CompulsiveResearcher
Women in Red
editHi there, DiamondRemley39, and thanks for all the articles you have recently been adding, especially biographies of women and books written by women authors. It seems to me you would be a useful member of WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to chip away at the gender gap. If you would like to join, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. In any case, I look forward to many more new articles. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for signing up and welcome to the project. You seem to be pretty familiar with the technicalities of Wikipedia editing but if you have not already done so, you might find it useful to look at some of our essays, perhaps starting with our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
edit
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Flora Foster is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC) |
- Thank you so much!!! Compulsive Researcher (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red - June 2023
edit
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Copyright problem: Flora Warren Seymour
edit
Hello CompulsiveResearcher! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Flora Warren Seymour, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://books.google.it/books?id=XJSdT_4NWTMC&pg=PA204 (Jennifer Scanlon (1996), American Women Historians), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
- Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Flora Warren Seymour and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en
wikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Flora Warren Seymour, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions. - If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en wikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Flora Warren Seymour. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Flora Warren Seymour with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Flora Warren Seymour saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers Well... How about you tell me what synonyms I ought to use for proper nouns and verbs and dates and such? Compulsive Researcher (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- For that, see Talk:Flora Warren Seymour, where I've replied to you in detail. Please note that I've also blanked this, which has exactly the same problems as the mainspace article. Inadvertently adding copyvio to a page is one thing, knowingly creating a page that contains copyright violations is another; you can expect to lose your editing privileges without further discussion if you do that again, so ... please don't! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Justlettersandnumbers Please take it easy on the bad faith accusations. I recreated my old draft as it had existed in my userspace so I could edit the text in my userspace into something that could once again go into the mainspace because I did not want the repercussions of editing the article in the mainspace in a way you would find unacceptable. It wasn't edited for hours because you did not respond for hours.
- Please do not edit articles in my userspace again. If you want something changed in my userspace, please find an uninvolved admin to do so. Thank you.
- Please find an uninvolved editor to communicate with me further on this matter; I cannot take the tone of the communications I receive from you. Thank you. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK, see here. I'm not "involved", my only interaction with you has been in my capacity as an administrator, attempting to ensure that you have not violated our copyright policy in this project other than in that one page, and that you will not do so again. Please be warned that I intend to block your account if I see one more copyright violation from it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
- Dear CompulsiveResearcher, about your question as to
what synonyms [you] ought to use for proper nouns and verbs and dates and such
, you are not supposed to take a single source and introduce a whole passage from that source verbatim, or mostly verbatim, or not really verbatim, but with only superficial alterations such as by replacing words with their synonyms, as that is close paraphrasing. The main thing to do on Wikipedia when adding content is to consolidate information from multiple sources. That reduces copyright concerns and makes for much more valid encyclopedic content insofar an encyclopedia is precisely that kind of work—which summarizes and consolidates information... from multiple sources. Using a single source for a whole string of claims is risky, and doing it right can be a pain; at least differentiate essential from non-essential claims and carry over only the most essential information while leaving the detail out. Writing reasonable content can be difficult sometimes, and copyright and plagiarism considerations contribute to that, but editors must take up the challenge. Whether there's a copyright problem in this instance or not (haven't looked in depth), I do not know, but maybe this will help you not attract a notice like this one in the future. Sincerely—Alalch E. 22:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)- Thank you for your reply. I believe people should be able to disagree and discuss without taking things personally. I mean the below in good faith and I will reiterate that later.
- I'm told I'll be blocked if I make the wrong call, but no one has yet explained what the right one is or indicated having read what's there.
- You say haven't looked at the article in-depth, and I am not unfamiliar with copyright, so I'll expand on my points below:
- Re: synonyms, etc.: That is quite relevant. I struggle to provide job title/employer/date info in a way that will please the above-mentioned admin, and perhaps you as well, if we do not share the same reading of "Substantial similarity" section on the close paraphrasing page you linked. It includes a quote from the US Copyright Office: "Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions... The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words ... To be protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum amount of authorship ... Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements." These are not unique sentences. These are brief combinations of proper nouns and verbs. A similar sentence to those in question: "From 1961 to 1963, Kennedy served as President of the United States." I suppose "The United States employed Kennedy from 1961 to 1963," but a clunky object the subject makes there, and if someone would call such a change superficial and reordering, well, how are things to be communicated?
- Re: "Using a single source for a whole string of claims is risky"--We were talking about copyright, and I don't follow... do you have an issue w/ the number and sort of sources I used? This article was hardly single-sourced; none of the claims are being questioned as far as I know. The source lists other sources. The subject has been dead over 70 years. It's essential to say Seymour worked for the War Department during WWI, and I believe her involvement in the other 2 bodies is important as well; the facts are not problematic and to leave them out would downplay her accomplishments, making the resulting Wikipedia article less than it ought to be.
- Re: the difficulty writing "reasonable content": Is it unreasonable to write "Jane Doe taught ninth grade at John Adams High School" because a source wrote "Jane Doe was a ninth grade teacher at John Adams High School"? If so, well...
- What is my best option? My next best? I keep asking for help. So far, I get generalities or statements, some emphasizing that I am wrong or ill-informed. Yours is an exception; your words have kept the focus on the content with no allusions to my character and in the right place for it and I am caused no grief. But I have no indication anyone who knows substantive similarity has applied that to the words in question. Yet people will talk.
- Don't feel as if you have to respond. I am going to take a Wikibreak for some time shortly. I thank you again for your reply and I hope you have a good career on Wikipedia. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've not looked at any of your past edits to assess what others have already concluded. However, I would say to your Q3 that the alternative wording you offered is quite acceptable to me. But that is in one single sentence. If you were to take the entire contents of a copyrighted page and simply rephrase each and every sentence in a similar manner, without restructuring the work, then you could, quite rightly, be accused of close-paraphrasing that page or paragraph. It can be a difficult judgement call when it comes to a single sentence, but it can become obvious if all someone has done is use slightly different wording for all the sentences in a copyrighted book. That's where the creativity side of Wikipedia editing comes in. And, in answer to your earlier question - no, I don't feel it would be proper to do what you wanted. But using multiple sources to create new content in your own words is a really good way to avoid the paraphrasing issue in future. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting with a statement that you haven't looked at my past edits and acknowledging that others have already come to conclusions. So far, no one has stated an issue with any article except this one, but always in motion is the future.
- We're talking about 3 simple sentences like I'd mentioned in #3. Or 1 simple sentence and 1 complex... It's good to know you think my example is OK; someone in one of these discussions (it's all running together) spoke against those kinds of changes... I added more sources in userspace and worked on the phrasing there because I thought that was OK, but the page has been blanked with the template and I have been warned not to touch it. (That was my mistake, and though I had good intent, I take responsibility for my actions.)
- Questions: Is it within policy to take that content as I had edited and place it or a link to it (userspace) where someone can review it? If so, where is the best place for it to go that would raise the fewest eyebrows?
- Thank you for being thoughtful and well-spoken. You are the first person to read an example I have written and respond to it, I think. I'd give you a kitten if I weren't so exhausted! Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've not looked at any of your past edits to assess what others have already concluded. However, I would say to your Q3 that the alternative wording you offered is quite acceptable to me. But that is in one single sentence. If you were to take the entire contents of a copyrighted page and simply rephrase each and every sentence in a similar manner, without restructuring the work, then you could, quite rightly, be accused of close-paraphrasing that page or paragraph. It can be a difficult judgement call when it comes to a single sentence, but it can become obvious if all someone has done is use slightly different wording for all the sentences in a copyrighted book. That's where the creativity side of Wikipedia editing comes in. And, in answer to your earlier question - no, I don't feel it would be proper to do what you wanted. But using multiple sources to create new content in your own words is a really good way to avoid the paraphrasing issue in future. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- For that, see Talk:Flora Warren Seymour, where I've replied to you in detail. Please note that I've also blanked this, which has exactly the same problems as the mainspace article. Inadvertently adding copyvio to a page is one thing, knowingly creating a page that contains copyright violations is another; you can expect to lose your editing privileges without further discussion if you do that again, so ... please don't! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
June 2023
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 13:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)- as I said on AN, you're welcome to edit in other areas but given your confusion over copyright - you should not be editing in article space until it's resolved. Star Mississippi 13:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'm more confused with what the AN is about. No one there has asked me anything, but I'm blocked. That's OK.
- Related to the block: If I notice a problematic change in an article, where may I request someone review those and revert or cite if necessary? I watch a few articles with BLP or COI issues. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- You absolutely can. You're not blocked from Talk space or anywhere else. If you convince others at the thread that you understand copyright (hint: not arguing that it's not technically copyright!), and there are no other issues identified within your edits, you'll likely be unblocked Star Mississippi 15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- I'd rather remain blocked for now. But, if/when I opt for an unblock, where would I convince others of my knowledge of copyright? At the AN thread (now-ish)? Or in the unblock request (later on)?
- Does "abuse of editing privileges" refer only to the "wikilawyering"? Or something else? I want to be accurate.
- May I use articles for creation to submit articles?
- May I draft in my namespace? That is my preference. But as one page has been blanked twice in the last day, I don't know what are my limitations on using my namespace.
- Have a good day. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi! You can convince admins in whicghever location you prefer. You're not community blocked so assuming you decide to request an unblock later, you can request it here and someone will take action. You're welcome to use AfC or your userspace drafts as you prefer, but I would think hard about what @Justlettersandnumbers advised you before you write in either space. You may or may not not be correct about whether it's technically copyright, but it's better to avoid it looking as if it's copyright if you want the drafts approved for mainspace. Star Mississippi 16:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I promise this will wrap up soon; I know you have other things to do.
- Can admins warn me, blank my userspace pages, or beyond if they object to my work, including if they interpret content in my works in progress as copyright violations, or do such have to have existed in the mainspace first? Basically: can they tie my hands as I draft or not?
- You didn't answer #2 in my list above. I would like to know what abuse of editing privileges means as that is the reason for my block. Wikilawyering? Potential copyright infringement?
- Thanks again. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- 1. is wikilawyering, which I know you don't think you're doing. Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on the project. If someone judges your draft to be one, they can blank it. Diannaa and Moneytrees are the admins most experienced with copyright violations and I'd check with them if you think you're anywhere close to problematic content. Abuse of editing priviliges is because there is a potential copyright issue. As it's a legal issue for the project, we cannot have copyright violations even if an editor thinks they are not. So abundance of caution, everyone's favorite phrase in the last three years. Star Mississippi 17:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I'm sorry my questions are wrong to have. I wanted information so I could make informed decisions rather than proceed as I have been and end up in hotter water, but it's wikilawyering. Maybe this demonstrates I'm not cut out for volunteering here. I don't know anymore. Thank you for providing the names of two admins; I will consider pinging them to review my future work if and after I establish contact.
- A copyright violation in the mainspace. Check. Thank you.
- Compulsive Researcher (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've been following this dispute here and at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm sorry this has all gone south so quickly. Looking at your talk page history, it looks like you've stayed away from disputes here and just worked away building Wikipedia. Then suddenly, people are jumping up and down and then - bam - you're blocked.
- I left a couple of comments: [1][2]
- I was an admin in the past -- that's a very unusual sequence. I think it partly has to do with the issue of copyrights. Wikipedia can be sloppy and inconsistent about many things but for legal and ethical reasons, the community and the Wikimedia Foundation have very short fuses about two issues - biographies of living people and copyright. Things can escalate very quickly as they did here.
- I'm sorry this has happened. I appreciate what you've done here for coverage of women. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for reading and commenting; you've provided bold support and I need that very much tonight. I want to say a lot more to you, but I'm afraid it could be used against me, so for now I'll just say I appreciate you greatly.
- I hope you have the best weekend! Compulsive Researcher (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- 1. is wikilawyering, which I know you don't think you're doing. Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on the project. If someone judges your draft to be one, they can blank it. Diannaa and Moneytrees are the admins most experienced with copyright violations and I'd check with them if you think you're anywhere close to problematic content. Abuse of editing priviliges is because there is a potential copyright issue. As it's a legal issue for the project, we cannot have copyright violations even if an editor thinks they are not. So abundance of caution, everyone's favorite phrase in the last three years. Star Mississippi 17:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I promise this will wrap up soon; I know you have other things to do.
- Hi! You can convince admins in whicghever location you prefer. You're not community blocked so assuming you decide to request an unblock later, you can request it here and someone will take action. You're welcome to use AfC or your userspace drafts as you prefer, but I would think hard about what @Justlettersandnumbers advised you before you write in either space. You may or may not not be correct about whether it's technically copyright, but it's better to avoid it looking as if it's copyright if you want the drafts approved for mainspace. Star Mississippi 16:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- You absolutely can. You're not blocked from Talk space or anywhere else. If you convince others at the thread that you understand copyright (hint: not arguing that it's not technically copyright!), and there are no other issues identified within your edits, you'll likely be unblocked Star Mississippi 15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Women in Red July 2023
edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red 8th Anniversary
edit|
|
Women in Red 8th Anniversary |
| In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap! |
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2023
edit
See also:
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2023 at Women In Red
edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2023
edit
See also
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red - November 2023
edit
See also Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red December 2023
edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Carolyn Crimi for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Crimi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Women in Red January 2024
edit 
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
Women in Red February 2024
edit
Announcement
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red March 2024
edit
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red April 2024
edit
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red May 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
File permission problem with File:CushingAcademyPenguinsHockey.png
edit
Thanks for uploading File:CushingAcademyPenguinsHockey.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 04:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red July 2024
edit
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red August 2024
edit|
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September 2024 at Women in Red
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red October 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Women in Red November 2024
edit
Online events:
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging