Callitropsis

What?

You reverted an edit I made saying it was copyright violation?

What? I sourced the material and put it in quotation marks. It was less than 10% of the following article: https://tippinsights.com/the-left-is-now-telling-us-ukrainian-nazis-arent-so-bad-after-all/

Before you do something wrong like you did, you should discuss!

JS (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jayanta Sen: Thanks for reaching out. I can't see the revision in question because it's been redacted. From what I can see from the iThenticate report, you placed quotation marks at the end of the passage but did not include them at the beginning of the passage, making it unclear that the material was being presented as a quote. Even if you had properly quoted the passage it still would not have been acceptable, since you included a very lengthy quote of a non-free work that could have been replaced by a summary written in your own words. Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, quotes from non-free works generally should not be used when they can be briefly summarized instead. Wikipedia:Overquoting provides a more detailed summary of this practice. There's some room for ambiguity and interpretation, but copying and pasting almost 10% of a non-free work when a summary would have sufficed falls well outside this discretionary range. You are, of course, free to add a summary of the work to the article, perhaps with very brief quotations, as long as it doesn't contain any close paraphrasing. Wikipedia's policies and practices surrounding copyright can be confusing at times, so feel free to reach out if you have any further questions. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"very lengthy quote of a non-free work" is your subjective opinion unless you have an objective source to back it up. In the future please discuss first and refrain from editing that you cannot later justify.

JS (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

While popping in to thank SamX A for usually thankless work in the copyright arena I noticed this exchange.

I fully understand the frustration working hard as a volunteer to improve an article and having that hard work wiped out without a discussion. In a perfect world, perhaps we could encourage editors, whenever they see a possible violation issue, to open up a discussion with the editor and talk it through first. Not surprisingly though, it is not a perfect world. While Wikipedia is fortunate that literally millions of people have decided to volunteer their time and effort to add edits to Wikipedia pages, the fact is there is only a tiny handful of people who are willing to monitor potential copyright issues. We have a tool that reports potential violations. It generates literally hundreds of reports every week. There are only a couple dozen editors who occasionally work on copyright issues and if you check the leaderboard, you'll see only ten in the last week. That's ten people trying to deal with hundreds of reports. If you can think of a way to quintuple the number of volunteers, it would be reasonable to ask the volunteers to open up a discussion in some cases, but this just isn't feasible with only ten volunteers trying to handle hundreds of reports. As you know, this is a wiki so if it turns out that the removal is an error, it's trivial to restore it. Again, if you have a plausible solution please share it but simply expecting ten editors to open several hundred discussions every week just isn't going to work. I hope sometime when you have more experience you will volunteer to help out with copyright issues – I guarantee if you do a few hundred you will rethink the feasibility of your approach. Or perhaps you will be the one who opens up a discussion with every potential issue and you will help whittle down the backlog. Either one would work for me. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

A very long post, but it is not "As you know, this is a wiki so if it turns out that the removal is an error, it's trivial to restore it." Try reverting the edit and find out for yourself. JS (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your work related to copyright issues. As you correctly noted, you don't yet have the ability to restore revision deletion's. If I'm the one who did them I'm more than happy to temporarily restore them. This can happen for a variety of reasons and am more than happy to do it just reach out. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you as well! I'll keep that in mind :) — SamX [talk · contribs] 20:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Help for whether to AfD an article

It's been a while since you offered off-wiki on the official discord to help me, I've ran into a similar difficult situation where I'm unsure whether to AfD or something else and would appreciate your advice. I am looking at gathering seafood by hand. The article is original research, the topic is notable, but all its cited current content and article history is subsumed in fishing techniques. I don't know if I should AfD, merge request to fishing techniques, or WP:TNT and optionally try rewriting it myself without establishing consensus first. If I post on its talk page, due to low viewership it will probably not get seen by others, as when writing this the talk page has 0 pageviews in the past 30 days. I see you left a notice that you're away at the moment, there is no rush for this topic, I'd just appreciate your advice as a more experienced editor. Thank you Darcyisverycute (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Geez, that's above my pay grade :) There really isn't much to merge and merge requests often take months, so I'm not sure if that'd be the correct approach. I'd personally recommend AfD, although you should check to determine whether sources exist before nominating. If sources do exist, you could add them to the article and request a merge if you still feel there isn't enough content for a standalone article. You also could BLAR it, but I'm not sure whether doing so would be considered "uncontroversial" and you might get some pushback so I personally wouldn't recommend this approach. — SamX [talk · contribs] 15:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :) After looking through sources, I've decided to go ahead with AfD. Darcyisverycute (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem! Always happy to help out. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hello SamX: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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

MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you! — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in AfC November 2023 Backlog Drive

		Here's a brownie for your efforts
		Thank you for your participation in the Articles for Creation's November 2023 Backlog Drive! You made a total of 2 reviews, for a total of 2 points. – robertsky (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

– robertsky (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

– robertsky (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Wishing you a happy 2024!

• 
• 
• 

Happy New Year!

• 
  MMXXIV Lunar Calendar

Callitropsis,
Have a great 2024 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

---

   – 2024 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Peach Fuzz (#0FFBE98), Pantone's 2024 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2024}} to user talk pages.

– 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 10:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2024

I am want to stay happy with my wiki friend. মোহাম্মদ নুর হোসেন মিরাজ (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@মোহাম্মদ নুর হোসেন মিরাজ: Thanks! May I ask how you came across User talk:BrandonXLF? — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 05:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Good morning dear bro.

i am a new camer wiki side. I am not understand What to do step by step মোহাম্মদ নুর হোসেন মিরাজ (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@মোহাম্মদ নুর হোসেন মিরাজ: It's actually late at night where I live, but good morning and happy new year to you as well and thanks for reaching out :)

Did you know that Wikipedia has hundreds of language versions? If English isn't your first language, you may find it easier and more enjoyable to edit the Wikipedia that is written in your native language. There is a Bengali Wikipedia (বাংলা উইকিপিডিয়া) if that is your native language. (Google Translate thinks your username is Bengali, but I have no idea whether or not that's correct.)

If you speak a different language, there is a List of Wikipedias by language that you can check out. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about the English Wikipedia, although I wouldn't be able to tell you much about any of the Wikipedia projects in any other language. — Callitropsis🌲[formerly SamX · talk · contribs] 05:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Civility Parole

I just wanted to take a second to thank you for your proposal at the EENG thread on WP:CESSPIT. Re-reading my comments and others, I can see they might come off as aggressive. I do believe that your proposal was in good faith and you were trying to help, I've just been around long enough that I saw the last time civility parole was popular and how it directly led to blocks/bans on some great editors. I wanted to make sure you knew that I wasn't directing my comment at you, just the nature of the restriction itself. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, but I didn't take any offense and I think your objections were reasonable :) I don't have the institutional memory that you do, but it's easy for me to understand why such bespoke restrictions would be problematic and I was happy to withdraw my proposal when it became clear that people didn't think it was a good idea. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 16:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Ping replacement topic

I'm unsure if my ping in another topic worked or not, but to be extra annoying I've decided to post on your talk! :D

Please check this topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slinky#Possible_physics_mistake_in_derivation_of_the_center_of_mass), and revert the provided diff / make new changes, if you're interested 178.64.226.149 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reply there shortly. Your ping didn't work because you linked my username after you made your initial comment. In order for it to work, you'll need to link it in the same edit in which you leave your signature. See Help:Notifications for more information. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 06:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		A belated thanks for good advice, even though I didn't take it at the time. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

• Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
• Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
• Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
• Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
• Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
• Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
• Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
• Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

bharvad

bharvad is cowherd(gopalak) people check following references:-

1)Report on the Prevalence & Characters of Leprosy - Page 130 books.google.co.in › books

2)The Mers of Saurashtra: An Exposition of Their Social ... - Page 27 books.google.co.in › books

3)Summary of Events of the Administration of the Gondal State: ... books.google.co.in › books

4)Roger Sandall's Films and Contemporary Anthropology: ... books.google.co.in › books Devendra gop bharvad (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Real Kerala Story - (Submission rejected on 17 June 2024)

HI, @Callitropsis

Write an article related to an important topic in Kerala Also published, many references were included in these articles.

But it went to Deletetion Discuss where it failed and was taken back to Drafit where the article was developed. But today it has been rejected its entry into the main space and Kerala is also affected by this article. Spworld2 (talk) 2:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Matt King (swimmer)

Hello, Callitropsis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Matt King (swimmer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)