User talk:Crow/Archive 4

Reworded it

I have reworded the text. Please check to see if it is correct. ThanksTowns_Hill 00:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talk • contribs)

Thanks for responding! It is a bit better, but is still a close paraphrase of the source. A few words have been changed and some quotes converted to prose, but the overall flow, sentence by sentence, is still very close. Consider this listing, showing the text before and after the re-write:[1] One can easily put the 2 side by side and follow the flow exactly.

This sort of thing can often be a problem when trying to re-word exiting copyrighted text rather than starting from scratch. My advice would be to remove the text entirely, read the source pages thoroughly until you could (for example) explain verbally to another what you're trying to say, and then write the text that way without having the source open. That way it ensures everything is in your own words. Thanks! Crow^Caw 22:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute - Obrenovic dinasty

Please check Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Obrenovi.C4.87_dynasty. Thank you! N Jordan (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote section

I have rewritten the text on the page 'wartime sexual violence'. Please check to see if it is correct this time. Thank you.Towns_Hill 09:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talk • contribs)

About that vandalism 4im warning you sent me

Well,i have some questions to you about the vandalism 4im warning you sent me yesterday. How is creating a single redirect page considered 4im vandalism? I dont understand,because one user sent me a level 1 warning before you,not a 4im warning. I would like to know why was it immediately considered severe 4im vandalism. Again,this is just a question,not meant to insult you or offend you. Just asking,anyways,gonna wait for your answer.Eric8123 (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric8123: The 4im warning (nice that you know the shorthand term for that...) wasn't only due to a single redirect, even one described as a joke. That redirect just caught my eye and had me look at your other contributions: Adding pornographic pics to a page with the summary "Reverting vandalism", then later saying it was just a prank, prodding articles like Earned run as "not notable", etc. You've made some good edits but too many "playing around" edits, so the warning was to cut out the playing. Crow^Caw 14:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About GFL Changes

@ Crow I just want to know where do you find promotional content? I have gone through different Wikipedia pages for example this page content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inox_Wind. The same way edited the content from my end. Its a group of companies so I have covered all the topics. Kindly suggest what type of changes do you exactly need since I have added appropriate information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarat_Fluorochemicals_Limited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.39.130.134 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, much of the content is pulled from their web site, making it a copyright violation. Other factual (non-copyrightable) material that come across as promotional include parts like their financial condition (cash, credit rating, etc), that is more suited for a sales glossy than an encyclopedia article. The primary problem with the removed content was copyright though. Crow^Caw 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@103.39.130.134: See my individual edits which describe the specific reasons for each. I'll be happy to discuss promotional content and how to rephrase it, but please do not re-add copyrighted content. Thanks, Crow^Caw 19:09, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Crow I believe there is no such copyright issues. I am bit confused why did you delete "Inox Group" section as its a group of companies and second "product section", It has just one line with appropriate citation. Kindly guide me what should I do to get that section back and avoid to repeat this rework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.39.130.134 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That section was copied from http://www.gfl.co.in/ which asserts copyright. You can certainly add a section on the Inox Group, but do so in your own words. The basic facts are free of copyright of course, but text like "INOX Group is a family owned, professionally managed business group, with market leadership in diverse businesses including..." among others, is considered creative content, thus must be written in your own words. Crow^Caw 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Crow thanks for your prompt response, I got your point. Do I need to get content approval from you before I post to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.39.130.134 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC) −[reply]

Not at all! I think you understand my concerns, so feel free, and thanks! Crow^Caw 19:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation?

In this edit you blanked a large section of Complex agent representations for crowd simulations with the summary "copyright violations". Can you identify the source from which the text was copied? In cases like this, rather than deleting the offending material, it is more proper to place the subst'ed {{copyvio}} template on the page, and list the offending page at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This will allow an admin to investigate the issue, and redact the page as necessary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually still investigating this to see if this is indeed foundational and warranting a WP:CP listing or a G12 speedy, or if it was just that section in which case removing the infringing content is appropriate. Crow^Caw 20:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: After further investigation by myself and Diannaa, it is likely that the entire article is cobbled together from multiple sources. We've found 2 or 3, though paywalls are obscuring a full analysis. Interestingly enough, the poor grammar that you fixed appears verbatim in at least one of the sources... Crow^Caw 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiDan61: Hi guys, I am the creator of the page Complex_agent_representations_for_crowd_simulations. Thank you for contributing to the page. The page mainly wrote by me and my classmates. We are all from the same class and the reason we did this is because the professor asked as to create wiki page to introduce latest knowledge, e.g. algorithm, about computer graphics among required topics. Because all of the topics are really new field about computer graphics, so the only thing we can do is summarize the information from latest publications and articles. Is that ok to do so or this also violate the copyright? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you! tn215 cs^{tn215 cs} 22:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tn215 cs: You are free to summarize the articles you cite, as long as you do so using your own words. Equations are equations; if you duplicate them from the source, that can't really be called a copyright violation. But the prose that surrounds the equations has to be your own words. The fact that you reference sections and equations that don't exist in the text is pretty clear evidence that you just lifted the text verbatim from whatever source you used, and that is definitely not allowed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 01:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:Thank you for telling me that. I didn't do the equation part. It was one of my classmates who added that part. I don't know who this person is as the only thing I know is his or her wiki username. So I will erase that part and leave a massage to his or her wiki user page. Is that ok? Also, I saw Crow first added copy violation at the "agent representation" part, which is editored by mself. For the former part of it, I use my own words to summarize, although it is the same actual meanning in the refered article. For the later part, I picked up the key sentences from the article. It is the orgin sentences, but I picked one or two from differnent paragraphs to better summarize the whole central points of the passage. Is that allowed or I still need to use my own words to rephrase the sentences. Because the rephrase will really be almost the same meaning of the sentences and sometimes the origin sentences in the refered article is more precise. So what should I do? Juts rephrase any sentences that was same as the sentences in the refered article, or I can use several orginal sentences to better express the meaning? Thank you!tn215 cs^{tn215 cs} 01:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tn215 cs: Well no, Dan was saying that the equations are fine, since they aren't copyrightable. The issue is with the prose (text) of the article. It was barely paraphrased, with whole blocks of text directly copied from the source. We have bots that scan recent changes, and they flagged the "agent representation" part as a direct copy with only the first sentence changed. All that must be 100% in your own words. Think of it as if you read the source, closed the book, and then described the concepts to a friend verbally. That's the sort of paraphrase we need to avoid violating copyrights. Crow^Caw 22:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page mover granted

Hello, Crow. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

Hello! Can you please retrive for me the the page: The Decisive Hour of Christian Missions (since I want to look at it, since I feel, I had nothing to do with it, did not create the page, nor alter texts. Please give me a link where I can read it>>! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christof Bucherer (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Christof Bucherer: Hi, I can't see that content now that it has been deleted. The message you got from me was automated so it is possible it made a mistake and notified the wrong person. That can happen if the page was created by an IP and subsequently moved around, for example. The page was deleted by Bogdangiusca who may be able to get you a copy of the content if needed. If you set an email by clicking the "Preferences" link in the upper-right that will probably make it easier. Thanks, Crow^Caw 16:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its ok! I leave it! I know John Mott and read a book about him in young years. It was one of our literature which we had to read during a leaders course for Christian Pathfinders of YMCA called "Jungschar".^[1] (this shows the influence John Mott still has on the YMCA/CVJM in Europe. --Christof Bucherer (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.cvjm-muenchen.org/en/hall-of-residence/application/

New Page Review needs your help

Hi Crow,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No comercial reuse licence" on Wikipedia?

Hi Crow, I recently updated the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory article and you've removed a large amount of text content with your edit. Could you please refer me to the Wikipedia guidance on licences and explain specially how Wikipedia as a non-profit can't use a "no commercial use licence"? — RW Marloe (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RW Marloe: Absolutely! The reason we can't use non-commercial licensed material is that Wikipedia is published under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License which allows our re-users (anyone really) to re-use our content for any purposes, including commercial ones. So if the source has specified "non-commercial", then WP doesn't have the legal right to then tell others they can use it commercially. Any content we re-use/adapt/import must be published under a free license that permits re-use, derivative works, and commercial uses. You can see the quick reference table of what licenses are and are not compatible at WP:COMPLIC. In this particular case, though, the actual specific words don't seem to be as important as the principles they outline, so a paraphrasing of the ruling would not take anything away from understanding, nor would it have copyright concerns. I hope this helps; I know copyright and license issues don't always make sense, so I'd be glad to elaborate if needed. Thanks for your work! Crow^Caw 22:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarity and advice. I had forgotten this, it's an important reminder. I had thought generally a court's ruling is public and was perhaps fair use or fair dealing, though the ICJ website disclaimer does state; "Information or data contained on this site may not be reproduced or used for commercial purposes". I've attempted to paraphrase the referenced article added if you'd like to check. Thank you again Crow for your help. — RW Marloe (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Crow.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Hobart

Hello,

I came along this article from the NewPagesFeed and thought I'd work on it.

You posted a {{CCBYSASource}} on the James Hobart article. Just to ensure that I'm reading this right:

the content needs to be paraphrased
I am assuming once that is done, the {{CCBYSASource}} may be removed.

Is that right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Well yes and no. Since the source was published CCBYSA, it is ok to leave it as long as it is attributed, which is what that tag means. It's not a problem-tag, just a license compliance tag, so it is fine to do nothing. If you do decide to paraphrase the content, there still needs to be attribution, since that content was copied into the page, even if deleted later. However, an edit summary with a link would be sufficient if you want the CC tag gone. Like I said, it is not a tag that indicates a problem, and in fact is used on lots of pages. Crow^Caw 17:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see.
I did paraphrase the content as best I could. Sometimes it's tricky if the sentence = date + assigned position + "assigned"
I guess the next step is adding it back, since you identified the point at which the DNB info was copied in.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Crow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Crow,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Your edits of the Paul McCandless Page

Hello.

Would you be open to discussing the edits you're been making to the Paul McCandless page?

I made some changes that you undid, and I'd like to learn how to edit the page without causing problems.

Thank you.

Jon Krosnick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.18.159 (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@71.183.18.159: Hi, glad to discuss anything I do! On that page someone removed a block of text because it was found out on the net. You restored it, stating that the text was written for Wikipedia and that other sites may have picked it up. This does happen all the time, so I looked into it. Some of that text appeared on other web sites a month or 2 before it was added here, so I removed it, and left the rest. I'm only human, despite the name, so if I made an error in dating the material here and on the Internet, let me know and we can fix it.

Interestingly, some of the added text that I left later appeared on the same Internet site. If you were involved with writing on the other site (and you do not have to confirm this here), then there may be ways to allow all of that text, if you were the one who wrote it. If not, then copied material must always be removed, since we give all Wikipedia content away for free; we have to make sure that we have the legal right to do so, and with stuff others have written, we usually don't.

Hope this helps, and feel free to ask me anything any time! Crow^Caw 18:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Crow. Thanks for your note above. I have put back on the McCandless page all the text that I wrote and that has been removed, plus I added some updates. I guarantee that I wrote all of this text before it appeared anywhere. I am writing to you today so that we can be sure the text is not removed again because of concerns about plagiarism. How can I help provide that assurance?

Thank you!!!

All the best,

Jon Krosnick

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Crow,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Improve the tools: Vote here.
Reduce your review load: Vote here

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crow. You have new messages at JohnThorne's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Indicate a Talkback

Hi. I responded to your message about my edit a few days ago, but I have no idea how to trigger a talkback notification on your Talk page so you know I did that. I can't find answers in Help, so I am leaving you this note here (which you can delete). Please share the right way to indicate a Talkback, and I will do it correctly next time. Thanks. --Sbwinter2 (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Crow,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Crow,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KG 54 and Adlertag

FYI - I did the Adlertag article and I have all the sources. Dapi89 (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dapi89: I saw that yes. My edit summary was just to provide attribution in a form required by our publishing license; since many others contributed in various degrees to that article, they all have to be acknowledged. That edit summary, with a link back to the source page, is considered sufficient any time material is copied from one Wikipedia article to another. Thanks for your work! Crow^Caw 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big j 97‎

Thanks for tagging that one. I forgot it when I put the target up for speedy. Meters (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit filter manager

...have you considered requesting edit filter manager rights [2]... or even adminship? I think your chances would be pretty good, despite the lesser focus on content creation. You do an awful lot of admin-y things, so the toolset should help you, if you want it :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MusikAnimal: Until I saw CM's section, I didn't think this was granted to non admins, except in extraordinary circumstances (e.g. someone on the EF boards daily, rather than my less-frequent contributions). That said, I think it would be quite useful to have (read-only of course), as I mentioned on CM's section, especially now that I know that a lot of what I suggest is better served for the mailing list due to Beans. And of course I've been waiting to enable 2FA which would be possible here.

As far as admin goes, I'm a bit more hesitant. The toolset would certainly help tremendously in Copyright patrol, but I don't know that it's something I want to pursue right now, and I'm not sure that I'm "well rounded" enough to meet the community's expectations in other areas anyway. Thanks for the thought though! Crow^Caw 16:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Crow. You have new messages at Talk:Janet Martin Welch.
Message added 15:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the madonna

Thanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio-revdel

Hi there. When you revert an unambiguous copyright violation, please tag the article with {{copyvio-revdel}}, for example Special:Diff/780058373. If there's more than a single revison that needs deleting, you can specify that as well, see the template docs. I recommend always clicking on the revision link(s) in the template message to double-check it's showing the correct diff adding the copyrighted content (and removing it if you are specifying a range), as it's easy to be off by one with the revision IDs. There's good advice on how to choose the correct IDs in the template docs. It's important to fully redact the copyrighted material from public access. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I typically do, as you would see from my contributions. I actually had this page's history open in tabs to do just that, but for "reasons" did not get that completed. Thanks for tagging that one, Crow^Caw 18:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. I didn't think to check your contribs, just thought you were not aware of it. I fully sympathise with getting distracted, Wikipedia is good at providing distractions. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe B. Jackson

This is really getting tiresome. The source of the alleged violation for Joe B. Jackson, [3], does not at all claim to be licensed. The footer very clearly states, "All material released by Claybourn Genealogical Society, Inc. to the public domain". How do I know this? Because I own, operate, and run that website. I released it fully to the public domain, and was sure to note it on the website. Perhaps you need to refresh your page? Regardless, please stop deleting a page for copyright violations when no such violation exists.--YHoshua (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@YHoshua: Apologies, it appears I did have a cached version. The new page's release is perfect. I do sympathise that this was getting tiresome but as a copyright owner i hope you can appreciate our desire to protect your intellectual property until it is clearly released by you (and not someone claiming to be you, etc). I'll remove the tag and make the appropriate notations for future reviewers. Crow^Caw 21:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Crow,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CorenBot..

Have you got any idea why CSB suddenly went down?There were problems with losing Yahoo's search index but apparently this was resolved.Just intereseted, since I came across this thread.Thanks!Winged Blades^Godric 05:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WB, Coren's bot stopped when Yahoo discontinued their BOSS service. The WMF searched and evaluated several replacements over a few months, during which time Coren went somewhat inactive. WMF finally settled on Google after some legal wrangling over their terms of service. Coren re-coded his bot to use that, and it worked for a week or so, then crashed. He restarted it after a week's absence, and it ran for 2-3 days then stopped again (either crashed or he stopped it). I pinged and emailed him many times and asked other WMF to try and check with him too. He had left the employ of the WMF by that time so they had no inside path to him, and I've not heard a word from him since then. I think that Copy Patrol has made the bot somewhat redundant, and its interface is easier to deal with in terms of closing reports than the old WP:SCV was. So that's the story... a bit long but probably good to have chronicled it for the record. Crow^Caw 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.That's an excellent chronicle and quenches my inquisitiveness to the full!

.Winged Blades^Godric 03:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

flight Gear

Sorry, I had to try that, I think that was thefirst time I had this combination. ;) As list of mentionings + refs you would also consider it below copyright threshold? I would do that, and than build up the prose again. cheers Shaddim (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shaddim: No worries, it's often surprising when a free license isn't "free enough". But yes, a raw list of users, even with your own description not using any of the verbiage from the source, would be fine. It was all the extra descriptions and such that had the problem, as they were someone's creative expression. Thanks! Crow^Caw 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, when paraphrasing the source, if you include only what they included in the same order, and omit everything else that they also omitted, then it can still be too close of a paraphrase even if the words are all yours. I'd suggest only including what's absolutely necessary for now. See WP:PARAPHRASE for more on that. Crow^Caw 15:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

eh.... the version got already deleted I put significant formating work into... could this version please put in my userspace or sent by mail ? thank you Shaddim (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately copyrighted stuff has to be deleted like that and can't be restored. Your edit summary in the article though contained the url to the material in question. Crow^Caw 17:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes,this was the source but I did already extensive edit work on the base material. I will ask the deleting admin for the material. cheers Shaddim (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move of B-boying possibly premature

Hi Crow, I just noticed the move of B-boying, as discussed at Talk:Breakdancing#Requested move 19 May 2017. A previous, similar move request for this page (now at Talk:Breakdancing/Archive 1#move to Breakdance) was fairly extensive, lasted two weeks and failed to reach consensus. Given that, it seems unlikely to me that a brief strawpoll of three editors, which did not examine the topic in nearly as much detail or with as much attention to Wikipedia guidelines, is sufficient. I'm thinking relisting or reviewing this discussion might be appropriate. What do you think? Ibadibam (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at prior discussions as well and in general the consensus (at the rm and indeed over time) seems to be for "breakdancing" or to a lesser extent "breaking". The move to B-boying came after a similar low-attendance poll (with several new accounts at the time who never edited shortly thereafter), where one of the strongest proponent's argument was "fact is, it is called b-boying", and where other participants were in favor of merging useful content without expressing a preferred title. That said, I would not be opposed to a wider RFC - not just another proposed rename, but listing it at RFC so it gets listed in other places and perhaps resulting in better attendance. Crow^Caw 17:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Do you recall where the older RM to b-boying is? I didn't come across that particular section when I was reviewing past discussions. Ibadibam (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't an official RM but a talk page discussion. I think you've since linked to it on the talk page. Crow^Caw 21:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thanks. Ibadibam (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+EFM

Given there were no concerns raised during the seven day discussion, I have closed the thread and assigned you edit filter manager rights -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 14:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Crow^Caw 00:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hammond Island, Queensland and CC attribution

I believe this is OK as it was because the source material is CC-BY-4.0 which is OK according to the table in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. It is CC-BY-SA-4.0 material that is problematic for the GFDL (I won't claim I understand the distinction, just quoting from the table). While I realise it is probably possible to use an attribution template here, the Hammond Island article was set up to be used in a training class on Monday, and I don't want to have to introduce the folks to templates (some will be complete beginners others will still be quite new to Wikipedia), so I need to keep it simple. If this is a problem for some reason, I can fix it after Monday's session. Thanks Kerry (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond: Yes you are correct, it is only the BY-SA 4 that's not compatible. (The reason being is that the Share-Alike for 4.0 specifies that reusers must publish under "4.0 or later" which we can't yet do here). BY-4.0 is indeed fine. Good luck on Monday! Crow^Caw 16:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Crow, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Rankings copyvios

Per your comment, are you planning to bring those lists up on the Copyright board? I was going to XFD them, but I agree with your reasoning that they are copyvios so that should take precedence. --Muhandes (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: Thanks, I've been on vacation, so thanks for the reminder. Listed at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. Crow^Caw 16:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: The listing seems to have garnered little participation, so perhaps an AfD would be in order. Crow^Caw 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(re-ping for incorrect brackets above @Muhandes: Crow^Caw 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I think the same reasoning I suggested for the first list applies to the rest as well, on top of WP:CIL. I'll initiate the AfD tomorrow or next week when I have the time, or you can just go ahead and do it and I'll participate. --Muhandes (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crow's latest, well-deserved shiny thing

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your wisdom, patience and extraordinary willingness to "go the extra mile" in resolving the issues at Willie J. Hagan. Your assistance was invaluable and genuinely appreciated. Bravo, Crow! X4n6 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Phillip Jackson

Hey Crow,

In addition to your ongoing help at Willie J. Hagan, I wanted to bring Phillip Jackson to your attention. It's as blatant a cut 'n paste job as it gets. They even included the quotation marks for the entire article! Cheers. X4n6 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes looks like the quote is providing all the content which runs afoul of Transformation. I'll leave a comment to that effect as it is a common misconception... yet another vaguery of Copyright on WP. Crow^Caw 17:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't even aware of "transformative use" myself! Always grateful to learn something new. Oddly enough, I tried to link to the Nolo.com's legal encyclopedia page on it, only to discover that Nolo is apparently on Wikipedia:Spam blacklist! So I learned two things today. Thanks again. X4n6 (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! And thanks for the below shiny thing! Crow^Caw 22:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking me is so unnecessary, because again, I need to be thanking you! You earned it! I just wish there was something more than barnstars.

But also, (unless you're sick of working with me), I was reminded that two other articles I created and another I worked on, also got sucked into this same vortex, by the same source. I was so annoyed, I abandoned the fight to fix them. But now that I've encountered a copyvio collaborator (instead of a bomb-thrower), I'd be willing to work to restore them, if you'd be willing to help. Each subject deserved better than it got. They are/were: the now-deleted Suzi Bass Award; Mike Nussbaum, which is a shell of its former self; and Jack Mitchell (photographer). The Mitchell article is particularly unfortunate. I'd personally contacted him to request that he consider donating every photo that now populates the incredible gallery on his article. Amazingly, he agreed! We filled out OTRS tickets for each and they all became fantastic infobox photos. We collaborated on his BLP and he was extremely pleased - and proud - of the result. So what's happened since, personally saddens me. Because of his extraordinarily generous contributions, this project owes him better. Also, recently I got an email from his estate, asking if I could help restore his article to the version he so enjoyed. It was painful to tell them that I didn't think I was the right person to do it, because I knew any contribution I made would be excessively scrutinized by the person who'd originally who tagged it. Sorry to bore you with all this background, but hopefully it helps explain my position. But now, with your help, I'd like to fix it. Certainly you're not obligated. But I think the project itself owes him (at least), a solid article. Many thanks again! X4n6 (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@X4n6: Happy to help out with those as well. I can't see the purged material but I can certainly assist in returning them to a good state in whatever capacity I can. Crow^Caw 22:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic news! As always, thanks so much. I had actually hoped to pull up those deleted and reverted pages to use their sources; and avoid their pitfalls. Is there any way to retrieve them? An admin perhaps? X4n6 (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging our friendly copyright admin Diannaa for her opinion, but admins will rarely restore copyrighted content, and never to the wiki directly. I think in this case that's probably better, as I've found that trying to re-write existing copy to avoid a copyvio is much more difficult that just re-writing it paraphrasing from the sources. Crow^Caw 17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi X4n6. I can't restore copyvio content to this wiki, not even temporarily for editing, but I would be happy to send them to you by email. If you would like to provide a list of which articles and which particular versions you would like to view, I will send to you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Under your watchful eye, Crow, I'm sure there won't be any issues. But I'm mostly interested in the sources anyway, so I don't have to restart all the research from scratch. Also thanks, Diannaa. If you would email the versions of these 3 articles from when they were copyvio tagged, that would be the most useful: Suzi Bass Award; Mike Nussbaum and Jack Mitchell (photographer). X4n6 (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. YGM — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got them. I'll start working and will let Crow know when they're ready to review. It'll take a little time. Thanks to you both. X4n6 (talk) 08:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Crow, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Spreckels Theatre

Ww are authorized to redesign and redistribute information from the Spreckels Theatre website. We would like to move the information into Wikipedia, and the info is verified by the organizer themselves. Please undo the removal, as it was authorized by the theatre. If you cannot undo removal, please provide direction on how to add.

@Soldiermedia: Hello and thanks for saying. Because Wikipedia gives away all content for anyone to use or re-use for any purpose, we need to make sure that any text used from other sources is licensed to allow that. So if the copyright holder(s) to that text want to do so (again, with the understanding that anyone else can use and modify it for any purpose), then follow the steps at WP:DCM. Please also note a couple of other details:
Even if the copyrighted text is licensed and added, the article will be continuously edited by the Wikipedia community. That text may be re-written, translated, reorganized, or even removed from the article altogether. Being affiliated with the theater does not grant any special control over the content of the article.
Please also read WP:COI and WP:PAID for advice and policies surrounding editors with a close connection to the topic, and anyone who is compensated for their Wikipedia activities.
I'm happy to answer any questions, so don't hesitate to ask! Crow^Caw 21:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discrete Global Grid

Hi I am not sure how to communicate with you so using this here - I am with the OGC and I am updating the article on discrete global grids which you are undoing due to copyright issues. I am also the original author of these words. Can you please explain to me how I can properly make this entry - ie DGGS are now a formally defined thing and I want to describe that formal definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.26.98 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@24.108.26.98: Hello, the copyright issue is that Wikipedia publishes under a more permissive license than OGC, whose Document policy disallows modifications or derivatives. Content published here uses the CC-BY-SA license which allows re-use, modification, commercial sale, and essentially any purpose whatsoever as long as they link back here. If you wish to release that content under our license, with the understanding of how it can be re-used, the steps to follow are at WP:DCM, which will entail some private emailing to prove ownership of the copyright. As the author, I hope you will appreciate that we do require some additional verification before we release such content to the world, where it would be nigh impossible to "undo" if said release turned out to be in error.
This is the perfect way to reach me, and I'll be happy to answer or clarify any of this (or anything else for that matter). Thanks! Crow^Caw 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I shared your text with OGC staff Scott Simmons: "Second question Scott. As an abstract standard we are essentially setting a definition. I tried to use the definition in the Wikipedia article on DGGS and they rejected it due to OGC's copyright policy." and this is Scott's first response, "Hmmm, this is a little more complex I’ll get back to you. The License Agreement in the document itself gives you the right to use and modify intellectual property (content) in the document itself. The Document Notice has generally been applied to the whole document (not allowing OGC documents to be misrepresented as something else) - also see the FAQ on “fair use.”" Scott is referring to http://www.opengeospatial.org/ogc/legalfaq. Scott will likely take it up with our legal staff to make sure. It would not make sense that a abstract standard that by definition is to be used as a definition would be held back from public reproduction. So I am sure we will sort it out. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.26.98 (talk) 05:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our copyright policy is intentionally more tight that what copyright law requires. The license agreement in the document is a little too restrictive, in that it requires a specific copyright notice accompany any use of the content, and also requires a specific disclaimer accompany any modifications. That license is closer to the GFDL license than it is to the CCBYSA license we use. The only requirements CCBYSA has is that we link back to your site, and any re-users link back to Wikipedia for attribution. (And that any modification is released under the same license, but that doesn't seem to be at issue). Then there's also a clause that allows you to terminate the license for reasons other than specified in CCBYSA.
Likewise, under our copyright policies, inclusion would not be Fair Use, as its inclusion would not be used to support, analyze, or criticize existing content, but would indeed provide new content not previously included. By providing content instead of context, it fails our fair use criteria.
By following the steps at WP:DCM you can license just the abstract content under CCBYSA without licensing the entirety of the document. Additionally, you could publish the abstract on your site as a separate document under the CCBYSA license and use that as the source.
Hope this helps clear things up. As before, I'm here to help as needed. Thanks! Crow^Caw 17:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.cvjm-muenchen.org/en/hall-of-residence/application/

[1]