User talk:Randomstaplers/Archive 5

Shoutout

Hi, I mentioned you here [1] in a way that was about you being like a positive example for me. But I still thought I should let you know, so I tried to ping you in the edit summary and later remembered that some folks turn off that type of notification. I don't need/expect any kind of reply and just wanted to make sure I'm not talking about folks behind their backs. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii (ii) Yeah, I heard your ping. Thanks⸺RandomStaplers 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in section headers

Please do not add comments to lines containing section headers, MOS:SECTIONCOMMENT, as you did here in section EN 149, EN 14683 and EN 143. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy attribution in articles with excerpted content

Thank you for your attention to the requirements of WP:CWW regarding attribution of copied material within Wikipedia; it is much appreciated. However, please do not add copy attribution for transcluded content that involves no actual copying of content. For example: the dummy edit in this edit at Mechanical filter (respirator) which credited two {{excerpt}}s added in this edit at Mechanical filter (respirator) were completely unnecessary, as no material was copied to the destination article, it was merely transcluded via template {{Excerpt}}. Transcluded content need not (must not) be credited, as no content actually changes hands. The same thing applies to recent edits of yours to Source control (respiratory disease), Respirator, N95 respirator, and COVID-19 pandemic in Uruguay. Unneeded copy attribution can be confusing to editors, and obscure the need for real copy attribution when it is required. It is not required, and should not be added, when you are not copying anything, as is the case with {{excerpt}}ed content.

If you need assistance on the use of dummy edits for attribution of copied content, please let me know, or check with the Wikipedia:Help desk. Maybe the template documentation for copied content is not adequate and should be upgraded; please lmk if you think that is the case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This misunderstanding of the requirements of copy attribution appears to have extended to the documentation of template {{Excerpt}}, where you recently made some good-faith changes in these 4 edits to the template documentation. I have reverted your four edits to Template:Excerpt/doc; use of {{Excerpt}} should *not* be attributed as the copy of article content from one article to another is attributed, per WP:CWW, because no content has been copied.Please see WP:TRANSCLUSION for details. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I think you may have missed something... I actually copied a table from one article to another, and then excerpted back on the old article that it was copied from. Thus, I believe a copying has taken place.

I believe you think that (I) think that an excerpt counts as a copy. I already know it does not.

This is why I used Template:copied in the talk page on just a few instances. You might want to take a look at Respirator. That page is full of excerpting, yet there are only two actual instances of copying, one happening just like in the scenario above, the other happening months ago when I rewrote the N95 respirator article.

As for the minor edits, I did them according to WP:Copying text from other sources, because I didn't do them properly initially.⸺RandomStaplers 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Randomstaplers, I'm sure you're right, I probably missed quite a few things because there were so many copy attribution statements around all these respirator-related articles, that I couldn't disentangle them all, although I did connect a couple of them with actual copies, leaving some others appearing to be copy orphans, so to speak, disconnected from any actual transfer of content from point A to point B. What I know for sure, is that you do not need to add copy attribution for use of an {{excerpt}} under any circumstances, and this even includes when the material you are excerpting has been copied to the excerpt source article from somewhere else.

The minor edits made just for the purpose of providing attribution are known as "dummy edits", and they are fine, if they represent missed attribution that should have been given previously, but had been forgotten. This is called "repairing insufficient attribution" and model wording is given at WP:RIA, which you pretty much followed, so that was all fine.

Use of the {{copied}} template may be useful to other editors, but is optional; the important thing to understand is that use of the {{copied}} template does not fulfill the attribution requirement for copied text, only the edit summary attribution message with the link to the source article does that, per the Wikimedia Terms of use sec. 7b. If you have the inclination to use the {{copied}} template, by all means do as an optional step. You seem to be pretty much on top of the attribution requirement; I was mostly trying to save you wasted effort when you don't really need to attribute (as in Excerpts). Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Got it, thanks!⸺RandomStaplers 19:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry West

Hello, may we discuss your recent revert on the Jerry West page? Please forgive my ignorance, but the reason you provided was "citation needed", however as I understand it citations are not required in an article summary when supported by citations in the article text.

The edit was

", and is widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time."

I had fixed the previous editor's writing but did not revert it because, as I stated in my edit summary, the article contains the following:

"West was named as one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History in 1996, and to the NBA 75th Anniversary Team in 2021." [2] [3]

"this basket was later called one of the greatest moments ever by the NBA." [4]

"ESPN voted West the third greatest shooting guard of all time." [5]

"'The Athletic' ranked their top 75 players of all time, and named West as the 14th greatest player in NBA history." [6]

Thank you for your consideration of this issue. - Jōkepedia (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jōkepedia Oh right, I forgot that some articles don't have citations in the lead. Thanks for letting me know.⸺RandomStaplers 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SolidWorks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hardware.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

Hi - I've seen your request for a cloak on IRC, but it looks like something went wrong (I suspect you may have javascript disabled?) with the request and it wasn't properly filled out. Please can you fill out the request again, making sure to pick which project cloak you want when prompted? Thanks stwalkerster (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edit on John F. Kennedy

Hi. I'm baffled by what happened to my edit suggestion from May. It seems to have been archived, without any commentary on whether it was acceptable or not. In any case, the edit was not made and I'm puzzled as to why not.

I've re-read my suggested edit and I still think the clarification is needed.Rontrigger (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rontrigger Here's my take on WP:ENDURE:

JFK was the youngest presdident seems to be true in more circumstances compared to JFK is the youngest president. Especially if the line of succession is triggered on short notice.
You never know who may be downloading Wikipedia and relying on its information in the future. Thus I think was the youngest president is a better call.⸺(Random)staplers 21:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry--that was not my edit. My edit was the one about the interaction among JFK's physicians in the Health section, which has been archived without the awkwardness being addressed. Rontrigger (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rontrigger Oh. I don't know how that got archived... let me check⸺(Random)staplers 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rontrigger You know, you are extended confirmed, so you can go ahead and edit the article yourself, you know.⸺(Random)staplers 22:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if you do have a conflict of interest, create a new section and put {{edit COI}} on top. Your section did not have an edit request template on it, hence why we couldn't see it.⸺(Random)staplers 22:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time on this.

I've been extended confirmed for a long time, but I've seen a lot of heated discussions that I wouldn't have expected, and so I hoped to get some feedback as to whether I was missing something or not. I will go ahead with the edit, since I don't have any conflict of interest that I know of. Rontrigger (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gleason's

Hi - I see there was some content flagged for copyright violations. My apologies for that, I am new to inputting content to Wikipedia. I work for Bruce Silverglade, owner of Gleason's Gym. Is there a way to correct what I have submitted, or understand the specifics so that I can re-enter with that in mind? Thanks, David DavidMagana (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMagana Never use the copy-paste shortcuts on your computer. Never.

Instead, just... imagine you're trying to explain it to a very confused person. That's best way of avoiding a copyright violation.⸺(Random)staplers 02:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I thought with proper citation as well as we own the writing on our own website (gleasonsgym.com) it was permissible. DavidMagana (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMagana Oh, by the way, since you declared a relationship, I suggest you read WP:COI. You won't be stopped from editing, but I do need to take some steps per WMF/Wikipedia policy.⸺(Random)staplers 02:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, I want this to be above board and this is a great learning experience for me. I'm not an employee but there is definitely a relationship. I ran this by the owner of Gleason's (Bruce Silverglade) and he said to use what I need from gleasonsgym.com to build out the history of Gleason's Gym. I'll take a look at the links. DavidMagana (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMagana If that's the case, we can only accept gleasonsgym.com's content if it has been declared, on the web site, licensed under CC-BY-SA 4 or a more permissive license. (Also: NO non-commercial or no-derivative licenses). You might want to read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

You could also contact the Volunteer Response Team too sending a request to the 'Confirmation of Copyright Permission' email if you want don't want to release it to everyone under CC-BY-SA 4, but I can't promise that there won't be a queue (let alone the additional bureaucracy) there.⸺(Random)staplers 02:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. DavidMagana (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Will you be removing the entire set up entries or on the copyright-related issues? Items such as the Street Signing Ceremony are legit entries..again, still learning how all of this works. DavidMagana (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMagana I'm assuming you sent an email. I'll go ahead and put a {{permission pending}} notification on the talk page.⸺(Random)staplers 16:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidMagana, Or... if you meant you typed that part out yourself, you're going to have to type that part again, since I have no way of knowing what part is your own typing, and what part is copy-pasted.⸺(Random)staplers 17:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CV101 edits

Hi, I've seen the edits you've made and am adjusting them. We're in the process of reworking basically all of the guides and hopefully policies directly relating to copyright cleanup since they're all from the early days of copyright and not completely aligned to how we run things anymore; we don't actually care about GFDL violations with deleting sections (just look at any plotvio CCI or 90% of my articlespace edits). On another note, I've seen you around copyright problems while the other clerks and myself have been catching up on the backlog; thank you for the assistance! Sennecaster (Chat) 19:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster Thanks. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit permission on page operation azm-e-istehkam

i have positively contributed to the operation azm-e-istehkam, the whole history, etymology section is edited and contributed by me.

Moreovee the current edit i want to make is about correction of figures in TIMELINE section of Operation Azm-e-Istehkam. The correct figure of casualties is eight taliban fighters are killed.

here is a source of correct figure of casualities. Someone has mentioned wrong figures in the timeline section where on 7 september 2024 it is mentioned four Pakistani soldiers were killed which is wrong information

https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1228327-eight-afghan-taliban-fighters-killed-in-retaliatory-fire-along-pak-afghan-border#:~:text=At%20least%20eight%20Afghan%20Taliban,firing%20from%20Afghanistan's%20Pilwasin%20area. Shah030000 (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shah030000 The correct place to place the source is on the article's talk page, not my talk page. Did you even read Wikipedia:Edit requests?⸺(Random)staplers 07:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shah030000 Thank you.⸺(Random)staplers 07:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Laboratories

Hello, and thank you so much for taking the time to look at and comment on my very first article, above! I hope that my attention to your comments and revisions improve it, and would appreciate any forther comments you may have. Also, I note that when I type in CBS Laboratories, it adds a second line, but with incorrect dates (it should read 1936 - 1976, which was when the Labs were dissolved, not 1936 - 1986). How can I change that?

Thank you again for your time and support!

Richard Johnson Phaxman (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phaxman You should never use copy paste. Always imagine you are writing for a very confused person.

Please read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources before you continue editing. There is also a process to copying text to your sandbox, should you need it, so I highly advise reading the linked page.⸺(Random)staplers 02:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask them.⸺(Random)staplers 02:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again ... I am confused with all the changes that you and bots are making ... is there a time that we can chat about this article? As a former CBS Laboratories technical staff member, I have been adding new information, researching and correcting errors, and adding references wherever possible.
I am in the EST time zone, if that is helpful to you. Phaxman (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phaxman I mean, the way most of us initially edited Wikipedia is by following the format of other articles, and then slowly reading out the Wikipedia: pages. If you need more personal help, help can be obtained at the teahouse or through Wikipedia:Questions.

If you're not interested in asking multiple questions, here's what I'd advise:

1. Never violate copyright. That means never using copy paste, not even on your own work you wrote elsewhere.

2. Read other articles to see how they are formatted, then imitate them. I'd recommend you look at the Dynatech article; notice how the lead summarizes the article, and the section titles have no footnotes. Go ahead and click through the other articles like Burlington, Massachusetts, to get a feel for how other articles are formatted.

3. No Wikipedia article uses ! points. Keep the tone neutral. Write like you're explaining something to a confused person. (But not so confused that it reads like Simple English Wikipedia).

4. If you want to copy things to your sandbox, make sure you read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
Work through the list slowly, and don't worry about all the policy pages; the most important is #2, to imitate the style of other Wikipedia articles. The rest should come in time.⸺(Random)staplers 18:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I noticed you triggered the anti-vandalism bot, ClueBot NG. I'll be honest, that's probably the first time I've seen the antivandalism bot get triggered on a false-positive...

If you want to report a false-positive, you can go ahead and follow this form, but...

You might want to improve your edit first. This would mean following form: <ref>{{citation}}</ref> (see #2 above) and adding larger explanations to your lists. It won't hurt to try; ClueBot can only revert, it can't do anything else.

⸺(Random)staplers 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Requests Schott AG & Zerodur

Hi Randomstaplers, thanks for your help with my edit requests. I was just wondering if you'd had a chance to read my latest comments on Talk:Schott_AG#Company_profile and Talk:Zerodur#Proposed_History_Section? If you don't have any objections, I would like to implement the proposed changes myself. Just let me know if you have any other suggestions on how to proceed. Thanks! -- Elisabeth at SCHOTT (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisabeth at SCHOTT Just to double check, could you quote the sections that support your statements? I think it was kind of buried last I checked ——Randomstapler's alt 18:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on the Zerodur talk page, I've written a detailed response explaining my arguments including quotes from the sources (see my edit from Sept. 12). On the Schott talk page, the topic is about the removal of text that is factual incorrect or irrelevant. It would be great if you could take a look. Thanks! Elisabeth at SCHOTT (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]