User talk:Centuryofconfusion

Welcome!

Hello, Centuryofconfusion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

There is a lot there you need to read, hope it helps Please also be aware that any article associated with troubles is subject to a whole set of restrictions with associated sanctions

Snowded ^TALK 10:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding The Troubles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. }}--John (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

--John (talk) 17:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, For your information Snowded was recently blocked. See the abridged transcript below and take note. This is Snowded talking below. Not me.

Really? A block is meant to prevent edit warring and follows a warning. I had stopped making changes to the article and I see no warning. - - - - -.----Snowded TALK 21:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC) FWIW, should you think about bringing up my past again, in the related content dispute? Due keep in mind that I pushed for the both of you to be unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC) I think you should consider your part in encouraging DMCQ when you know the history and the issues. Remember I supported your rehabilitation and thus was disappointed to see you reverting to old habits. ----Snowded TALK 21:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Ok.Seeing as the danger has passed, I've unblocked you and Dmrq. The article page remains protected. - - - - - - More discussions are always good. DDStretch (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC) Just for the record - a block, per the rules, should not be imposed without a warning and the danger had passed before you imposed it. Going three reverts to get back to the original text on a subject where vandalism is the order of the day is not unreasonable. Bad block, much as I like like you, it was a bad block ----Snowded TALK 03:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Actually,m I agree with you, and I really must apologize to you about this. Of course, I can't undo the record, but I should not have done this. I will make sure it won't ever happen again to anyone at my hands. Once again, my apologies. DDStretch (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

DDSretch admitted it was a bad bock and he apologized. It's nice to see that there are reasonable people around.

Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting posts

Howdy. I think you should read up a little on WP:INDENT. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

If you are having an issue over content, I would suggest going to WP:DR/N, and you can work it out. -ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We'll see what happens. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text== June 2016 ==

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--John (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please elaborate. I don't know what copyright violations you are talking about, and I was certainly never warned about anything to do with this. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many copyright violations have you made? --John (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one I spotted was here; compare this. It will be to your advantage if you can be honest with me. Are there any others? --John (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many copyright violations have you made? --John (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, I really don't know what you are talking about. It might be best if you were to restore the text, because it involved quite a lot of hard work. Then point out to me where you think the copyright violations are, as you see it, and I will be able to deal with it in a more collaborative manner. I was mainly working from text that was written in 1859 where the 50 year copyright has expired. I made a point of not making it verbatim. I altered the wording in some cases to fit into the flow of the existing text. Perhaps some clauses were verbatim, and if that is what you are concerned about, then please say so and I can do some re-wording. The edits were good. They made a clear distinction between the date of the closing of the gates and the date in which the siege began in earnest. It was the beginnings of a general improvement to this article. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After edit conflict. I'll now look at the examples that you have provided. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've looked at your examples. Some of it was verbatim, but it was generally re-worded to fit in with the flow. And it was referenced. And it's a 19th century source. And you've changed the relief date back to 28th July, which is wrong. The boom was broken on 30th July, but the besiegers weren't driven away until 31st July. You removed a lot of good edits along with the few bits that were verbatim, and if that is a problem, then you should have let me know rather than imposing a 48 hour block and doing a wholesale revert. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:PLAG, and please answer my question. Is this the only time you have done this? --John (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it. There was no plagiarism. The information came from a 19th century source which was acknowledged. The lede was entirely my own wording. There may have been some verbatim clauses in the lower section, and if that is a problem you should have drawn it to my attention. Regarding your question, I can't answer it because I don't acknowledge that plagiarism has taken place. All due credit was supplied. But reading further, I do see what you are saying. You are saying that the bits that were verbatim should have been presented in the text as Macaulay quotes in addition to the in-line reference. If that is your point, yes then it is the first time I have done this. I hadn't actually finished either. I was intending to read it again this week and re-word in the areas that were verbatim. For example I would have changed the word "whelp" to "puppy". But the important thing was first to get a coherent order to the events. Had the source been newer than 50 years, I would not have been so lax as I am aware that copyright is not an issue for 19th century sources.Centuryofconfusion (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see now, on looking at this closer, the allegation of plagiarism would apply, but only to this one edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Derry&diff=723582329&oldid=723577710 It was not a wholesale copying however. It was selected sentences specially chosen and edited for the purpose. But I can see now that according to your rules, since full sentences were involved, that this action was wrong, but that it has nothing to do with copyright. And as it was copyright that you blocked me for, this caused confusion which could have been avoided had you simply explained my error on the talk page. May I suggest, that as I didn't know about this rule, that you re-revert and I will immediately re-word the offending passage (when I come on-line again). Macaulay won't be suing in a hurry. And now that I know about this rule, it will not happen again, although I'm not pleased that you chose to block without first giving a warning and explaining. Remember, I was reading through a paper book, noting down the relevant sentences, and that was the best way to start in my opinion. But now I know better. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I have altered the offending edit to read,

Meanwhile a relief expedition under the command of Colonel Percy Kirke set sail from Liverpool on 22nd May. On 15th June, by which stage horseflesh was the only meat available to be purchased, and even then in scarce supply, hope appeared on the horizon for the citizens besieged within the walls of the city. Sails were spotted nine miles off at the entrance to Lough Foyle. There were thirty vessels in all. A secret message from the fleet got past the Irish sentinels and through to the city informing the besieged that Colonel Kirke had arrived from England with an army and some supplies. But this early hope soon gave way to six more weeks of misery. Kirke thought it would be unsafe to try and break the lines of the besieging army and he continued to wait inactive. By late July, famine and disease had reduced the population in the city more so than had been done by enemy fire. Those few who could afford it purchased dogs that had been fattened on the blood of the slain. A puppy's paw cost five shillings and sixpence. People hunted and ate rats, and all this time the relief ships could be seen inactive in the distance. Towards the end of July, a dispatch was sent to Colonel Kirke from England ordering him to relieve the city. On 28 July, two armed merchant ships, Mountjoy and Phoenix, sailed toward the defensive boom (floating barrier) across the River Foyle at Culmore fort, protected by the frigate HMS Dartmouth under Captain John Leake. Mountjoy rammed and broke the boom, and the rest of the ships followed behind and sailed to the city. Many tons of food were unloaded and the siege was relieved although it wasn't until the 31st July that the besiegers guns fell silent.[5]

I'd be much obliged if you could undo your wholesale revert and I will immediately replace the offending edit with the above material, all interpreted in my own wording from Macaulay's 19th century source, not close enough to the source material to be accused of plagiarism, but close enough not to be accused of original research. Until today, I had no idea that verbatim sentences from a source in which copyright had expired would cause a problem. But now I know. And thank you for bringing this important little detail to my attention. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will unblock you if you promise not to copy sources unattributed into articles again as you understand that this is plagiarism. If you are unsure, make your proposal in article talk first and let a more experienced editor make the edit for you. Deal? --John (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John, but no. While I acknowledge that a wikipedia rule was broken, I do not recognize that this amounted to plagiarism within the normal dictionary meaning of the word. Wikipedia articles are mostly edited anonymously by people using pseudonyms, and they are read by people who are not aware of who has contributed which particular sentence. It's a new situation. In my case, after having been told at another article that all edits must be backed up exactly by what is written in reliable sources, I took great care to select sentences from a 19th century source and I placed them together in a coherent fashion in order to improve the article. The source which I used was clearly referenced in the article and so it cannot be reasonably alleged that I was trying to claim credit for Macaulay's work, as per the dictionary definition of plagiarism. I was unaware of the wikipedia rule which you are now enforcing and it was your duty to warn me. I have now read the rule carefully, and it spells it out clearly that you had no right to block unless I had been warned about the rule and continued to offend. The only deal therefore that I can make is to give you my assurance that I will take careful note of the rule in the future and I will not offend again. If that means having to let the 48 hour block stand then that's the way it will have to be. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from my talk

Hi John, Regarding that recent block, it's done now and we can't go back. But in all fairness to myself there was never any intent to plagiarize within the generally understood meaning of the word, which normally implies dishonesty by virtue of trying to claim credit for somebody else's work. When you first initiated the block did you think that I had simply copied and pasted from the source? I certainly didn't do that. I was carefully working my way through a printed book selecting sentences as were relevant to make a summary of the chronology of events. I do know now that it's contrary to Wikipedia policy to use complete verbatim sentences from a source, and it won't happen again. But meanwhile I think it's only fair that you re-word the reasons for the unblock to something more neutral. It's up to yourself, but it would be more true to write something along the lines of "misunderstanding of no original research rule". I was only trying to avoid the accusation of having made my own interpretation of the sentences, and I knew that fifty years had passed since the death of the author. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you now appreciate that we cannot copy and paste verbatim extracts from a source into articles without attributing the source or identifying it as a quotation from a source, as you did here. This is precisely square in the centre of anybody's definition of plagiarism. It is lazy and dishonest, and would cause you to fail at secondary school level if you submitted this for a school project. It is indeed, as you put it, "dishonesty by virtue of trying to claim credit for somebody else's work". I should perhaps have warned you before blocking you, if you really did not think there would be a problem with this edit, although it calls your honesty and competence as an editor into question. I was influenced in blocking you by the fact that you had recently been blocked for related misbehaviour in a related area. I will issue you with a one-second block making clear that you were blocked for "misunderstanding of the nature of plagiarism", and not copyright breach. It is likely that the text of History of England from the Accession of James II by Thomas Babington Macaulay, published between 1848 and 1861, would qualify as public domain for our purposes, so I was mistaken to mark your block as one made for copyright violation; the block reason should have been plagiarism and disruptive editing. Having said all that, I remain concerned at the overall tenor of your editing, and would counsel you to be very careful that your strong POV about matters of Irish history and vexillology does not lead you into further difficulties. I note your comments here and would consider this as evidence of an ongoing problem with your attitude to Wikipedia. Would you consider avoiding these areas for a while until you learn the ropes a wee bit? I think having someone new getting the hang of our protocols and procedures in an area where you have a strong point of view which is under Arbcom sanctions may cause further friction and disruption if you so continue. --John (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Thanks. Yes I'll hold back from editing for a while until I see more people becoming involved. I'll take a back seat as observer for few weeks. I do however still disagree that plagiarism was involved, because it was article content which wasn't appearing in the public domain as being credited to any particular name in the real world, and the Macaulay source was listed in the references. I took it as a rigid application of keeping strictly to reliable sources without altering the meaning of the sentences. But if there is a rule against verbatim sentence reproductions, which there is, then I can assure you it will be obeyed in the future. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And just one final point. I have already told you that I did not copy and paste anything. It would never have crossed my mind to do that, so I wish you wouldn't keep accusing me of having done it. I was using a printed paper source and I did not copy anything in block. I did hard work in reading through a lot of material and selecting sentences for the purpose of making a short summary of the events and conditions leading up to the relief. So please try to take more care when you are making accusations of a serious nature. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to clarify this. You wrote, for example,:
Meanwhile an expedition thought to be sufficient for the relief of the city was despatched from Liverpool under the command of Colonel Percy Kirke. Kirke's troops embarked on the 16th May and set sail on the 22nd. On 15th June when a scanty supply of horseflesh was the only meat available to be purchased, a gleam of hope appeared amongst the besieged in the city. The sentinels on top of the cathedral saw sails nine miles off in the bay of Lough Foyle. It was a fleet of warships under Admiral Rooke, thirty vessels in all. A messenger from the fleet eluded the Irish sentinels and informed the besieged garrison that Kirke had arrived from England with troops, arms, ammunition, and provisions, to relieve the city.

The source has:
So early as June 8, horseflesh was almost the only meat which could be purchased; and of horseflesh the supply was scanty. On the fifteenth of June a gleam of hope appeared. The sentinels on the top of the Cathedral saw sails nine miles off in the bay of Lough Foyle. Thirty vessels of different sizes were counted. Signals were made from the steeples and returned from the mast heads, but were imperfectly understood on both sides. At last a messenger from the fleet eluded the Irish sentinels, dived under the boom, and informed the garrison that Kirke had arrived from England with troops, arms, ammunition, and provisions, to relieve the city.

Whether you copied it mechanically or typed it manually, this is plagiarism and you must be very careful never to commit it again. If you are unsure, check with another, more experienced editor before adding it. --John (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An afterthought: this link may be of interest to you. --John (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, Nope. I still don't see it. There is one verbatim sentence in your example and since it lacks creativity, it is not plagiarism. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism Centuryofconfusion (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well as I said if you still do not see it, all the more reason to get consensus from more experienced editors before adding material. Because this is right down the middle of plagiarism. --John (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John, It is you who needs to learn the meaning of the word plagiarism. There has to be an opinion or a creative idea involved, which in this case there wasn't. It was merely an historical narrative and the source was listed. There was no creative idea to plagiarize, and there was nobody claiming any credit for any creative idea belonging to somebody else. It was not plagiarism in any recognized sense of the term. It was a simple case of historical narrative being entered while keeping strictly to a fully acknowledged reliable source. The information was carefully edited to keep with the flow of the article text. You need to accept that you made a mistake. You acted too hastily and performed a bad block. You got it wrong first time round with the copyright allegation and then again with the plagiarism allegation. Did you not read the section "what is not plagiarism?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism . Centuryofconfusion (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Beaufort

The idea that this edit is ... to avoid dispute.... is laughable. It is actually starting a dispute. The article has said he is an Irish hydrographer since 2012. You are the one disputing this. Fob.schools (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]