User talk:Callitropsis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI! Your help is greatly appreciated. Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll definitely be doing a lot more work there in the future. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Human wave attacks

What gives? I did not use “fandom” sources. I used information from Polish historical societies,Wikipedia,& an online german military history database. Granted, the term “human wave” was not specifically used but given context of documents given it is very safe to assume that this was the case. Return my contribution asap or give proper reasoning. 75.179.168.100 (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The only sources you included were this internet forum and this website. Forums are self-published sources that are not subject to editorial oversight, so they're not considered reliable. The other website is an apparently self-published memorial website that itself does not cite any sources, so it is likely also unreliable. This edit appears to be a copy-paste of this Fandom article. If the Fandom article is itself a copy-paste of a Wikipedia article and you copied the text from another Wikipedia article, you're required to attribute your copying as I described on your talk page. The second part of your statement that the term "human wave" was not mentioned in the documents is also problematic, as it indicates that you wrote the content based on your own novel interpretation of the sources, which is not permitted. (To be fair, I don't know which source(s) you're referring to so I could be incorrect about this.)

I do hope you continue editing Wikipedia—you seem to be knowledgeable and passionate about military history and new contributors are always welcome—but I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners before doing so. Feel free to reply here on my talk page if you have any additional questions, although you might receive a faster and more thorough reply if you visit the Teahouse instead. WikiProject Military history is also a good resource if you're interested in writing about military history. Thanks, — SamX [talk · contribs] 00:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

F101 highway

Hi Sam, trust you are doing very great today. I want to let you know that I fixed some things up regarding this highway at Talk:F101 highway (Nigeria)/Temp. The article was tagged to be having copyright issues and I couldn't find any because the Copyvio detector didn't give be anything useful. But I did some expansion and amendment on that subpage as suggested by the notice. Can you take a look? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Having a look right now, will get back to you momentarily. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: Thanks for reaching out. The draft article isn't terrible from a copyright perspective. I'm somewhat concerned that the route description section may be closely paraphrased from the article's original source, but that's up to an administrator or copyright clerk to decide, not me. Perhaps of greater concern is the inadequate state of sourcing within the draft. None of the sources currently within the draft verify the continued existence of the F101 highway designation, which is contrary to Wikipedia's core policies and principles. I did quite a bit of searching online for sources and all I found was this, which isn't enough to demonstrate that the article meets WP:GNG, and arguably isn't even enough for WP:V as it appears to simply be a copy of the 1977 decree. If I saw the draft article in namespace I would either nominate it for deletion or severely trim down the content that isn't supported by the sources (which is almost all of the article at this point). — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, good day :) This particular highway type (all F highways) is still very much in existence and good use too. I mean, I travel through some of them most of the times. Take a look at the OpenStreetMap relation for this F101 highway. It clearly indicates where it is located, its start points and its endpoint. The reason you and I can't find related web sources is because these highways, whether A road, B road, F road, etc., are mostly not referred to by the media and even others as their A names, they are mostly referred to by their ORIGIN-DESTINATION name. I don't see any way the route description section of the draft looks like a close paraphrase of the gazette.africa website also. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

For example, this is a media coverage of its expansion in 2017. Even though there was no mention of the name "F101 highway" throughout the piece, I am able to tell that it is the F101 road they are referring to because the F101 road is the Ikododu—Epe road. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vanderwaalforces: That's definitely a good start. OpenStreetMap is user-generated and therefore isn't a reliable source, but if you can find a recently published government document that mentions the F101 designation and a handful of media articles (bonus points if they call it the F101), I'm sure that'd be more than enough to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements. I mentioned close paraphrasing because the paragraph structure of the route description is similar to the original government document—that is, a similar series of statements is made in the same order. There's definitely a gray area and I don't think this example is a bright line violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, but I figured I should at least mention it since it may come up when the admin or CCI clerk evaluates your draft. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Pedro Calungsod

Hello, SamX,

I see that you are actively editing and monitoring this article. I added a section on martyrdom that I took from Diego Luis de San Vitores but saw that it was added before and revision deleted as a copyright violation. But when I checked the section on the San Vitores article, it looked like there were some similar phrasing but it wasn't just copied and pasted from the blog listed on [1]. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for finding that, I hadn't been aware that the content was already on another page on Wikipedia. It looks like the text was added to Diego Luis de San Vitores in 2012, while the blog appears to have been created in 2013 based on timestamps from the Wayback Machine. I think you're correct in your assessment that the text was copied from Wikipedia, so it should be fine from a copyright standpoint. I'll add {{backwards copy}} to the talk page momentarily. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a deeper look at the article's history and I'm now convinced the source isn't a backwards copy. It looks like the text in question was added in this series of edits, then removed as a result of this CP report. The page in question was referenced in the article very shortly afterward, indicating that it's most likely a copyright violation. I'll be removing {{backwards copy}} from the talk page and requesting RD1 shortly. — SamX [talk · contribs] 01:37, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

TommyInnit and Tubbo's marriage

Good day, SamX,

I think we have a disagreement over the source(s) I used to make the edit to TommyInnit. You stated that Twitch streams are not permissible sources, but the stream clip in question is a primary source.

Are you suggesting that in order to properly cite this event that actually happened, I'd have to cite an article that writes about Tubbo's stream?! This stream is a primary source, and I think it is only right to use it as a source to confirm Tommy and Tubbo's marriage. Phineas1500 — Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Phineas1500: That is what I'm suggesting. Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources should never be used in biographies of living persons unless the publisher of the source is the person themselves, which is not the case here. Making claims about living people based on unverified statements from third parties creates all sorts of legal and ethical issues, so articles about living people should generally be very selective when it comes to potentially controversial or poorly sourced information. An article about the stream published in a reliable source would be acceptable as long as it independently verified the existence of a marriage certificate. If TommyInnit himself stated that he got married to Tubbo we could potentially include it within the article with attribution (that is, we could write "TommyInnit and Tubbo have stated that they got married in 2023" instead of just flat-out saying "TommyInnit and Tubbo got married in 2023"), although you'd probably get some pushback on that in the spirit of WP:UNDUE—basically, if something isn't mentioned in reliable independent sources, it probably isn't important enough to be included in an article. Thanks for reaching out, and let me know if you have any other questions. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Fix the Operation Claw-Lock

It says PKK victory while the operation is still on-going. 188.57.66.97 (talk) 06:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source that says so, you can make an edit request on the talk page. — SamX [talk · contribs] 14:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for guidance

I appreciate the attention given to potential copyright issues on an article I edited with mostly copy/pasted material. I assumed the edits would be removed if I summarized the information and didn't pull it from a specific source, although I realize that is what I should have done. Will re-edit the article momentarily. Jimmothy1995 (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jimmothy1995: No problem! I strongly encourage you to read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, since that trips up a lot of new editors. Walking the tightrope between writing copyright-compliant content and not adding original research can be difficult, so I recommend summarizing the sources in such a way that your text ends up being much shorter than the relevant passages from the sources. Some users also find taking notes as an intermediate step to be helpful, since it's easy to unintentionally reuse verbiage from sources if you're looking at the sources as you write. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, and happy editing! — SamX [talk · contribs] 04:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Request on 21:47:10, 29 October 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Emrah GBL

• Emrah GBL (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Direct-to-Film (DTF) Printing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi i didnt promote any group or company, why you declined my article? there is a blank in this topic. Emrah GBL (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Emrah GBL: The draft you wrote (which has since been deleted) read like a persuasive essay encouraging people to use direct-to-film printing. This is now how encyclopedic articles should be written. Instead, they should be neutral and objective, without editorializing or step-by-step tutorials. Your draft was also completely unreferenced. Citing sources is essential for ensuring that an article is accurate and verifiable. Wikipedia:Your first article has some good guidance on this. — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Harvey's Bristol Milk

Hi Sam

I see that you have deleted my contribution to the Harvey's piece. I'd be grateful if you can advise me on how to edit it. Pascal.de.Rascal (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Pascal.de.Rascal: Sure thing. I removed the text you added to John Harvey & Sons because it was copied from an external website with no indication that it was public domain or released under a compatible license. Wikipedia does not accept copyrighted text, so you'll have to write using your own words with inline citations to reliable sources. I encourage you to check out Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and the links provided in the welcome message I left on your talk page for more information. Feel free to follow up here if you have any other questions, although you may receive a quicker and more thorough reply if you ask at the Teahouse instead. — SamX [talk · contribs] 22:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A small note

Hey, I noticed you have been doing some work on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20231015. But you seem to have forgotten to request revision deletion via {{Copyvio-revdel}}. Please fix ASAP! Thanks, — MATRIX! (a good person!)^{[citation unneeded]} 18:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Matrix: Thanks for helping out with copyright cleanup, it's much appreciated! Not all copyvios require redaction. Smaller copyvios, small-scale cases of close paraphrasing, and very old copyvios with many subsequent revisions usually aren't redacted. Of course, there's no one size fits all rule, and WP:RD1 leaves quite a bit of room for the tagging editor or admin to exercise their discretion. I've requested RD1 for one of the pages in the CCI, but I haven't done so for most of the pages because the copyvios are fairly small. With that said it's certainly possible that my interpretation isn't the best, and you're welcome to request redaction yourself if you think it's necessary. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)