Jump to content

User talk:Sennecaster/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Sennecaster, 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 complete 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

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! Volteer1 (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Information icon Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia! However, you should know that it is not a good idea to remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. The dead links are useful in finding replacments. In most cases they should be left and marked as "dead". MB 02:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome...

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
...to the Copyright Inquisition :) ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G12

When nominating a page for copyright violations (WP:G12), please do not blank the page, as it creates extra work for the patrolling administrator to then find the old page version and determine if it was actually a copyright violation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, someone already told me not to. Won't do it again, thanks for explaining why! :) Sennecaster (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Pending changes reviewer!

Hi Sennecaster! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request the rights at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Please keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:

  • A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
  • A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
  • Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
  • You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
  • Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page - I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: I propose you immediately remove this and rethink your life (that part is a joke). Sennecaster (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this where I get the free donuts? Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 05:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never gonna give you up

Never gonna let you down

...you asked for this Remagoxer (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile app is fucked Sennecaster (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oshwah help

@Oshwah: I request to be blocked for a time of √2 seconds for incompetency retsacennS (Talk) (Pain and Suffering) 01:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]

o.0 ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy April Fools'! OwO (what's this?) 02:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aitkenvale, Qld

Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit to Aitkenvale, Qld. My edit was not wrong, I will try and find a source but in regional areas it is very very hard to find these so called "secondary" sources, I have almost given up totally on Wikipedia as so many people have vandalised articles around here with wrong information and when you go to delete it people just add it back again saying there was no good reason and no source provided? The information regarding Aitkenvale was incorrect as only a small section was affected. I can find this article [1] which has a detailed map of flooding and as you can see when you find Aitkenvale only a small section is highlighted. This incorrect information causes much anger from the community and it is no wonder Wikipedia is fading fast in relevance and trust is being eroded. This is not a personal attack or critcism but I do ask that people be a bit less trigger happy. I did provide an accurate edit summary. Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.68.96 (talk) 1 April 2021 11:01 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your comment and rationale; we are a bit more trigger happy today because it is April Fools and things are... generally chaotic. A lot of people like to vandalize Wikipedia day-in and day-out but everything is worse because newer people think it's a good prank. Also, most sources I checked mentioned the extensive flooding and that two bodies were found in Aitkenvale. Wikipedia has a strict policy on original research; unfortunately, residents acting in good faith with their observations count as original research. Sometimes this kind of misinformation does happen, but if the news and other sources report on it in a certain way, then that's the information we get to use. I'll try to rewrite the content in a way that is more in-line with the sources that you provided and the ones I found. Thanks for explaining your rationale, and I hope you give Wikipedia another try! retsacennS (Talk) (Pain and Suffering) 14:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/sleepless-night-as-deluge-soaks-townsville-20190203-p50vc5.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Honk!

Honk! Phuzion (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sennecaster's CopyVio Chopper
This dao is bestowed upon Sennecaster for her vigorous and exacting evisceration of copyright violations. Please accept this extension of your arm, and wield it in the name of the Encyclopedia to dismember copyright violations and their dastardly authors. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, I accept! Thank you for the dao! I will honor its purpose faithfully. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a rollbacker!

Hi Sennecaster! I've been running into you while patrolling logs and recent changes, and I happened to notice that you don't have the rollback user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and revert vandalism and bad-faith disruption. I believe that the rollback user rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tools. Instead of having you formally request rollback at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to quickly revert the edits of other users in cases of blatant vandalism.

Please keep these things in mind at all times when using rollback to revert edits:

  • Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle. It just adds a "[Rollback]" button next to a page's latest edits - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only, and never used to revert good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose, the rights will be revoked.
  • Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask.

For more information on the user rights and how to use rollback, see this tutorial page.

I'm sure you'll do fine with rollback - it's a pretty straight-forward user right and it doesn't drastically change the interface you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, have any issues or troubles, or if you run into a revision or situation where you're not sure if using rollback is appropriate or not and need my input or advice - I'll be more than happy to help you any time you need it. If you no longer want the rollback user rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to locate, revert, and remove vandalism from Wikipedia - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reed's School

I have declined your request for revision deletion for Reed's School. The information was added on 18 January 2009‎ by editor Mark.murphy with this edit. He included references to the British History Online but it does not violate that source. I think the source you gave may have copied Wikipedia. It has no date, but the earliest response post is November 3, 2009. Don't let me put you off from asking for RDs in the future, because I am relatively new at this and may be wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: thanks for getting back to me on this. I checked the source code of the source I gave, and the creation date is from 2008, though modified in 2012. IA points to the 2008 version of the source having the same content as the Wikipedia page (added in 2009), so I believe that the editor copied from the source and not the other way around. Mirrors are super confusing :P Sennecaster (What now?) 19:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'll have another look at the article. How do you check the source code for the creation date? I didn't know it was possible to do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I right clicked the page (no text/image over it) and "view source page". You can also control + U to give you the page source assuming windows. You then can control F "date" and generally date added or date modified will help. I then checked IA to see if it was older or younger. Sennecaster (What now?) 05:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's useful information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Thank you for helping at Third Opinion! Just a procedural note. If you're going to issue an opinion as you did at Talk:Surya Namaskar, please remove the request from the 3O page *before* issuing the opinion so that other volunteers don't have to click through to see that you've done it (or waste your or their time preparing an opinion while you're doing the same thing). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks! I completely forgot to, I’ll remember next time :) Sennecaster (What now?) 20:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thanks for helping out with the Ruigeroeland CCI. I requested one for revdeletion myself.

Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks Scorpions13256! I shall treasure this adorable fluff while destroying moth copyvio! Maybe it can eat the copyvio? --Sennecaster (What now?) 17:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

I see you recently accepted a pending change to June 30 that did not include a direct source.

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the edit notice on that page, the content guideline and/or the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide.

All new additions to the DOY pages without references are now being either reverted on-sight or in some cases where the patroller is especially motivated, immediately sourced. I've gone ahead and backed this edit out.

All the pages in the Days of the Year project have had pending changes protection turned on to prevent vandalism and further addition of entries without direct sources. As a pending changes patroller, it's not required but it sure would be helpful if you didn't accept additions to day of year pages where no direct source has been provided on that day of year page. The burden to provide sources for additions to these pages is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages.

Thank you and please keep up your good work! Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice! Sennecaster (What now?) 14:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

So as to prevent you from questioning your existence as implied by your Discord nickname.

JJPMaster 23:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't people be able to quickly find out what trumpian tactics are?

If someone wants to know what trumpian tactics are, then there is an entire article on it. Why delete the link? J JMesserly (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are mass adding that link to articles in what looks to be a spammy and highly disruptive pattern. Stop. Second of all, f you want to link to something, link it in the body. This is part of the MOS. People don't usually link anything except reference URLs in the references. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your association with "mass adding" and disruption is specious. If a new article was created on an artist of note, would it not be appropriate to update to update articles mentioning that artist? Further, you did not answer my question. Why should wp readers have this link hidden from them? Do you think the article does not discuss trumpian tactics? J JMesserly (talk) 04:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I literally don't care what you add, just don't add wikilinks to the references. It's literally the only reason why I reverted. Link it in the article for all I care. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right it was my bad. There was a URL= so it threw a wikilink error. But there is nothing sacrosanct about adding links to refs. Do it all the time for magazine= or journal= and so on. If a title had no url and had an obscure term, it would be completely appropriate to wp link it. J JMesserly (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re edit summary

... then you start using WP:Convenient Discussions, which has the "omit signature" option. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Talk page stalker be like 👀. Just kiddin'. Chlod (say hi!) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in response to using the revert.

Thank you for directing me to the essay on using them, I had reverted it due to seeing the emojis. I did not notice those had belonged to the links that they were next to.
I will make sure to read through the essay and take a closer look when looking at changes that involve tweets and emojis, as to make sure i do not accidentally do an unnecessary revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discount Horde (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! :) Sennecaster (What now?) 18:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For your most recent copyvio investigation on the tropical cyclones articles! You do good work and deserve a treat. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes to Mohammed Burhanuddin

I reverted 8 or 9 changes to Mohammed Burhanuddin because they were unsourced: no references for additional locations, and the attendance numbers weren't listed in the refs for the places already in the article. Then you accepted the changes. Was this one of those pending changes edit conflicts? I can't see any reason to accept the changes. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FlaggedRevs had a stroke and accepted or something. My bad. Thanks for fixing! Sennecaster (What now?) 21:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The software's awkward sometimes. Someone else had already fixed it by the time I saw your reply here. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we are on the same page! I reverted the additions but worried because they had been accepted. S0091 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you so much on all your guidance in dealing with contributor copyright investigations and for all the constructive help you've done on Wikipedia for the past two months. Looking forward to more suffering on vanispamcruftisement removal! Chlod (say hi!) 03:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts

As a thank you for the great work you have been doing, I wanted to give you a barnstar. Unfortunately, given my funding on the project which shall not be misnamed, all I could spare was a rock. To the left there are three pictured. Pick one (only one) and it will potentially be delivered to you spiritually by means of frog telemetritransportation in under fifteen thousand business days. Best regards, happy editing, etc. etc. Verm (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the largest one to represent the amount of disappointment everyone has in me Sennecaster (What now?) 03:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Snyder

Hi Sennecaster, I responded to your message about my recent edits on Zack Snyder which you reverted. Please see my comments on my talk page. I mean no harm, but I'm willing to work with you on making sure we can contribute to that page in a neutral manner.--WuTang94 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Philippine Barnstar of National Merit
As part of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, I'd like to bestow upon you the Philippine Barnstar of National Merit for your dedication to removing copyright violations in Philippine-related articles for the past three Philippine-related CCI cases. I'd also like to take this moment to apologize for the lack of copyright awareness on behalf of other editors from the Philippines. Despite your work consisting of removing content instead of adding them, you're helping the proliferation of the Wikimedia movement by keeping Wikipedia free from policy violations and by making sure that the text on Wikipedia remains free under Wikipedia's license, and not contain the copyrighted work of some random fan site on Blogspot, Weebly, Facebook, et cetera.
this WikiAward was given to Sennecaster by Chlod (say hi!) on 04:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to avoid your talk page for a while since I've reached the maximum amount of piss stains here per week, but I'll be sure to inform you if there's anything of note. To be honest, I wanted to give the WPTC barnstar instead, but I might get slapped by other WPTC members. Chlod (say hi!) 04:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the counter resets midnight Monday UTC. the cat piss limit is "as many times i stay up past midnight destroying copyvio" :) merci beaucoup for the barnstar, and honest to god I hope Obet is the last time I ever have to spam that project talk page with your fancy project notice. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar
@Chlod: I mean, the other editors are giving out barnstars like candy anyways. It doesn't matter which one we give, it's all meaningless.

So yeah, @Sennecaster: here's your barnstar from me coming at 4:30 AM. Good job with the copyright stuff, even if it means the WikiProject doesn't care about it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

povs arising

Hi Sennecaster. For the (content-editing) record, could you kindly undo this gf misunderstanding, which I've just spotted? Hum... yes, now clarified here.

As you obviously have quite genuine concerns about pov content on subjects such as this, could I take the opportunity to draw your attention (and maybe of your talk-page stalkers) to the troubling pov-driven page Schizophrenia and tobacco smoking? I believe it should either be deleted or largely rewritten per WP:MEDRS. I briefly tried to alert MED project editors to the concern, inter alia, in a WT:MED thread focused on the Smoker's paradox deletion discussion, but obviously there's a limit to everything (and personally I wouldn't want to get involved unsupported, and I'm not sure I'm prepared to embark on a rewrite there). Update: main messaging concern now broadly addressed in lead at least, I hope [1]. Best, 86.186.120.156 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The unknownth number PCR compaint yet

Why did you remove my edit from the Chaldean Catholics page? I was removing unsourced and inaccurate terms/sentences. I am Chaldean Catholic. We re ethnic Assyrians and people continue to vandalise this page with inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:266b:d101:a8f4:3700:994d:a4f3 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I am a pending changes reviewer. I have no stake in the page and I am only dedicated to upholding Wikipedia content guidelines and policies. If you saw my edit summary, you MUST take this to the talk page now, as you are actively edit warring as it is over content. You also seem to have a conflict of interest (please read WP:COI in that case) seeing as you used "we" and referred to a church in your previous edit summaries. You are removing properly sourced and neutral content without adequately explaining why, with no prior consensus seen by outside editors. You are furthermore, casting aspersions by calling every editor you disagree with (including myself, ironic considering that this was counter-vandalism) and must stop immediately. This type of editing is disruptive in nature and untolerated on Wikipedia. Please also sign your posts with ~~~~. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thanks for helping out at CCI! EpicPupper 18:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For dealing at length with the Kaworu Nagisa dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Thank you for dealing with the dispute for a few weeks. They are back at DRN. Do you have any specific suggestions as to what to do next? I think that what is needed is an RFC, and that first they need to decide what the questions are, but I haven't looked at it in detail (because I have been dealing with a dispute that may be mostly about religious visions). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I think that they all need to take a break from editing that page. They don't have a fully neutral viewpoint at this point and I have recommended for them to let other editors step in. I think escalating to RfC is the most important thing if your DRN doesn't work. The editors are highly passionate about this, and Zusuchan is probably the most neutral one of the three in this. I'm a bit busy right now, but if you want I can try to provide what I saw as 3O at DRN. More advice coming soon.
On a happier note, is there any chance you could give me some tips/informal mentorship for 3O and DRN work? It interests me a lot and the work you do is fantastic. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine tarsier references

Thanks for your cleanup of Philippine tarsier copyvios. You've left three orphaned references in the process. Since I'm not sure what your process is could you have a look back and see whether they need removing or just moving back inline. Many thanks, Jack (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi Jackhynes! I usually leave the original reference orphaned if it's RS, especially on high visibility pages, so people who are interested in the page don't have to go and do more research. Usually, this work cleans up small, questionably notable pages, but sometimes we have to hit high or top importance articles. I would rather not wholesale delete the references and I don't know if commenting it out would be better. Sennecaster (What now?) 10:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Congrats on being the most active pending changes reviewer this month. I see you are enjoying your shiny new perm :-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Now try beating FireflyBot II... ƒirefly ( t · c ) 19:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pending change to Balochistan, Pakistan

I deprecated the changes you accepted (twice) because they changed WP:ENGVAR from British/Commonwealth spelling, which the article has had since this version in 2001, and which is used in Pakistan. I've a miserably slow connection right now, otherwise I'd probably have reverted them before you'd accepted them. Off to leave a note on the editor's page now. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah shoot, thanks. I didn't see the ENVGAR notice and didn't check too closely. Whoops. Sennecaster (What now?) 05:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On WPTC copyvio

I can't stand by while all this happens. What can I do to help right now? I'd like to lighten the load, as these problems seem very pervasive in WPTC, to say the least. CodingCyclone! 🌀 📘 02:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CodingCyclone; currently you can find our progress over here. I would recommend reading User:Moneytrees/CCI guide or my own version, but my own version isn't as in-depth. Feel free to field any questions to me both onwiki and offwiki. If you have newspapers.com access, the older articles (pre-1980's by my guess) are largely sourced there and neither Chlod nor myself have access. Basically, scan for close paraphrasing (same sentence structure/different vocabulary, or same vocabulary/different sentence structure). Another thing is to use Earwig's copyvio detector, but make sure to only use the links in article option as many reverse copies and mirrors of Wikipedia will show up otherwise. Anything after 2000 is going to be way harder, so I would start with some early articles to get your feet wet. Thanks for helping! You are given permission to edit the projectvios page without my permission. :) Sennecaster (What now?) 03:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archive notice

> The only thing left to do now is to create User:Sennecaster/Archive notice. This is a notice that will be placed on top of all archive pages you have. Cheers! Chlod (say hi!) 03:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Thanks for the advice Chlod. I definitely didn't copypaste and adjust the templates from your own talk page. Nope. Definitely not going to go do that again.
Beginning draft of the copyright guide for non-inquisitors. Anyways, as for WPTC; I looked at the 2004 and it's going to require one hell of an earwig request. I hate both it and myself now! :) Sennecaster (What now?) 03:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, and you definitely should only hate one of those. That said, you're free to copy the archive template, it's too basic to be copyrightable anyways. I've also finished the planned mass message to WPTC members, which you can find at /playground in my user space. Feel free to edit it to your heart's desire if you see fit. Thanks, and have a nice day! Chlod (say hi!) 04:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many policy pages for copyright. Just start dumping any information you find and can reword into simpler terms and I'll sort it in the morning. Go crazy. I'm gonna need serious help with this and
my exams are slowly eating away at what little sanity I had left before the copyright fiascos. Sennecaster (What now?) 04:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to help expand the guide. Good luck with your exams! Chlod (say hi!) 04:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I'd just like to thank you for edits I've seen you made on articles pertaining to India. Disruption is sadly prevalant on those articles, so I really appreciate them. Regards, Foxhound03 (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Foxhound03, Thanks for helping out as well! Copyvio is also rife... Hopefully we can beat the tide someday! Sennecaster (What now?) 15:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Grand Prix

Much of the prose you removed by this edit is actually supported by this Belfast Telegraph online archive page. ww2censor (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ww2censor. I'm still keeping it out due to copyright concerns, however. The adder has an open CCI and has plenty of edits with copyvio from that time. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but it seems disingenuous because I've provided you with a WP:RS. ww2censor (talk)
ww2censor, it's highly likely that Ardfern copied from an offline source, irregardless of WP:RS. That source reinforced what I removed, but it doesn't prove that it isn't a copyright violation. So it's staying out, unless you want to rewrite everything (and that is 100% serious). You can ask another copyright focused editor like User:Moneytrees or User:Diannaa if you still think I'm wrong. Sennecaster (What now?) 21:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ballycopeland Windmill

About Geograph, I think its licence applies to both the photographs and their captions. Here is some advice that Diannaa once gave me -

"Copying without attribution is plagiarism. Plagiarism and copyvio are not the same thing. When copying compatibly licensed material, attribution is required. If the editor has added such material without attribution, you should add it for them, as they will likely not know how. For public domain material, the template {{PD-notice}} can be used. For CC-by licenses, you can use {{CC-notice}} or you can make your own, like I did here. For Open Government license, you can use {{OGL-attribution}}, or you can make your own, like I did here. Please afterwards take the time to educate the user as to how to do it themselves in the future, like I did here." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was honestly unsure if it would apply, so I wanted to see if someone reverted and then I would go back and {{CC-notice}} it. I wish that the licensing was a bit clearer! :) Sennecaster (What now?) 11:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I revision deleted it on the basis of the Emerald Tiger copyvio, not the Geograph plagiarism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limavady

Hello Sennecaster, I saw that this edit removed some text from the Danny Boy section for a copyright violation. On taking a look at the text and its reference, I couldn't immediately see the similarity. Or maybe there's some other legal issue there. Thanks Declangi (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Declangi: World Famous song ‘Danny boy’ is taken from a melody composed by O’Cahan bard Rory Dall O’Cahan. The origional version concerns the passing of the Chief Cooey-na-Gall whose death brought an end to a long line of O’Cahan chiefs in Northern Ireland. From the source. Bolded is directly copied. I removed a sentence too much by accident. Sennecaster (What now?) 20:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, my fault for looking at the Limavady reference. By the way, the same Dungiven reference is used at Dungiven and may have the same issue. Declangi (talk)
Wonderful, thanks for letting me know Declangi! Just doing some old CCI work :) Sennecaster (What now?) 20:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get it why numerous NI articles are popping up on my watchlist for copyvios. Keep up the good work. Declangi (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions at Maasai people for copyvio

Hi Sennecaster. I've gotta ask about this specific, large-scale deletion at Maasai people: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maasai_people&curid=20523&diff=1025343876&oldid=1025340975

Is it that these are direct quotes lifted from the source? Because most of what you excised in this deletion appears to have had the book you're pointing to listed as the reference in the article. There are page numbers and everything. I don't have access to the book to check, but if these are reworded and not lifted quotes, I don't understand how they aren't properly cited. I noticed similarly deleted material with other sources, but since is the largest one yet, I thought I'd use it to ask about this.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinchme123: I'm presumptively removing as the adder, Steve Pastor, is a serial copyright violator and more likely than not the source is copyvio. I can't access the source either, so per WP:COPYVIO#Addressing contributors I am presumptively removing. I would love to rewrite, but my writing skills are extremely lacking when relating to Wikipedia. This is a level 4 vital article, but everything I'm not removing presumptively is absolutely a copyright violation. I hope my explanation helped. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting right back to me. For this specific edit that I've linked to, your summary doesn't say it was presumptive, so does this mean what you've removed in this specific edit is definitely a copyright violation? Sorry to sort-of re-ask my same question, but I want to make sure I understand you perfectly. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinchme123: The first link is a presumptive deletion, the second and third links are actual copyright violations. I did it by section. Anything from The last of the Maasai is generally a presumptive deletion. Hope this cleared it up. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

Copy Editor's Barnstar
I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles. Thanks for copyediting my messy article Tana Tidung Regency. Nyanardsan (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons thing

Hello Sennecaster, why have you marked 3 of my photos (Phrynos painter ... in Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum) as possible copyright violation? All photos are take by myself, they are not copies from the internet. Thanks, greetings ArchaiOptix — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchaiOptix (talk • contribs) 18:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArchaiOptix, those photos were of something that was leased in the museum as fair use only. A photo of them, even taken by yourself, is considered a derivitave. Derivitaves share the original copyright. Sennecaster (What now?) 03:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sennecaster, thank you for this information. I meant my final remark on the file descriptions not as part of the licensing agreement, but as a recomendation in order to avoid that museums take legal steps against wikimedia commons. Otherwise you would have to delete all photos shot in allmost all museums worldwide and this would deprive wikimedia commons of much of its impact for making the cultural heritage more accessible to the broader public. Would you advise me to reformulate the remark "- Please note: The above museum permits photography of its exhibits for private, educational, scientific, non-commercial purposes. If you intend to use the photo for any commercial aim, please contact the museum and ask for permission." or just not to mention it at all? Best greetings Archaioptix

@ArchaiOptix: please sign your posts with ~~~~, first of all. Also, just because we deleted yours does not mean that other images of the like are okay, we just haven't found them yet. Anything with non-commercial purposes are not allowed on Commons, no matter what. So my advice is to just not post those images at all. Commons requires that all image have a copyright license that allows for both derivitaves and commercial opportunities. Sennecaster (What now?) 14:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Kelly NPOV?

Hi, you reverted my edits to Craig Kelly (politician) and left me a message saying that they were against NPOV. Could you please clarify for me how they could be made more neutral and reinstated? They were both updating the politician's page using reliable news sources. As Kelly is now an independent it is important that his page be kept up to date with his views and how he's voting. Thank you! --159.196.100.171 (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out! The language was a bit sensational and therefore not encyclopedic in tone. I don't think the content itself was a POV violation, it just was NPOV because of the tone used. I prefer wholesale reverting at PCR due to me being unfamiliar with the subjects usually, if you want to re-edit the page, I'll be happy to review again. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit at a loss to read the stuff about the superannuation fund law as 'sensational' - if you read the source I gave it hews closely to what was said there. Will try again with the other stuff about COVID, though. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks! It's AMPOL stuff so I'm more likely to revert than not, so you could also run it by a more experienced editor than me who would understand this more :) Sennecaster (What now?) 02:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drumcondra, Dublin

Hi, your revert of my edits and those of User:BrownHairedGirl - all of them - appears to be dubious, to be polite. Care to explain? Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page. I am doing CCI work and I have explained both in my edit summaries and on the talk page. This is normal procedure, under WP:COPYVIO#Addressing contributors. Sennecaster (What now?) 23:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah777 Looks like the CCI editor reordered the content. My bad! I'm back from a short wikibreak and I misread who added the content; I'll self-revert now. By the way, next time, I do ask that you explain what I messed up instead of accusing me of dubious editing and unexplained removals. Thanks, Sennecaster (What now?) 00:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: Thanks for agreeing to self-revert.
But Sarah777's comment seems to me to be a reasonable way of asking for you to explain your actions. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your removal was of a coyvio, which you had not done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Sennecaster, if I came across as a bit abrupt; I'm not fully house trained! I genuinely didn't understand the reason for your reverts. Sarah777 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Henry Oakes Kent

Hey Sennecaster! I've been sitting on this draft idea for a while (see the draft's talk page for a short compiled/noted list of sources), and was wondering if you want to work with me on it. There's a lot of decent sourcing and Kent has participated in a lot of different areas (and is notable independently in multiple places). As such, it might even be possible GA material. Best, Vermont (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; you're making me create content though >~> never done that before! Should be fun; would communicating offwiki about general editing and neutrality be okay with you for the drafting? Vermont Sennecaster (What now?) 22:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Generally a lot easier that way. Vermont (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential inappropriate pending change accepted

Hello, I wanted to bring to your attention this edit to the page George Foreman that you accepted on June 10, according to the page history. I've since reverted the change, as despite not being overt vandalism (as I admittedly first suspected) I believe it falls significantly short in terms of style and grammar, from the nonstandard use of the word "lineal" and the phrase "of major honors", to the addition of a name without capital letters, as well as the out-of-place reference to their age. I don't think it was correct to accept the change, at least not without copyediting. Hopefully it isn't inappropriate of me to point this out; I like to be apprised of errors I make, so hopefully you find it useful as well. If I've misinterpreted anything, please let me know. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Tpdwkouaa: pending-changes protection is for persistent vandalism or unsourced content (depending on the protection rationale). Per Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes:
As a general rule, you should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find any of the following:
and also If there are no obstacles to accepting, then it is presumed that the new revision is acceptable. You should treat the edits as you would habitually, following the appropriate policies and guidelines. It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice.
Senne's accepting of the pending change was not incorrect here - it indeed was not vandalism - and the edit could still be corrected later. It's not an obligation of pending changes reviewers to copyedit everything they accept, though it is generally a good practice. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tpdwkouaa, Elli was correct. It did not fail the 5P and it did not fall into vandalism. The reasoning for protection is persistent vandalism, so I accepted. It was well intentioned and by the date, it looks like I was pressed for time that day and couldn't do any copyedits. Generally, unless it's really gross MOS violations (changing ENVGAR, reordering paragraphs and the change making less sense, using extremely sensational language, etc) I let all manners of minor MOS stuff to slide. New editors and IPs, unless they hate themselves like me, don't normally read the MOS. Hope this explained a bit more of my personal reasoning along with what Elli said in her policy explanation! :) Sennecaster (What now?) 23:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken articles

Your work in making spoken recordings of articles is admirable. I appreciate your work, especially on Fanno Creek, which is well-recorded and -spoken. Hope you're well and thank you, Urve (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Urve:! I unfortunately haven't been able to record another lately, but I do enjoy the work and I'm glad that the recordings turned out well. See you around! :) Sennecaster (What now?) 22:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COVID cases in Nauru

Hello Sennecaster, I am trying to have an opinion (from user who contribute to COVID articles) on this news: https://www.solomontimes.com/news/frontliners-test-negative-after-cargo-vessel-scare/10974. It seem that they have 13 positive cases on a ship in Nauru and I want to count them to this country. But, Nauru government still claim be covidfree (https://www.facebook.com/groups/219485726427273/) and reliefweb speak of "International conveyance" (https://reliefweb.int/map/world/epidemic-and-emerging-disease-alerts-pacific-27-july-2021). Have we to count these cases to Nauru? Regards, Sami270 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sami270, you may want to take this to a specific talk page. I only handled edit requests so I'm really not sure. I haven't edited anything related to COVID-19 in a couple months. Wish I could help, good luck! Sennecaster (What now?) 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you for your respond. I obtained some opinions, it seem these cases can not be included in Nauru total. Regards, Sami270 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken Wikipedia Article

Hi mate, I'm really sorry, school has just swamped me with work, and I don't reckon I'll be able to contribute much to anything for a while. Sorry about the slow response. So yeah, probably won't do that spoken article.

Audio review

Hi there! I've seen your work on Spoken Wikipedia, and I'd really love if you could review / give me pointers on where to go with two recordings I recently uploaded. No rush at all, take your time, but it'd be really appreciated if you could help me out! Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: sorry for such a late response, I have been busy and demotivated from editing. From what I see, you've done everything correct! :) Just from a brief listen, the quality is good and I should be able to rate them in the next few weeks. My advice from where to go from here is to keep recording articles that interest you! articles of good quality and outdated recordings are always fun to stroll (subtracting the ones that make me sigh at WP:NOTCENSORED and the spoken requests). Sennecaster (What now?) 22:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
You do some great work in a corner of the project where not many people tread - it might seem thankless from time to time, but it's so very appreciated. Thank you, and keep it up! ~TNT (she/they • talk) 04:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could say the same for you, TheresNoTime. Glad to see you back. Thank you for the barnstar, and I'll be sure to send you more adminny tasks your way as a product of my labors. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

third opinion request

Hello. I noticed that you deleted my request for a third opinion with the note that an answer was received in the discussion. However, a third opinion as such did not express in the discussion, and the user who came to the talk page from 3O page strongly emphasized that he proposed not a 3O but "a summary of the dispute", and that he does "not feel qualified to offer a full third opinion". I would like as many users as possible to turn their attention to that discussion in order to reach a "full-fledged" community consensus, and I would like to take every opportunity for this. But, of course, if you think that his summary should be regarded as a full third opinion, I will not mind your assessment. Kind regards, --Eksul (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because I saw it as bringing in a third person to possibly move the discussion forward, and thus consider it "answered". Even summarizing like that can be useful to refocusing the discussion and coming to a compromise. I'm busy for the next few days, but I am keeping an eye on the dispute and am willing to provide an opinion if it hasn't flowed forward. Hope this helped,Eksul (talk · contribs)! Sennecaster (Chat) 10:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get it, thank you. Such a summarizing undoubtedly moves the discussion forward. With gratitude, --Eksul (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I muck up here?

Hey, you're pretty good at this copyright stuff - when you get a mo, would you mind taking a look at this interaction? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 07:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: Unfortunately, yes. AGF with copyright more assumes that the person doesn't know what copyright is/how it works on Wikipedia and less of "oh it's probably in your own words". on the grounds that it is a copyright violation no matter how much someone gets disapppointed or has worked so hard on something. I've reverted the restoration and if you've got a source I would revdel. I also am noting here that we discussed a bit offeiki. Another note; Don't use the copyvio rollback on RedWarn. It doesn't allow you to post the links that were copied from; since you're an admin, you can skip the RD1 request where the URLs normally are pasted again in the history. It also doesn't allow selective undo, you're reverting everything unilaterally even if there's some good content (applies for successive edits). Hope this helps! Sennecaster (Chat) 10:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: Ah, hm, thank you - will need to adjust my normal "AGF"ness.. many thanks for the advice ~TNT (she/they • talk) 10:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i didn't violate copyright.. This is extremely sad that my hard work is removed. I'm very much aware of copyright violation. I'm editing the wiki and contributing for quite few years. Hope you reply Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arorapriyansh333: if you see the request above, TNT has requested me to look at the situation. This was in fact a copyright violation; there was content directly copied from sources that we cannot copy from. I emphasize with your frustrations, but the best way to go forward is to rewrite the content again, in your own words, so we can be sure that it isn't a copyright violation. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll like to know where did you find my copyright? Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which content you talking? I'd like to know Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only copied commenting of an individual which do not comes in copyright. Enlighten me plz. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 12:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arorapriyansh333: So you did copy it from somewhere.. where did you copy it from? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 12:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text is copyrighted, because it wasn't your words. Commenting on someone else does fall into copyright, as it is the thoughts and words and thus has creative effort. I am referring to your edits on Teresa Teng. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, do my edits are okay now? I did my all to comply with copyright and rewrote entirely that you removed before. It took me 2 days. Hope you reply and give ur views.. Arorapriyansh333 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thanks for your work on CCIs! Keep up the good work! Signed,The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 22:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1, thank you :) — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 10:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Chlod (say hi!) 18:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This same copyrighted text can be found on the Kool & The Gang page. Will there be a copyvio revdel requested for those edits as well? --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made that in error, InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion. I'm going to revert it. However, you did copy from one page to another; please see how to attribute this properly. I've done this one for you, but just as a warning for the future :) Sennecaster (Chat) 16:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing this up! And thank you for rewording the article. I'll work on rewording the article further, just to prevent as much duplicated information as possible :)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thank you for accepting my draft! Boblol😕 16:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging pages for speedy deletion

Hello, Sennecaster,

Please review Criteria for Speedy Deletion regarding old drafts before tagging any more pages. Not all drafts in User space are eligible for a G13 speedy deletion. Tjaml you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, i got confused with the scope. Would those userspace drafts (and similar cases where there's no edits for years and only contribs are that draft) be U5 eligible, Liz? Sennecaster (Chat) 18:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
U5 doesn't apply to anything that resembles a "plausible draft". According to WP:G13, pages can be tagged as CSD G13 if
Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:
  1. Draft namespace,
  2. Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template
  3. Userspace with no content except the article wizard placeholder text.
So, just because a User space draft hasn't been edited in years doesn't mean that it is eligible for G13. If you are interested in helping clean up old User space drafts, you might consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts. Some editors, like MrLinkinPark333 are going through Category:Stale userspace drafts and sending some to MFD, moving some to main space and speedy deleting others if there are criteria that apply. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see; the advice really isn't clear there so i've mostly been going off my gut and picking drafts with no notability, so thanks for the advice :) I understand that you're really busy with other things so thank you for taking the time to give me advice Liz. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster: U5 is for inappropriate content written by users who have little or no edits outside of userspace per WP:U5. For example, if an user's only edits is an userspace draft for a school assignment, that'd fall under U5 as it doesn't relate to Wikipedia. You can see more examples at WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UPNOT. G13 is separate from U5 per above. I wouldn't mind help with these stale userspace drafts :) If you have any more questions, please let me know. By the way @Liz:, I know Senne from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations ;) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Cathedral (Halifax, Nova Scotia)

Thank you for spotting and removing copyright violating material from All Saints Cathedral (Halifax, Nova Scotia). However I am declining to revdel the material:

  1. Per Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Large-scale use too many other editors work is lost or more difficult to attribute, and
  2. I'm not sure this is a blatant copyvio per Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction. The person adding the material stated in the edit summary where it came from so I'm more inclined to put this down as good-faith but misguided.

So I think it is sufficient to remove the offending material from the current version as you have done. Please do not stop identifying and flagging copyvios as it is important that they are dealt with. If you disagree with my decision, that's fine, I will not be offended if you seek an second opinion from another admin. Nthep (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep: I requested RD1 since it since there was no major addition of content (only removal/restructuring) aside from the adder. I also checked the website for any chance of freely usable content, but found a copyright notice. At copypatrol, generally the admins there will redact even good faith copyright violations. I blanked 2000+ bytes of pure copied text, word for word from the earlier archive of the page. That one was kind of an edgecase for me to do, but I believe some admins will revdel it like Cwmhiraeth and frequent copyright admins, but others won't. It all depends. I'll watch the page for readditions (just dealt with a nasty case of readded copyvio :( ) but I'm not heartbroken over the decline. Thanks for explaining, and thank you for doing RD1s! :) Sennecaster (Chat) 16:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US Rankings

Moneytrees please update all University of California and California State University rankings. This years rankings are at the us ranking page. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges 

P.S you did not replayed to my last edit on your talk page.

Moneytrees

Moneytree is this not a good way to let know about potential edits and the pages that support? USA Eagle01 (talk)

(talk page stalker) @USA Eagle01: Moneytrees is a) currently on a wikibreak and b) not a general content editor. You are better off making an Edit request than posting here, as an interested user will assist you in that. Hope this helps, Sennecaster (Chat) 03:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @USA Eagle01 What I believe Sennecaster means is that Moneytrees (or for that matter any administrator chosen at random) is unlikely to be familiar with the changes you want to make, and that you are better of using the edit request system. I can see that you've made posts on the various talk pages, but haven't used the {{request edit}} template which adds the request to the category and lists that editors may use to see requests. I'd recommend that you add the template to one of the Talk pages (see here regarding requesting large-scale edits) and clearly explain the changes you want made to the various pages there.
While I'm here, I have two other small comments. I am confused by your inclusion of "(Wikihounders)" at the start of your message - what do you mean by that? Secondly, can I ask that you don't copy-paste talk page comments from one place to another, as it makes conversations hard to follow. If someone else replies to your message on someone's talk page, simply reply to them there to keep things together. Thanks! firefly ( t · c ) 11:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello firefly, I will fallow your advice gong forward in regard to replying to someone who response on a talk page I have left a note to keep things together. I understand, that I may be better of using the edit request system, I'm still learning how to follow practical and was not award of the {{request edit}} template which adds the request to the category and lists that editors may use to see requests. Will try to use edit request and the {{request edit}} template in conjunction going forward. I was under the impression that all request left on talk pages were sufficient to add interest to editors. I understand Moneytree may be unlikely to be familiar with the changes requested or other administrators for that matter. However given that Wikipedia is a community and making purpose of the talk page use, and not being familiar as much with protocol, I called on Moneytree advice. Moneytree hade made clear he new better at times it seems. So decided to fallow his advice in asking for assistance. However, it now seem he is on a wikibreak and so (Wikihounders) was place at the start of message given are corporation in working together did not seem to be going anywhere. In questioning him am was also letting Wikipedia to take note of moneytrees edits and same goes with some of his conduct. As I find it to be questionable at this point. In addition (Wikihounders) was also added for the same rezoning you have question (Wikihounders), inclusion on the comments, A matter of questioning (talk page watcher) in good fait left on the talk page as I also aske to please remember to be civil when making comments. For if anybody felt wrong first is not Moneytrees. Trying only to add value to the Wikipedia project, learning to be a better editor, and collaborator so that block may be lifted. Will also take a wikibreak USA Eagle01 (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC) USA Eagle01 (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Wikihounders) @Moneytree:: Sennecaster, hope Moneytree enjoys his break. What do you mean not a general content editor and what if so, that means he can not help? I have already made a Edit request to all publics universities in the state talk pages. Moneytree also advice this and so fallowing up on it. Can you help and make the edit request? It will be much appreciated. ‪Moneytrees‬ block me so I can't make the edit. USA Eagle01 (talk)

Speedy deletion contested: Wildlife Trust of India

Hello Sennecaster, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Wildlife Trust of India, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: It's actually quite the old article. I was attempting to stubbify and all I was left with was a 1 sentence stub. Mean as custard took care of a lot of the promo, but I felt that for current standards it was highly inappropriate. I was advised offwiki to G11 if the stub has no substantial content, so I'll readjust. The CSD is actually not that descriptive and really not helpful, so is there an alternate or more in depth guide? Sennecaster (Chat) 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I probably would've just prodded the article. You can still do that now, I think, a contested speedy doesn't change that. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I also declined to delete one of your speedies, Jefferson Riverport International, for similar reasons. In this particular case, it seems from the contributor's having blanked their user page, that you may have discouraged a fairly good local topics editor from continuing at WP.
If you think either article should be deleted, I suggest you use AfD, after doing a search according to WP:BEFORE, which is part of deletion policy. Elli, I and a number of other admins will not delete a declined speedy via PROD. PROD is for deletions that are expected not to be contested, and whoever declined the speedy will presumably object to the deletion via Prod. It's better to go directly to AfD. (where, btw, I will argue for keep on both articles--you may noticeIalready did some cleanup on wildlife Trust, and I would not have gone tot he trouble had I thought it should be deleted.)
Sennecaster, the general rule for speedy is that when in doubt, don't use it . There's an excellent unofficial guide to using speedy deletion at Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion, started in 2007 but kept up to date, and another good guide at Wikipedia:Over-hasty Speedy Deleters.
My own guide to promotionalism is Promotional writing is what the subject would like readers to know about himself, in contrast to encyclopedic writing, which is what a general reader might want to know., which I sometimes expand to The basic characteristics of promotionalism is that it provides the readers with what the organization would like to tell them, and is typically addressed to prospective customers/investors/donors/students/applicants/ etc. In contrast, an encyclopedia article is addressed to the general reader who may have heard of the organization, and wants to know what it is and something about what it does. . A useful rule of thumb is if it reads like an organization's web site, it isn't suitable for an encyclopedia .
But for an article to be a G11, it has to be entirely promotional , or so promotional that it cannot be fixed by normal editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: whoever declined the speedy will presumably object to the deletion via Prod not sure about this. PROD policy explicitly allows it, and I can see many cases where a CSD would be declined but there'd be no objection to a PROD (declined G10 but it's still on a non-notable person, declined G11/G12 but it's on a non-notable topic, etc). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Cskcsk blanked their userpage and made their last edit in 2013. I somehow don't think that's Senne's fault. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Policy snd guides allow for a great many things that we don't necessarily do, and also prohibit a good number of things that we actually do. The effectual policy is what we customarily enforce. Odd as this may seem, it's also true of the law of the state of new york, the building code, and every complicated set of rules in real life I know of, except those is some completely structured games. This is actually rational: It is and should be very difficult to change the wording of policy, which always cause a long and sometimes bitter argument, and tends to have multiple unexpected consequences. Adjusting things by custom permits gradual changes in line with the general view of the community. Doing things by custom is also the way of accommodating conflicting rules. For example, there is no formal prohibition against immediately renominating a failed AfD. We just saw this week an attempt to do so--the unfortunate WPedian who tried was attacked from every direction at Deletion Review
There is an obvious problem with custom: it tends to give greater power to the people who know it. I do not blame people for not knowing it in every area, tho I've seen a few admins get pretty nasty. The only way to learn custom is by experience, but I try to help by advising people what I've learned from my own experience.
I know that when I prodded a declined csd once, a more experienced WPedian explained why it was not a good idea, and I have since almost never seen an experienced user doing this. (For the last 11 years I have tried to look at every prod before it gets acted on, though nowadays I get there only occasionally, because I'm mainly at AfC.) I will usually remove any such prod I notice. Some other admins might not, but most do. Remember that anyone even the original author can remove a prod, and need not give a reason. The usefulness of prod is in deleting articles where the original ed. is no longer around, and nobody else cares about it. This is particularly the case with large groups of articles of a sort that once met the rules, but no longer do. I hope this helps, for I cetainly didn't mean to be offensive. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive removals

P.S. you can leave Template:CCI on the talk page to provide an explanation. MER-C 18:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your extensive and tireless work to improve Wikipedia by fighting copyvio and promotional writing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: you do fantastic work yourself. I did not realize the state of the transportation area, even despite my work on Ardfern and airlines. It's always fun to work with you ^^ Sennecaster (Chat) 01:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Osamagharib (02:27, 8 October 2021)

Hi ‪Sennecaster‬ How are you, can you help me publish and review my first article --Osamagharib (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Sadulla Ahmad on User:Sadulla Ahmad (09:25, 9 October 2021)

Hii --Sadulla Ahmad (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CCI update

CCI complete

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Tajwar.thesuperman is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI!

Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Hello, and thank you for claiming me as your mentee! I'll do my best to cause as least trouble as I can for you. Chlod (say hi!) 15:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Epherm255 on IPadOS (16:21, 16 October 2021)

How To Update my iPad Mini A1432 iOS 12? --Epherm255 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epherm225: Wikipedia is not a place for general questions. Please only ask questions related to editing on Wikipedia. Chlod (say hi!) 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Article Rejection

Hello Sennecaster! I've just seen that you've rejected my article, "Draft:Andrew Lawler", and I would love some clarification on your comment so that I can make sure it is accepted next time! You say in your comment, "I think that this is notable and would survive AfD, but the article does not demonstrate or show that notability as of yet." I am quite confused. I'm not sure what you mean by, "The article passes the notability guidelines but is not notable enough." Please let me know of any specific information I should add to make the article notable enough to be accepted, or if there is anything else that can be improved upon. Thank you! Fairmans12 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fairmans12: I think that the sources exist for the article in question, but there should be more of them to demonstrate notability. I want to save you the hassle of having the article go to AfD so I rejected. We generally accept if we think it would survive AfD upon a nomination (which looks at notability not only shown in the article but also that is already existing), but most of us, including me, also make sure that the notability is demonstrated enough so it never gets there. I would recommend looking into his career a bit more, including what news organizations he worked for (with sourcing) or any articles directly about him written by someone else. Hope this helped! Sennecaster (Chat) 13:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Paulohsports (13:33, 21 October 2021)

Hello mentor, please how can i post a Footballer's profile on wikipedia? --Paulohsports (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Paulohsports! It depends on a lot of factors; a good place would be to see Your first article, which has advice on how to create an article that meets previously-defined policies and guidelines, such as our notability guidelines and our requirements for verifying information. If your footballer is notable, you can create an article on the, but I would suggest using Articles for creation so an experienced editor can help you navigate those policies I've mentioned before. I'm not well versed in sports notability, so WP:NSPORTS (a subject-specific guideline on notability, which a footballer would fall under) may be of use to you. Hope this helped! Sennecaster (Chat) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in New England

Hello, Sennecaster,

Any time you tag a page for deletion or for something serious like a copyright violation that could get a page deleted, please post a notice about this on the talk page of the page creator. It could be a problem that they could address, for example, like removing the copyright violating content. It's important for editors who create pages to be informed about serious problems or the possibility of deletion in case there are problems on other pages they've worked on. Please do this in the future, either through Twinkle or through writing a message yourself. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: We are not required to notify for people under a CCI for CP listings and G12s, and are actually advised against. This was for the Epson291 CCI, which has been open for over a decade, and this person has not been helpful in completing it. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Chrisporsh on User:Chrisporsh/Sample page (20:32, 24 October 2021)

How do I add pictures after creating a story --Chrisporsh (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Chrisporsh! Wikipedia does not create stories, but factual, neutral, and verifiable articles. You can add an image by using [[File:ImageName.jpg]] and replacing with the name of the file. There's more parameters you can use, such as the dimensions in pixels and the alignment, as well as a caption. Don't forget to make sure the image is either freely licensed or has a viable WP:NFCC claim; I'm open to questions since files are quite complicated. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Short descriptions

Hello. Not to be pedantic, but WP:SDFORMAT states that any short description should start with a capital letter. QRep2020 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, must of misread. My bad! Usually ones over on Wikidata are lowercased so I got used to that. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennecaster/Archive_1&oldid=1057221734"