CCI Notice
editHello, Aleutian06. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Aleutian06! This is to let you know that I have opened the CCI requested by Mobi Ditch above. Somehow, between us, we're going to need to check through most of of your many contributions, and clean up those where errors have occurred. Your help with this would be invaluable – only you know the real history of each of these pages.
- I saw your comment here about Helena Artillery. You are very welcome to rewrite the article on this temporary page. You should feel free to copy over the skeleton of the page (infobox, categories, references and so on), but should take care not to transfer any running text unless you are quite sure that you wrote it yourself, in Wikipedia, before any publication elsewhere. If you have questions please ask (here would be fine). Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I understand and will cooperate, but time is an issue for me right now. After this weekend, it will be a couple of weeks before I can devote time to this again. You will find that I have heavily footnoted my work, so sources won’t be hard to find. There will be a high number of references to the Grebes sight, but I have found through the years that much of that content is also copied from a few other sources which are either Goverment records or pre Copyright, but I can point those sources as we go. The best place to start is list of Arkansas Confederate Infantry Regiments. The articles are linked, so you can click from one to the next, there are 40 of them. The first would be 1st Arkansas Infantry Regiment.
Is there a bot or other tool that can identify the suspect language?
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Mobi Ditch (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks!Aleutian06 13:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Justlettersandnumbers, I have finished the rewrite of this temporary page, can you check it for any remaining issues and update the article?Aleutian06 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, Mobi Ditch, is there a way to figure out if the page that Earwig identifies as a possible source is actually a derivate of the article in question? Aleutian06 19:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any automated method. Check the dates of the potential source, and the dates of the Wikipedia article (or text addition). In the history page of every Wikipedia article there'a a link, near the top, called "Find addition/removal". You can enter some of the suspect text to see when it was added. Presumably, if the Wikipedia text predates the other text, then Wikipedia was probably the actual source. The editors over at CCI are expert at making these decisions, so they can give you a better answer. Mobi Ditch (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, Mobi Ditch, is there a way to figure out if the page that Earwig identifies as a possible source is actually a derivate of the article in question? Aleutian06 19:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Mobi Ditch (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Backlog Banzai
editIn the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
editNominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
editG'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark
editG'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
2019 US Banknote Contest
edit.png){kind=logo}
|
US Banknote Contest | 
|
|---|---|---|
| November-December 2019 | ||
|
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here | ||
Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)
The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
edit | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 |
The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Repeated copyright violations
editI have been accused of committing a copyright violation because of your editing. In 2014, you added text to Helena Artillery that was copied from a website.[1][2] Recently, I copied over that text to another page, properly crediting the presumed source.[3] Subsequently, an editor discovered the copyright violation and accused me of making an error.[4] On further investigation, it appears that much of the text of Helena Artillery was copied. For example, your first edit, in 2011, copied a big chunk of text from a website.[5][6] I am further dismayed by your actions because you were warned about this exact same issue in 2010, 2012, and 2013. Your repeated copyright violations make you look bad, make Wikipedia look bad, and now have made me look bad. Please explain yourself. Mobi Ditch (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ping: @Diannaa:
- I am very sorry that any of my previous contributions have caused you personal difficulty. I am sorry that someone chose to make an accusation against you, rather than simply asking you a question. I see that Diannaa has addressed the issue in her usual effective and workman like manner. Thank you Diannaa! I have certainly done somethings wrong, most of which have been corrected as the years have passed, but you do point to a long list of sins. I think that you will find that most of us here have no evil intent and are not seeking to gain from our contributions. While it’s great to WP:BOLD, it’s also great to Assume good faith and WP:DR Discuss with the other party before seeking outside help. Making a comment on a talk page, or pointing out a possible violation and giving the fellow Wikipedian a chance to correct the issue is usually well received and avoids a lot of unnecessary drama. I will try to address the list of errors that you have highlighted. Aleutian06 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I assume your good faith. Clearly, these errors spring from over-enthusiasm rather than ill-intent. However Wikipedia:Competence is required. It would appear that you neglected to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia rules before you embarked on your editing campaign. That's regrettable, since this all could have been prevented. Mobi Ditch (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I am very sorry that any of my previous contributions have caused you personal difficulty. I am sorry that someone chose to make an accusation against you, rather than simply asking you a question. I see that Diannaa has addressed the issue in her usual effective and workman like manner. Thank you Diannaa! I have certainly done somethings wrong, most of which have been corrected as the years have passed, but you do point to a long list of sins. I think that you will find that most of us here have no evil intent and are not seeking to gain from our contributions. While it’s great to WP:BOLD, it’s also great to Assume good faith and WP:DR Discuss with the other party before seeking outside help. Making a comment on a talk page, or pointing out a possible violation and giving the fellow Wikipedian a chance to correct the issue is usually well received and avoids a lot of unnecessary drama. I will try to address the list of errors that you have highlighted. Aleutian06 (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Unacceptable sources
editFurthermore, I see you are frequently using posts to a webforum as citations to articles, including posts made by you.[7][8][9][10] As an experienced Wikipedia editor, you should be familiar with the project's basic standards. Please see WP:SELFPUBLISH, which says:
- Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, or user generated sources, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Unless you and other posters to that forum are recognized experts on the Civil War, you should not cite it or any similar source. Given that you've misused this source in over a hundred articles, I hope you'll accept personal responsibility for cleaning up the encyclopedia. Mobi Ditch (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see now that you've been published at least once, albeit in a connected publication.[11] A nice article at that! Your scholarship is very fine, indeed. So is that of some other history buffs from Arkansas, whom you frequently cite or copy from. Nonethelesss, Wikipedia has standards and rules, and those don't allow citing from, much less wholesale copying from, self-published sources from non-experts. (And in this matter 'experts' generally means academics.) If you'd like to explain how your reliance on 'civilian' researchers is adequate and appropriate then the best place to make your case might be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Whatever the result, I expect that you'll take responsibility for making any corrections necessary to bring your considerable contributions into compliance with Wikipedia policies. And I thank you in advance for doing that. I'm sure you'll do your best to make Arkansas proud. Mobi Ditch (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are correct that many of the articles I created began with information supplied by members of the [|Arkansas in the Civil War Message Board] or on the [|Edward G. Gerdes Civil War Home Page]. I think that you will find that in most cases I have expanded and added footnotes to that information as the articles developed, a method with is now heavily frowned upon, which is why I seldom contribute new articles anymore. Wikipedia has matured significantly since I began contributing. Some of those changes are for the better, some have made collaboration on the site more difficult. The original author of the information that was used to start Helena Artillery was a noted Arkansas historian [Howerton]. During his military service Bryan spent many years stationed in the National Capital Region and in the days before the internet and pay for access sites like FOLD3 and Ancestry, Bryan spent thousands of hours poring through the Arkansas civil war records in National Archives, hand copying muster rolls and unit information. Later, in the early years of the internet, Mr. Bill Couch created an early [|message board] where folks like Bryan his friend Edward G. Gerdes, and a handful of other volunteers could post the material that they had collected on the various Arkansas Units. They also provided a service by looking up records for researchers. This was back when these searches still had to be done on microfiche, and hard copies ordered from the national archieves through the mail, nothing had been digitized yet! Later the pay for content sights started up, a couple of the earlier oned appropriated much of the information from Bill Couch’s site and put it behind a pay wall and started trying to claim copyright. This led to the various copyright statements at the bottom of the various pages on Couch’s page. He did not want companies charging for access to the information. When [G. Gerdes] died in 2004 a decision was made to lock down the [[12]], and maintain it as a memorial to Mr. Gerdes. While this was a great tribute to a good man who was dedicated to helping others research their civil war ancestry, it also froze the state of research on these units in place at a point in time when the power of digitization was just unlocking the secrets to these units in a way that had not been available to the early historians. So collaboration on these topics moved to the [| Arkansas in the Civil War Message Board]. Many of published historians on Arkansas Civil War topics have participated on the board, and collaborated with Mr. Howerton and other “armatures” on civil war topics. Authors like Mark Christ, Edwin C. Bearss, Bryce A. Suderow, Bruce S. Allardice, Kenneth Byrd, HL Hanna and Anthony Rushing have used information gleaned from this Message Board on their projects, and credited members of the board for the content like here[[13]] and here [[14]]. Eventually I began compiling, summarizing and editing the discussions and using it as the basis for a Wikipedia articles, which gave us a new place to collaborate. I would start adding primary and secondary sources and expanding on their original content. This leads to another valid criticism of my work on Wikipedia, that I tend use too many primary sources. After I started articles, I would often post my draft back on the Message Board, to be further discussed by the participants, like I did with the 32nd Arkansas Infantry Regiment here [[15]] or with the Helena Light Artillery here [[16]]. Using Wikipedia as the record of our discussions, we have done some impressive work, and truly advanced the state of knowledge on many Arkansas Civil War related topics. I did manage to recruit a few of the contributors to come over to Wikipedia, but as the rules here grew, direct collaboration on the site faltered. But as you have rightly pointed out, this is collaboration on new research is contrary to many of the rules that have been developed as Wikipedia has matured. Still I believe that this has been of service to the community. As I have refined and edited articles, I have tried to pair citations on the Message Board with primary or secondary sources. A few others have questioned my citations to the Message Board, in the same way that you do. My response has been that I think that leaving a trail for a future researcher to follow that leads him to a discussion on the Message Board with actual historians debating, discussing and in some cases discovering new information on the topic, will give them to a much deeper understanding of the topic. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think we do a service when we point a reader beyond Wikipedia itself. As you say, I have much to repair and improve, and most of my energy these days is devoted to improving the articles as they exist now, even in light of their infamous or nefarious beginnings. Unfortunately many of my friends and mentors, including Bryan, have passed on now, so the work is a little less enjoyable. Happy editing! Aleutian06 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Problems happen when editors start by wanting to add material and asking themselves, "what are the best available sources?", and then use those sources even if they don't meet Wikipedia standards. There is a lot of information that will never make it into Wikipedia because adequate sources simply don't exist. A better approach is to find a good source and then see what information would be appropriate for the encyclopedia. I recommend spending some time reading the various policies, guidelines, essays, and noticeboards on Wikipedia devoted to this major issue. The fact that there are so many pages devoted to the requirements and standards for good sourcing is a testament to the importance of reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. Talk pages and noticeboards exist so editors can ask for help or advice. Mobi Ditch (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- You are correct that many of the articles I created began with information supplied by members of the [|Arkansas in the Civil War Message Board] or on the [|Edward G. Gerdes Civil War Home Page]. I think that you will find that in most cases I have expanded and added footnotes to that information as the articles developed, a method with is now heavily frowned upon, which is why I seldom contribute new articles anymore. Wikipedia has matured significantly since I began contributing. Some of those changes are for the better, some have made collaboration on the site more difficult. The original author of the information that was used to start Helena Artillery was a noted Arkansas historian [Howerton]. During his military service Bryan spent many years stationed in the National Capital Region and in the days before the internet and pay for access sites like FOLD3 and Ancestry, Bryan spent thousands of hours poring through the Arkansas civil war records in National Archives, hand copying muster rolls and unit information. Later, in the early years of the internet, Mr. Bill Couch created an early [|message board] where folks like Bryan his friend Edward G. Gerdes, and a handful of other volunteers could post the material that they had collected on the various Arkansas Units. They also provided a service by looking up records for researchers. This was back when these searches still had to be done on microfiche, and hard copies ordered from the national archieves through the mail, nothing had been digitized yet! Later the pay for content sights started up, a couple of the earlier oned appropriated much of the information from Bill Couch’s site and put it behind a pay wall and started trying to claim copyright. This led to the various copyright statements at the bottom of the various pages on Couch’s page. He did not want companies charging for access to the information. When [G. Gerdes] died in 2004 a decision was made to lock down the [[12]], and maintain it as a memorial to Mr. Gerdes. While this was a great tribute to a good man who was dedicated to helping others research their civil war ancestry, it also froze the state of research on these units in place at a point in time when the power of digitization was just unlocking the secrets to these units in a way that had not been available to the early historians. So collaboration on these topics moved to the [| Arkansas in the Civil War Message Board]. Many of published historians on Arkansas Civil War topics have participated on the board, and collaborated with Mr. Howerton and other “armatures” on civil war topics. Authors like Mark Christ, Edwin C. Bearss, Bryce A. Suderow, Bruce S. Allardice, Kenneth Byrd, HL Hanna and Anthony Rushing have used information gleaned from this Message Board on their projects, and credited members of the board for the content like here[[13]] and here [[14]]. Eventually I began compiling, summarizing and editing the discussions and using it as the basis for a Wikipedia articles, which gave us a new place to collaborate. I would start adding primary and secondary sources and expanding on their original content. This leads to another valid criticism of my work on Wikipedia, that I tend use too many primary sources. After I started articles, I would often post my draft back on the Message Board, to be further discussed by the participants, like I did with the 32nd Arkansas Infantry Regiment here [[15]] or with the Helena Light Artillery here [[16]]. Using Wikipedia as the record of our discussions, we have done some impressive work, and truly advanced the state of knowledge on many Arkansas Civil War related topics. I did manage to recruit a few of the contributors to come over to Wikipedia, but as the rules here grew, direct collaboration on the site faltered. But as you have rightly pointed out, this is collaboration on new research is contrary to many of the rules that have been developed as Wikipedia has matured. Still I believe that this has been of service to the community. As I have refined and edited articles, I have tried to pair citations on the Message Board with primary or secondary sources. A few others have questioned my citations to the Message Board, in the same way that you do. My response has been that I think that leaving a trail for a future researcher to follow that leads him to a discussion on the Message Board with actual historians debating, discussing and in some cases discovering new information on the topic, will give them to a much deeper understanding of the topic. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think we do a service when we point a reader beyond Wikipedia itself. As you say, I have much to repair and improve, and most of my energy these days is devoted to improving the articles as they exist now, even in light of their infamous or nefarious beginnings. Unfortunately many of my friends and mentors, including Bryan, have passed on now, so the work is a little less enjoyable. Happy editing! Aleutian06 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I see now that you've been published at least once, albeit in a connected publication.[11] A nice article at that! Your scholarship is very fine, indeed. So is that of some other history buffs from Arkansas, whom you frequently cite or copy from. Nonethelesss, Wikipedia has standards and rules, and those don't allow citing from, much less wholesale copying from, self-published sources from non-experts. (And in this matter 'experts' generally means academics.) If you'd like to explain how your reliance on 'civilian' researchers is adequate and appropriate then the best place to make your case might be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Whatever the result, I expect that you'll take responsibility for making any corrections necessary to bring your considerable contributions into compliance with Wikipedia policies. And I thank you in advance for doing that. I'm sure you'll do your best to make Arkansas proud. Mobi Ditch (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)