User talk:Moneytrees/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

CCI update

Another one of the 2010 guard done --Wizardman 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion of article page

Dear Moneytree, I'd like to revert a deletion process my article went through so to proceed in its publication. In March 2020 you pointed out a copyright violation that I didn't understand, due to the fact that I wrote everything by myself, with even no quotes. Would it be possible to get some help in understanding what's wrong with that article? :) please let me know! A.schillaci (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

A.schillaci, The initial edit was flagged as being identical to this website (look under the "Prof Filippo Graziani", see the report here; click on "iThenticate report" to see the violating text) If you wrote the original text, please see WP:DONATETEXT If you want to include the text on Wikipedia. Thanks, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Great, I've changed the text and saved the new version, is there anything in addition that I can do to ease the process of publication? Thank so much for your advice and help! A.schillaci (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A.schillaci, Sorry for the delay in response; I added an articles for creation template, and recommend you remove some information and expand in some places, as the draft comes off as a resume. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 23:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Lackluster racisim

Gotta love it (but watch those typos!). EEng 01:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, Gotta love lackluster racism? Oh Eeng! I guess I was the lackluster one all along. I was going to say "Lame" instead, but iirc someone took issue with another admin saying that, so I refrained. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 01:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, if someone's gonna be racist they at least should put some creativity into it. Morons should at least make themselves entertaining. EEng 01:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng, Exactly, if you're going to do something stupid, make it as stupid as possible! I feel like vandals and racists just don't have it in them anymore. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 01:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Go big or go home. Actually, go home either way. EEng 01:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

EEng 10/10 information! Agreed Money if your going to do something idiotic you might as well make it as idiotic as possible! :) Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 04:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Scintillating racism, that's what we want. EEng 04:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 16:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyright Question

Hi Moneytrees, I think I've got this right, but thought I'd check with an expert before doing anything. I have a copy of this book. It's basically a reprinted photocopy of a book published in Edinburgh in MDCCCLXXXVII, which (if my Roman numerals skills are where they ought to be) is 1887. The book was printed by Andesite Press in 2017, with an explicit statement on the back cover that "the work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work". I think that means I can scan images from the book, upload them to commons, and use them in articles - right? And if so, how should I tag them? Thanks in advance GirthSummit _(blether) 15:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, Yes, that means you can upload scans. I think it's strange that you have to pay for a book that even the amazon page says is in public domain, but whatever. The tags to use should be commons:Template:PD-old-auto-expired, which covers the American copyright, and commons:Template:PD-old-70, which covers countries where copyright is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer, like the UK, which I'm assuming this falls under, as the book was published there (feel free to correct if wrong!) Thanks for asking, and stay safe, Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

pay for a book that even the amazon page says is in public domain – No copyright means the author can't demand payment or stop you from printing it. But despite your name there's actually no such thing as a moneytree, and someone has to pay for the typesetting, paper, printing, and shipping. EEng 21:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit (edit conflict) Dang it Money you beat me! I was going to say the Template:PD-US. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moneytrees, much appreciated. Yes, this would be UK copyright, I'll use those tags when I do it. As for paying for it - well, I got it second hand for £3, which seems reasonable for a 600-odd page book, even if it is public domain. By preference I'm more of a dead tree reader than a pixels person, but if you or The4lines were able to unearth a PDF version of the other 4 volumes of that particular work, I'd be very grateful - I would kind of resent paying £25 each for them! GirthSummit _(blether) 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

RevDel

Nah the OS was not your fault, it was my own stupidity. On to Copypatrol. Welcome Back! Nice to see you back. I almost forgot you were a arbcom clerk :p. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 01:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Money, I think ColorTokens should be moved to draftspace but when I try the user that made the article keeps moving it back. Your thoughts? Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 16:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Leave it alone for now; someone else can do something and the article isn't a total eyesore in the mainspace. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 21:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on the task of fixing up Saturn V rocket article. Aka Unsourced paradise. Hoping to make it a GA in a month or two. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 03:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Ronhjones

Thank you for indefinitely sysop protecting all of Ronhjones' subpages. I just learned of his death and that of his wife and was going to do that myself if it hadn't already been done. Thank you. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Note that you blocked Brian K Horton who was currently engaged in setting up a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. You almost certainly know this, given your block message. You may wish to drop a note there, indicating the block. That user will no longer be able to participate in the case. I'm not contesting your block in any way. I think WP:SNOW applies to the case and other admins indicated they'd block the user once the case was done. --Yamla (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yamla,  Done; I was composing the talk page message and the case message when you sent this. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 15:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your notification: perhaps you meant to say "deprecation"? (I did learn that "Decrepitation is the noise produced when certain chemical compounds are heated...") isaacl (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Isaacl, Yeah that's what I meant 😅, similar words got my tripped up. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 16:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hi. sorry to bother to you but I couldn't find how to request a rollback on a page... The page I'm asking for a rollback is called ProfJam which has been vandalized with plenty of portuguese words on a attempt to translate the information. Could you please rollback it to my last edit so I can keep on editing? Thanks! ✘ PHOSPHOR | 💬📜 20:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Phospor,  Done Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 20:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Alfred the Great

Thanks for your help on the article, I am such a zombie editor I did not actually realise you had helped out and did a major clean up of the article, until I was more than half way through my little edits today. Much appreciated. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi, Moneytrees - At about 2:30 pm today, I noted on the article TP that this block of text was a pretty hefty copyvio, but no one took my note seriously. From what I can tell, a portion of a YouTube video was transcribed to prove a point in the discussion, and the video was attributed as the source. It is not just a short few sentences of text; rather, it is 329 words long which is longer than some of our stubs. In fact, AutoWikiBrowser typically removes stub tags from articles with more than 500 words. It's now in your hands - happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)    

You saw no issues with that 329 word (1,921 character) quote on that article TP? Please explain your rationale because it contradicts WP:COPYVIO which clearly states However, copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed (unless it's a brief quotation used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. I am pinging Moonriddengirl and Justlettersandnumbers to weigh-in here because I find your rationale confusing. I'm an OTRS agent, and I work in NPP/AfC as reviewer, and we deal with copyvio all the time. I have not heard of anything like this happening before. The examples of the types of quotes you said you removed are very misleading - you showed only the largest removals. Have you forgotten the June 3, 2020 incident where you removed 764 characters in a controversial move that Serial# also questioned? You also didn't mention this removal, or this one all of which are much smaller than the examples you provided at the TP. I'm looking forward to your explanation. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

To Moneytrees - First Atsme asked you for your copyvio decision. After you said it is not a copyvio, Atsme asked Dianna to give a 2nd opinion. In this diff [1] Dianna told Atsme she did not want to get involved. Atsme is now asking 2 more editors for a 3rd & 4th opinion. I understand why Atsme may have want a 2nd opinion so asked Dianna for hers. But I do not feel it makes sense for Atsme to be asking for a 3rd & 4th opinion and I question what her goal in doing that is. Is she hoping that someone will erase the quote in question? I'm new here, so I question if it's normal to ask for a 3rd, 4th opinion?

For background: as Atsme knows, the full-partial quote in question was never intended to go within the article and no editor ever intended youtube to the source for the article.  The partial quote in question was introduced on a talk page solely as informational tool for Atsme so she could see with her own eyes and hear with her own ears that she was mistaken on some things.  

Here's what I mean, Atsme had deleted an edit (which Beyond My Ken reverted here [2]) Among other things, that edit included info from that 2015 answer/talk session and whose source is an RS (not youtube). The deleted edit's RS provided partial quotes from a link quoting the 2015 talk/answers but Atsme complained that the link the RS used has a paywall so no information from that RS can be included. Other editors pointed out to Atsme that several, several other RS (roughly 16 RS) also reported the same/similar info from the same 2015 talk/questions. Atsme said none of those other RS can be used either due to: spin, clickbait, cherrypicking, opinion, & about 14 other allegations of WP violations.  At one point, Atsme accused several, more than one, of the RS of basically being dishonest and claimed they "contain sensationalized clickbait opinion" so Atsme said none of those RS cannot be used. Atsme also said none of other sources can be used because, according to Atsme, they were reporting an "allegation in a single source that was repeated by other sources citing the original."  Which took it full-circle because that "single source" is the original RS that Atsme said could not be used because of the paywall (much like the Wall Street Journal). 

Because Atsme rejected all the other RSs (plural) and because Atsme had the incorrect impression that the RSs were repeating opinion, spin, allegations, clickbait, etc. To show Atsme proof that the RS are not reporting opinion, I put the partial quote on the talk page along with 4 sources: New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Politico, and some random person's youtube channel. But then, Atsme got concerned about copyvio so then asked you to see if the partial quote is a copyvio and needed to be erased from the talk page. You decided no violation so did not erase the quote.

Like I said, I understand why Atsme may want a 2nd opinion so asked Dianna for hers, but I question why Atsme is asking for a 3rd & 4th opinion; hoping, I guess, that someone will erase the quote in question. I feel this is kind of silly since Atsme also knows full well that the partial quote was not intended to go inside the article and was only put on the talk page as an informational tool so Atsme could see/hear factual information since Atsme had rejected all the other sources. If you any of the other two editors disagree with you and find it is copyvio, so be it.  My question though would be this: since the original paywall RS printed parts of that partial quote and so did roughly 16 additional RS, would it be copyvio to put those parts of the partial quote on the talk page so Atsme can have the proof needed showing the deleted edit is not "allegations, spin, cherrypicking, sensationalized click bait." BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

BetsyRMadison Atsme, I said what I said on the talk page; context matters when it comes to large quotes, and while it is a large quote, it's not the entirety of the speech or providing a large amount of unnecessary detail, it's being used as evidence in an argument. If that was in an article, I might parse it down a little bit (Like I did with the Cadilactica example I cited), but it provides information important to the ongoing discussion. To address your examples, Serial# politely pointing out that I didn't need to remove a sentence during a presumptive blanking and me agreeing with him doesn't have to do with overquoting. Neither does me removing large decade old quotations giving undue weight to some random blogspot (one of which I left), or removing some close unintended paraphrasing. In the words of Diannaa, I am not interested in getting involved on this issue. Please stop trying to get me involved in it.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 00:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

For context, if it were similar to this, I would remove it.Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 00:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

How to help with Copyvios

Hi there MoneyTrees! After the growing amount of copyvios I am seeing on Wikipedia and thought I might give a hand at helping, and I'm shocked at the scale of these copyvios. The problem is, I am quite confused about how to help. Do I simply check the page, remove violations and tick it, or do I make a subpage etc? I've tried to read your guide and other instructions but I am very confused. Any help would be appreciated :D. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

So far, I've been running all the digs and current article through earwig and copy and pasting them on Google to find any results. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 20:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, That's ok, it can be a pretty overwhelming area at first glance. For CCI's, archive all links using the "fix dead links" option in the page history, and then remove any violations you find. I recommend not using the "web search" option, since it usually just finds mirrors. Mark with either Y or N depending on what you find. I recommend combing through small, new website ones to start and work your way over time to the harder ones. With larger articles, I recommend seeing if the content is still even in the article before running a scan; If it's gone, you can say something like ? gone. I'd also recommend getting some experience at copypatrol; here's some guidance I gave 4L. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 00:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, thanks! I've got one more question. Whilst looking at CopyPatrol I found this iThenticate report that has clearly copied content from a research paper by the Cardiff Metropolitain University. The thing is, the copied content is only about half a paragraph. Should it be removed, or can it stay there? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at this huge amount of edits, and Earwig has found a bunch of content copied from here. There are so many edits though, should it just be rollbacked, or should it be manually removed? — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Berrely, Could you permalink the copypatrol report for the first one? The iThenticate reports unfortunately don't work when linked out to outside of copypatrol. For the second one, it's actually a very confusing backwards violation; the text in the article predates the website; it was in the article before September 11 2009, when the article was published. When it comes to several edit stuff like this, I recommend reverting to right before the content was inserted; in this case, I refrained from doing so since I saw it wasn't inserted by that user. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 22:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh thanks! Sadly it seems the CP case has disappeared, somebody probably reviewed it. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, with something like this, should it be reverted or not? They cited the source but I think it might be overquoting. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And erm... [3]. I have a feeling these are all copyvios. CP report: [4] — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 09:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The first one is more of a direct paste than an overquote; half the edit is prose copied from the source without quotation marks, so I reverted and revdeled it. For the second case, I revdeled the major edits that most likely had violations; either way, all those edits were promotional garbage so you were in the right to revert. As you've probably seen, there's a lot of crossover between the spam fighting areas and copypatrol. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 17:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Moneytrees, thanks! I'll tell you if I have any more questions. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

About article

Did I violate any Wikipedia policies when creating Ryan Petersen (CEO)? WeTalkWiki 18:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WeTalkWiki, I don't see any violations of policy, although the article may be declined at the draft stage due to notability concerns. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Can you please answer the question on my talk page. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

For the archive, [5] Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 02:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)