iOS FAQ seems to ignore the task of adding citations. Your best option might be to switch the iPhone to Desktop mode (link at bottom of each page). I see you've already posted a message on the talk page, asking for someone to add the text you want plus the citations. I'd prefer not to do it myself as I'm not at all sure those sources are considered reliable. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Sofia Hayat

Hi I am sofia hayat and the information on Wikipedia is wrong....is there an email for you Soni can send the relevant media links about the truth about me! I am not an erotic model and never have been. My websites are www.sofiahayat.me Also www.templeofawakening.co.uk

You can also google vlad stanescu conman to get the details of my ex. I don’t know what to do. The information is damaging to me. Please can you help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiahectorsofia (talk • contribs) 09:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Gaiahectorsofia, Wikipedia aims to be as neutral as possible, and comments that can be considered as personal attack are not allowed. It doesn't matter whether the stated facts are true or not - anything that could be considered an attack is liable to be removed, and the editor who added it blocked. Articles on living people are subject to particularly strict rules to try to ensure that attacks and potentially libellous comments are removed quickly: see WP:BLP. As the subject of an article yourself, you shouldn't normally edit your own page, as you are considered to have a conflict of interest - WP:COI, and you must definitely not respond with attacks against anyone else. But that doesn't mean you have to live with bad content. As explained at WP:BLPEDIT, you are allowed to remove incorrect unsourced material yourself, and you can ask for help on the article's talk page. But if you want anything added (as opposed to simply removing unsourced text) you should discuss on the talk page first. If all else fails, drop me a note here (at the end of the page) and I'll try to help.

The article is a little better now that the comment you mentioned has been removed, but there is still no reliable source given for any of the section entitled Personal life. I've just removed the whole of that section, and some other statements, as they can't stay without a reliable source. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thankyou. I appreciate it. Can you please remove the word former since I am still a guru and singer. My recent album was released a month ago...on iTunes Spotify etc..do you need the links? Album is called Wisdom of the Mother...my previous album is called Dishonoured....I also have a published book called Dishounoured published by Blake’s...I have also won many awards...shall I send the links to all of these?

Thankyou

Sofia Gaiahectorsofia (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've made the change. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, MichaelMaggs. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Mondegreen

Regarding addition to the mondegreen article: I won’t dispute whether the addition is in itself a reliable source. I was under the impression that the “External Links” section of articles was more for providing links of interest to readers of the article than scholarly sources per se. I’ll note that the “See Also” section has a link to Am I Right, which in turn has a See Also link to Kiss This Guy—which however lacks an article. Should that link be deleted, or should the information I provided go into a stub on Wikipedia, or should it be linked directly from that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewilen (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ewilen: Sorry that my edit summary was not quite accurate (I used WP:REDWARN to add a summary automatically, when I should have done it manually). A link to the Kiss This Guy site has been added several times to this article, and has always been removed as it's not considered appropriate. As you say, links in the "See also" section don't in fact have to be to reliable sources, but they should comply with the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. The problem here is that the site falls under para 11 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID, in that it's a personal web page which is not written by a recognized authority. The article Am I Right shouldn't be linking to the non-existent aticle Kiss This Guy, and I've deleted that link. Kiss This Guy could be written up as a new stub article, but only if the website itself has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (in the same way that the Am I Right website has been). MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@MichaelMaggs Would any subset of these be reputable references?

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/167446/amp (Also https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/blogs/music-news/-excuse-me-while-i-kiss-that-guy---music-s-6-most-misheard-lyrics-210920136.html)

https://www.insider.com/song-lyrics-that-people-get-wrong-2019-6?amp

https://www.pjstar.com/article/20091209/NEWS/312099845?template=ampart

https://www.theobserver.com/2011/07/’scuse-me-while-i-kiss-this-guy/

https://www.oregonlive.com/edge/2011/08/wednesdays_edge_say_what_more.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewilen (talk • contribs) 06:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ewilen, Rather dubious I think, though you could try if you like and see how it goes. Most of these are blogs, which aren't considered a WP:Reliable Source, and those that aren't don't discuss the Kiss This Guy site itself, but simply use it as a source from which to extract two or three funny quotes. My security settings block access to the pjstar link. Btw, don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ . MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Short description code

I've drafted [1] as the configuration file, and [2] as the main code. It's a bit more compact than I was originally planning, with all the active code moved into functions. It does not work yet, but does this setup look reasonable? If we decide to have an on-wiki interface/automate this, then the run script would be different but the functions wouldn't. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Mike Peel, That's wonderful, thanks so much (and for the nice clear inline comments, as well!) I haven't yet reviewed in detail, but if you have the time here are a couple of thoughts on useful features:

1. A way of skipping over pages that don't comply with some trial criteria (#2 here), and of writing pages that fail to a separate staging file for manual review - the aim being to push down the error rate by skipping over pages where the first line of the lead doesn't correspond to the selected category. Footballers are nearly always only footballers, and fall into a well-defined cat, but others (laywers, artists, politicians) may be in multiple categories corresponding to multiple occupations, and I wouldn't want to assume that the chosen cat is the main one without some ability to cross-check. I realise this may require edits to shortdesc_functions each time, but think it would be worth it. Or maybe shortdesc_run could pass across some user-defined regex.
2. Following on from that, an ability to check that a specified infobox is the first (or the only) one on the page
3. If possible some more information written to the staging file, to help check for errors/oddities: (1) the article name, (2) the proposed SD, (3) any corresponding Wikidata description [not for use - just for sanity-checking], and (4) the first 80 characters (or the first sentence) of the lead.

Your code definitely looks a good way to go. Thanks again. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I've improved the code a bit this evening - it now runs, which is a step forward. :-) The updated code is on bitbucket. Example edits at [3] (ignore the intermediate edit, I fixed that bug after the edit) and [4]. I'll try to add more options soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Mike Peel, Many thanks, good progress. Any thoughts on points 1-3? MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mike Peel, Just wondered if you've had a chance to work on the final features of the script - see points 1-3 above. Really would like those before launching the project. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, MichaelMaggs. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 08:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 08:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing cites

The article on The Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) Regulations 2020 cites "Hoar (2020)" and the article on The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2020 cites "SI 447 (2020)" but no such sources are listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Renata3, thanks for spotting that. The gadget you mentioned sounds very useful and I'd like to add it, but for some reason I can't get it to work. After adding the js to my common.js file, and clearing the cache, I can't see any warnings at all on either page. Where should they appear - in reading or in editing mode? The instructions at User:Svick/HarvErrors.js say that it should be added to Special:Mypage/skin.js, a page I've never heard of, but that generates an error message.

Anyway, I've deleted the sentence that someone cited to "Hoar (2020)" on the first page, and have corrected the SI number on the second. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I am really not the person to troubleshoot the script issues... Someone at Module talk:Footnotes will be better suited to help. The script highlights the errors in red bold letters in reading view. The error says: "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." Pages with errors get placed into Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Thanks for fixing the two issues I pointed out! Renata (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 is missing a cite to SI 750 (2020). As far as the script goes, there is 3rd way via css code -- see "method 3" described at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. Hope that will work. Renata (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Renata, that works. This will I think be a very useful script. I've fixed the page you mentioned. MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New message from Stifle

Hello, MichaelMaggs. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 16:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stifle (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

One note, however. Make sure that when you're undoing edits without automated tools that you manually warn the user on their talk page. There are some instances whereby you've undone (not rollbacked) a malicious edit but not warned the user. Regards, and if you've got any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Anarchyte (talk • work) 12:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

OK. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Genus vs. species

Re User:MichaelMaggs/Moths Looking at one of the mismatches, Apocrisias, enwp seems to cover both the genus and the species in the same article. It is linked to Apocrisias thaumasta (Q4780137), but should probably be at Apocrisias (Q18522178). Taxonomy seems to simultaneously be a mess here, on Wikidata, on Commons, and in the scientific community as a whole. For a related Facebook discussion I started recently, see [5]. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and it's annoying. It seems to happen especially when the genus contains only a single species, in which case the species name is often a redirect to the genus article (which may contain some species-related text). For the case you mentioned, Apocrisias thaumasta is a redirect to Apocrisias. The bot handles that by skipping over the redirect and adding the SD to Apocrisias on the basis that that really is the genus name. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. For extra fun: it's 'often' but not 'always'! The bot code should cope with it OK, but it's going to throw up mismatches with Wikidata for now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Deleting DYK review

You can disagree with a review of your DYK nom, but you cannot just delete the review text. I've reverted your edit and suggest you explain yourself in response at the review. We want Christmas hooks, but such obnoxious uncooperative behavior is an opening to just fail it wholesale and move on. Kingsif (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Consider this comment a warning for disruptive editing, since you've done it again with a nonsensical edit reason. Kingsif (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif Sorry - I added a very minor comment and had no idea I had accidentally deleted your text below. Apologies. (It's not my DYK, btw). MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

That would explain the edit reason; I assume you were editing an old version of the page, then? On my part, I must have not seen your minor comment. Kingsif (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)