User talk:Naypta/2020/April

Archives

Hi - if I'm reading the editing history correctly, you tagged Truthfinder for deletion just three minutes after the author created it. I've deleted it now, since it was almost an hour and they didn't do any further edits, but even though it was completely blank, it's better to give an author a bit of time to add content. I'll drop them a note and suggest they use userspace or draftspace to knock up a draft before publishing, but please don't tag pages for deletion so quickly unless it's obvious vandalism or an attack page. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: hi, thanks for the note! I did, but I wasn't tagging it as an A3 blank page, I was tagging it as a G2 test page. I don't recall exactly what the article content was but it gave rise to me thinking that it was someone just trying out Wikipedia's editing tools rather than trying to create a page - I remember a link to example.com featured, which I think was the tipping point for me. Even so, do you think a move to the draft namespace would have been more apt? I appreciate the feedback :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 14:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naypta, you're welcome. The content was all the stuff from the standard draft article proforma, but the author created it with the edit summary 'New article under construction', which made me think they were planning to add some stuff. Personally, I'd have left it ten minutes and, if they hadn't added anything, draftified it. No big deal, they haven't lost any substantive work, just something to bear in mind. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On that same topic... you deleted the page I was creating for actress Kim Staunton within minutes of placing the 'speedy deletion' banner. I immediately contested it, but instead of responding to my arguments you deleted a page that already had a full Filmography, while I was still editing it, without any response to my contention. This kind of stuff really makes me give up on contributing to Wikipedia. Of course we could have argued about the 'encyclopedic' value of Mrs. Staunton's career. She has performed in movie, TV and stage for over 3 decades but she was never the lead in a major Hollywood production (she had supporting roles in many though). I think your main reason for deleting my page however, was the automatically generated copyright violation warning. This is rich... the text on Amazon Prime cannot be legally under copyright by Amazon, because it is itself an almost exact copy from a user-provided biography on IMDB. I made several edits to that text from IMDB and was in the process of rephrasing it in my own words (and adding references). Amazon never bothered to make any changes and yet they claim to have the copyright? I was hoping Wikipedia was one of the last places safe from corporate overreach. I'm sorry it isn't. I just spent an hour making a page that was deleted with no feedback given, because a corporation copied a text. Tomdejong14 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomdejong14: Hi there, I'm sorry to hear you were unhappy with a decision taken with regards to deletion of an article. I'm not myself an administrator, I'm not able to delete articles; I nominated the article for speedy deletion, which an administrator then took up. However, I recognise that is mostly a point of procedure. Irrespective of whether the text was copied from Amazon or from IMDb, it is still a copyright violation, which Wikipedia is required by law to take very seriously - and, indeed, copying content into Wikipedia is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use. It may be of interest to you additionally to note that IMDb is, in fact, owned by Amazon. I'd encourage you to read WP:COPYVIO, which goes into some detail about this issue. I recognise that people's opinions on whether copyright should exist in the way that it does vary, and I have sympathy with you with regards to that; however, the fact is, it exists how it does, and Wikimedia is required to respect that.

I would also like to point out that, whilst Wikipedia does have a number of bots that detect copyright violations, in this case, it was not an automated check that prompted me to CSD your article. I read the article manually whilst looking at newly-created pages for abuse, and noticed that the text appeared to be written in a strongly promotional register. Consequently, I then put the article through Earwig's copyvio detector, which is an automated piece of software that seeks out copyright violations; when that returned a more than 80% match, I once again manually reviewed the match it had given me to ensure that it fit the article, before eventually tagging the article for CSD.

I'll briefly address the issue of notability, too. Whilst you're right in saying that the primary issue with the article was the clear violation of copyright, Wikipedia's guidelines on notability of entertainers are clearly outlined at WP:ENT, at which we see that there is a requirement for either a significant following; unique or innovative contributions; or significant roles in multiple notable productions. At the time of reviewing the article, and after some brief searching around the Internet, I could not find evidence that this was the case: I was able to find a number of minor productions, but none of them appeared to me to be notable. However, I recognise that this is a point which could be contested more significantly - so I've left it here more as reference than as anything to directly address the issues you've raised, which are much more concerned with the copyvio.

I hope this is helpful - please do get back to me if you continue having concerns. Thank you! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 20:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Naypta: Thank you for your prompt response. I had just figured out it wasn't you who deleted my page but an administrator. Still, I hope you understand it's frustrating to realize you're editing a page which no longer exists, because someone deleted it without giving a response to my contention, all within the frame of a few minutes. Thanks for explaining that IMDB is now owned by Amazon. It didn't cheer me up... Sad fact is that some user (although it could arguably have been Ms. Staunton's agent) wrote a bio on IMDB when it was still a public domain service. Then Amazon bought it and now it owns that user's words. It makes me wonder when a corporation will buy Wikipedia and do the same. Anyway, I realize none of this is your fault, so sorry for the tone of my note. As for the text I copied from IMDB, I made a point to remove exactly the promotional vibe it had, so I'm wondering if you read the version before I removed that phrasing. Either way, I was in the process of rephrasing the whole text in my own words when I realized there was no longer a page to edit. So the fact remains that I was given a warning and within 5 minutes, my page was deleted, while I was addressing exactly the issue I was warned about. That's like a cop telling a man to come out of his car and then shooting him when he reaches for the door handle :-) I've been in debates about encyclopedic value before. My page for Jodie Turner Smith was marked for deletion for the same reason. I had to struggle hard to prove that she was an important new actress. Now her page has been up for a while and has seen contributions from numerous other users. My trigger for creating a page is usually when I turn to Wikipedia to read background info and find that a person or subject doesn't have an article when I truly expected them to have one. This happened tonight when I saw Kim Staunton's marvelous performance in Changing Lanes, where she plays an important role as Samuel L. Jackson's wife. It wasn't until I looked her up on IMDB that I realized she had a decades long career in movies, TV and theater. All in all, it seemed to me she was deserving of her own place in Wikipedia. I would happily have pleaded for it, but after just spending an hour and being left with nothing, I give up. Stay safe. Tomdejong14 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomdejong14: I definitely appreciate your frustration, and thank you for your understanding! I know it might seem a bit overzealous, but the thing that's most important here is that all revisions of an article on Wikipedia are kept permanently on the site, and are all licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License - which is a long, legalese way of saying that every single thing that gets added to Wikipedia is required to be reusable with attribution elsewhere, even if it's not the current iteration of the article. So it's not just the Wikimedia Foundation who could potentially get into hot water legally for revisions that contain copyrighted content, but also potentially anyone who chooses to reuse that content under the belief that it was licensed appropriately.

I don't want to discourage you from article writing in the future - indeed, I'm more than happy to advise you on it if you like :) In general, so long as you make sure to completely use your own words, you should be fine. You may also want to make use of the Articles for Creation process in future, through which you can draft an article and get advice from experienced reviewers before the article is published from draftspace into mainspace. That could potentially help avoid questions about notability, and would avoid you going through these troubles.

Please do let me know if I can help with anything, and likewise, you too stay safe - everything's a bit topsy-turvy at the moment everywhere understandably! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 21:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sorry if I made multiple edits but I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia. I had added the Soviet Union to the first table of the article (Empires at their greatest extent) because it looks like it is missing, the same empire is present in the last table of the article (Timeline of largest empires at the time). Is there a different reason why it is present is one table but not the other? Just wondering.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.121.133.145 (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@88.121.133.145: Hi there, thanks for getting in touch! No worries about making multiple edits - it happens, I do it all the time when I realise I need to correct something I've written :)

It looks like someone else has removed your edit, but you're absolutely right in pointing out how weird it seems that the Soviet Union is included in the last table but not the first. There's been recent controversy on the talk page for that page about whether or not the "American empire" should be included, and I feel that this question fits into that same discussion, which is a quite fundamental one about the nature of empires that should be included on that page.

I'll add the point you've just made to the debate over there and tag your IP address in there too - although you may wish to create an account so that you can keep track more easily of what's going on (more info here), as well as not exposing your IP address in future.

One final point I'll make - and don't worry about this too much - but on talk pages on Wikipedia like this one and the one I've linked over there, you should sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of them - this produces a little mark at the end showing your name (or, as you're not registered, your IP address) and the date and time at which you made the comment. Just helps everyone keep track :)

All the best! (and see my signature here!) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the help and I'll follow the discussion on the relevant page. Will also go through your other links and suggestions for the future :) Have a nice day 88.121.133.145 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice msg! I tell my students to use sandbox, not draft. IMHO for new editors draft adds an extra layer of difficulty, requires usage of some templates/code, and the biggest problem is that it also adds a random delay in finding a review, a delay that can last months. This is unacceptable for teaching assignments, as 1) I cannot make a deadline around it and 2) it is possible the review will happen once the course is finished and student is no longer active. So I find draft space to be totally unsuited for educational activities on wiki or any other structured activities (AFAIK most workshops and such also avoid drafts, since nobody will tell the participants 'and now wait few weeks or months and we will continue from there' :>). PS. I should add that 'telling students to use sandbox' is not the same as them listening to me, of course... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i'm try to fix incorrect area size 236.9km2 this value has no any proof! Real area 162.42km2 it can be easy checked in my last revision.

In last revision i'm put link near text "currently covers a territory of 162.42" to one of official site Government of Ukraine (zakon rada gov ua), but this revision was reverted with comment "Still unsourced", what can be more reliable source than Government of Ukraine?

May be for approve i must put this link twice ? But i can't do this, i don't know how place link in right block and don't brake calculating, so i place this link once.

Need your help, to fix incorrect data in Odessa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webqa (talk • contribs) 18:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Webqa: Hi, I've just taken a look at your edit again now and I can see you did reference the area correctly after all! I'm very sorry, I didn't see the citation you added when I was looking at your change previously. I will reinstate the change now - thank you very much for pointing it out! If there's anything else I can do to help please just let me know. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that WP:COI is a guideline, which means, as the guideline template says, that it has the occasional exception. Emphasis on occasional. If a COI editor edits a mainspace article to revert blatant vandalism (e.g., someone replaces the article with profanity), or to remove clear BLP violations or copyright violations, that is an acceptable "occasional exception". If the COI editor directly makes content edits to articles in mainspace related to their COI, or worse yet creates articles in mainspace related to it, that is not an exception. That is exactly what the guideline is meant to disallow. In that case, the COI editor is required to request review of their proposal by someone without a COI. A guideline having the "occasional exception" does not at all mean "just ignore it if you don't like it." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thanks, I'm aware. The reason I replied pointing out the difference between the ToS and the guideline was because I felt that your response threatening an edit block was slightly unwarranted. The editor was mistaken about Wikipedia's COI policies, and you'll have seen above your message on their talk page I had an extensive discussion with them about that, but the fact is that they were willingly participating in that discussion and following the guidance when I pointed it out to them. Under those circumstances, your message - whilst broadly correct - felt to me to be a bit WP:BITEy. I'm sure it wasn't meant that way, but it struck me as coming across a little like that given the full context on the talk page just above your message. It might be worth considering in future :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 10:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paid editors are expected not to be a drain on volunteer time. It is their responsibility to not be "mistaken". If they are, they get blocked. Paid editing is tolerated to a small degree if the paid editor stays absolutely in bounds and needs no help or correction. It is not encouraged or welcome. So, I wanted to be very clear that this individual would get blocked if any further transgressions occurred, especially given the aggressive email they sent me. I actually might, after a fair bit over a decade, know what I am doing. The message was entirely warranted and your interference is neither welcome nor appreciated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I didn't mean to suggest you don't know what you're doing, and I very much apologise if that's the way it came across to you. I merely wanted to highlight that WP:AGF applies to all editors, not just those volunteering like you and I. I can't speak to off-wiki communication like email, as I've not seen it - I did see that the user in question overwrote your user page, in a way which was unconstructive, but again, I don't know if that was out of deliberate malice or whether it was simply based on not understanding how Wikipedia works. Since then, I had an extensive discussion on the user's talk page with the user about expectations on editors with CoI (and about how to use talk pages!). I think it's important for all of us to remember AGF when users are actively cooperating, even after questionable actions, regardless of how experienced we might be - I get annoyed and frustrated at users who don't understand policy all the time, and I imagine veteran editors like yourself do too. Having said that, the fact that they don't understand it doesn't mean they're deliberately trying to be malicious.

I don't think it's right to call my intervention "unwelcome and unappreciated interference", either; I was discussing the issues with the article constructively with the user for a significant period before you arrived on the talk page. I know you deleted the article previously, I don't know if it was you that CSD'd it and then deleted it yourself, or whether someone else tagged it for a speedy, but the user wasn't even informed that the article had been deleted - so didn't even have a chance to understand policy before I turned up and had that conversation with him.

As regards to it being their responsibility not to be mistaken, I agree to some extent; however, that doesn't mean that we as a community should assume the worst of them if they do make a mistake, and it certainly doesn't mean that making mistakes means we should cease to interact positively with them. Ignorantia juris may excuse, as the policy goes.

Please understand that I don't mean any of this by way of attack on you - I just think it bears pointing out that these things do really matter in the way in which people see this wonderful project. All the best! | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naypta. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Kevin! :) | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 17:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You added a citation to a sentence about a trade in the Josh Rosen article, but the citation is not for the trade referenced in that sentence (it is for a previous trade). I believe the sentence in question (referencing a trade of Rosen from the Dolphins to the Patriots) is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.115.114 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@68.225.115.114: Hi, thanks very much for pointing this out - you're absolutely right, on reviewing the source, it doesn't support the claim the anonymous user added. Sigh... I was rather hopeful there for a moment that they might have just forgotten to cite something that actually happened, not being a follower of American football myself. I'll be more careful next time. Thank you very much for letting me know! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing the issues related to WP:PROD. I learnt a new lesson today. This beautiful kitten for you.

Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N'aww, I love it! Thank you! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]