This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This user played a significant role in helping Isaac E. Smith graduate from incubation.

Isaac E. Smith has graduated incubation and been moved back into mainspace. Nice work and thanks for your help! -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 22:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/William_M._Connolley --- Irbisgreif-( talk | e-mail)-( contribs) 21:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that - you opened a case making accusations of meatpuppetry, but tagged William M. Connolley as being suspected of sockpuppetry. The two are quite different, so I didn't feel that a sockpuppet tag was warranted. - Bilby ( talk) 21:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you make your opinion known regarding an accusation of plagarism made against me at Talk:Enron_scandal#Recent_changes. Perhaps I have not cited the sources in the way that I should? -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 00:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I've only been able to take a brief look - I'll chase it up properly tomorrow and see if there's anything I can do to help. That said, I certainly wouldn't call any of the text plagarism, as plagarism carries with it an intent to claim the material as your own - in this case you clearly sourced the material, so the most you can be guilty of is overly close paraphrasing. Which is one of those grey areas: we need to reword material in such a way that it is recognizably different from the sources, but it still needs to retain the same meaning. You've clearly been rewording the material and referencing properly, but if there's a problem it might be worth massaging the text a bit more to make the distinction between the two clearer. - Bilby ( talk) 14:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, I thought that was the case. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 08:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this sword is going to be shown to be notable, as there just aren't the independent reliable sources giving it significant coverage. It could be merged, and I've suggested possible targets on the talk page. Fences& Windows 02:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel the same way, but I thought I'd add the sources to help post-merger. I did consider that there might be enough on real Sakabatōs to warrant being treated as a separate article, but that doesn't appear to be the case. - Bilby ( talk) 03:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good source finding. What do you think of the suggested merge targets? We might as well get on and do a merge. Fences& Windows 00:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to this - I got caught up in Thinkbox and forgot about other things. I'm not sure either merge target is ideal, but probably both together are ok. :) The Himura Kenshin mentions the sword, but could do with a bit more, while the Japanese swords in fiction article seems a tad generic, although it has a lot of room for development. I might give adding something more into Himura Kenshin a shot some time. If there was more on the real swords it would be trickier, but then if there was more on them it could probably survive as a stand-alone article. :) - Bilby ( talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Sakabatō has been graduated. Nice work! -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This user played a significant role in helping Sakabatō graduate from incubation.

Nice work! It's definitely ready for mainspace, I've set the template setting accordingly. Fences& Windows 23:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) There was a lot of reading for that one - a bit outside of what I normally edit, but I found the concept of the rival companies forming the group to be interesting. - Bilby ( talk) 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I graduated it. Nice work. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This user played a significant role in helping Thinkbox graduate from incubation.

Thank you for the ref formatting, at Nick Xenophon. Cirt ( talk) 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No hassles - I have a thing for neatly formatted references. :) - Bilby ( talk) 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any implied outing of a Wikipedia user. I only wrote his name because he identified himself as such when trying to appeal one of his many bannings and was called such by one of the administrators in a reply. Ronald Backardy ( talk) 03:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Ronald Backardy

No hassles - I was already in the midst of making a further comment in light of those issues when I saw your post here. :) Thanks for responding - that clarifies things. Generally, my response when I see what looks like an outing is a quick check then to remove the identifying information, as it is easy to put it back if it later proves to be warranted. I tend to err on the side of caution here. :) - Bilby ( talk) 03:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Your post-midnight rearrangements are an improvement. Good work. Thanks.

• 00:15, 30 November 2009 (→Affair allegations: References used don't mention this, and, more importantly, in spite of appearances it isn't directly related to the case)

Actually, ref #12 mentions it, but in any case, as you say, it isn't directly related to the case.

• 00:21, 30 November 2009 (→Affair allegations: Removed statement about sex on the floor of Parliament House - it has been pointed out in reliable sources that this was not, in fact, suggested.)

Yes indeed! When I heard him make that statement, I commented: "She didn't say that you did!". (He also made another irrelevant claim, but I can't recall it at the moment.) Which reliable source pointed this out? I'd like to read what they said. Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by-the-way: The article doesn't mention that Rann said he's going to sue Channel 7 and New Idea. In fact, the article makes no mention of New Idea at all.

Do you think the article should mention these things? Pdfpdf ( talk) 16:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It probably should - I should have thought of that as well. :) The other claim you are probably referring to was that of sex on the golf course, when the claim made on Seven was that they had sex in a car near the golf course. Both the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph ran what amounts to the same article quoting the woman as saying that she never claimed they had sex on the golf course or between sittings in parliament. For better analysis, though, in spite of being very negative, the Independent Weekly had a long report which specifically examined the various claims. :) I'm pretty sure Matt and Dave looked at it as well - but I don't tend to cite their show, as they don't normally provide transcripts. - Bilby ( talk) 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ta. (I'll provide a better reply "later".) Cheers, Pdfpdf ( talk) 00:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You have answered your own question. Not on birth or death dates. Only on the nationality section is it allowed. Watchover ( talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you had spun out Terence Goodall from Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne. You've done good work on it, but I don't think it will survive as a stand alone article - it runs into WP:BLP1E, and is predominatly about Pell rather than Goodall. I was going to propose a merger along these lines, but I thought it might be easier to check with you about merging the new material back into Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Melbourne, keeping what you've added. Would you be happy with this, or would you rather it was raised as a merger proposal on the talk pages? - Bilby ( talk) 01:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm opposed to a merger, since I know that there are many similar pages like this that have turned out correctly, such as Gerry Francis Ridsdale and Oliver O'Grady for example. However, I do like the way that you re-wrote the article, and I think that it would be much better off that way. ADM ( talk) 09:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll let it sit for a little while and see if it develops some more - there's a hint that there may be something about the use of old laws in the conviction that may help show possible significance. The problem, though, is that the two examples you give are of much more serious offenses that hit the media multiple times - in Ridsdale's case because of the nature and extent of the acts and the two trials, while with O'Grady there's still a large number of victims of serious abuse and a movie. In the case of Goodall all we have are a single conviction for an old crime that didn't make a statement about coercion one way or the other, against an adult, and a second case against a minor for which he has never been charged. The scandal with Goodall was largely to do with Pell's response, rather than Goodall himself. - Bilby ( talk) 14:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Every one of these scandals involves the bishops' responses, so it's not surprising that we especially look for Bernard Law's responses in Boston or Roger Mahony's responses in Los Angeles, etc. Moreover, the fact that this particular affair has been dragging on for over 25 years, since 1982, gives it a bit more notability than if it was just a case that was quickly resolved in a short period of time. And there is also the fact that more than one victim has been disclosed, i.e. this Goodall character is probably a multiple-case offender whose offenses have been deliberately under-reported for purposes of institutional secrecy. ADM ( talk)

Thank you!
May 2010 be happy, healthy, enjoyable, prosperous, etc. for you and yours too! Pdfpdf ( talk) 13:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, any deletion of my comments on the discussion page will lead to more reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.180.105 ( talk) 13:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On January 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blanche Cave, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist ( talk) 00:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your links and changes are being removed and skewd at this article. The article section for awards has gone from a well balance of equality to a skewed mess of bad light links only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.237.167 ( talk) 14:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we'll need to revisit those awards again personally I'd rather see them as prose in order to give proper context, as the negative "awards" were pre the release of series 1. Hopefully Series 2 will show up soon, as that would make things much better. :) - Bilby ( talk) 02:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it wrong that I laughed at that emu picture? He just looks like he's saying "try it." Thanks! -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 09:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I felt something similar. :) I liked the description on Commons, of "an emu having a bad hair day".- Bilby ( talk) 08:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Inevitable and finally happened. And more on the way, judging by the 2005 section of WP:Unreviewed featured articles, so pre-emption will make life easier down teh track YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 06:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No hassles - I'll do what I can to help, once I finish marking. :) I've got a couple of Wikipedia-related projects in hand, but this one shoudl be interesting. - Bilby ( talk) 23:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We might as well just do some more work on the other ACT stuff as they overlap. Managed to reuse some of the Lake Burley Griffin stuff on the ACT history YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 00:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Did you make it? YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 05:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I went around, but the best I managed were some group shots as they went past. I'll look through and see if there's anything useful, though. I did go on a drive to Phillip Island, though, and took a pile of pictures on the way, so I may have some stuff for other articles. :) - Bilby ( talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I reverted your edit here because it looked like an accidental rollback. Let me know if this was in error. Regards, decltype ( talk) 13:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Definitely an error - I have no idea how I managed that one. - Bilby ( talk) 21:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've started a discussion here. (Actually, it's a restart of a prior discussion that went cold; you can just scroll directly down to the first post I made today in that section if you want.) Can you offer your thoughts? I think it's very important. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 02:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I totally missed it -- Nashville Monkey -- Thursday • January 28, 2010 • 04:24 04:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm in need for a mentor. I'm working on a bio page here and i have all this info and pics and don't know how to continue...I've started already...please send me your answer and opinion on franklin.niki@yahoo.com, thank you so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragomer ( talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

- FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Bilby,

I founded your opinion in the talk page about Crucifixion in the arts. The one who suggested to remove a section about graphical novel completly blanked the section and did many more modification. Can you please take a look at the article and fix it should it need to be fixed ?

Thanks for your help,

Heracles31 ( talk) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but at the moment the article is skirting dangerously close to edit warring, which does no one any good. :) The section on graphic novels seems to be back, and I think a solid case can be made for returning the image. I guess we'll see where it goes. - Bilby ( talk) 05:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for working out my edits to the Violence against Indians in Australia controversy. One or two sides ( talk) 13:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I'm not sure how much weight should be given to the contents of the articles, but they were interesting to read. I should be interesting to see where the discussion goes. - Bilby ( talk) 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work there, thank you. I wanted to remove that Poll Bludger link but that would have left it uncited, I don't know if you have seen it but there is a letter from the article subject on the BLPN , not confirmed but appears correct. Off2riorob ( talk) 08:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured having access to NewsBank must be useful once in a while. :) I saw the BLP note, which is why I stopped by - he seemed to have a point. If I get some time I'll see if I can do some more work on it. Mind you, you and Ronz had already fixed the real problems. :) - Bilby ( talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have been engaged in a dispute with CRAustralia on editing of Talk:Simon Overland. It is quite clear that CRAustralia's editing is unacceptable, and I have put a warning message about it on User talk:CRAustralia. I have also reverted CRAustralia's latest edit. It may be better if you do not revert every time CRAustralia repeats his/her edits, so that you do not find yourself being seen as edit warring. JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree - that's why I left the last one for someone else to worry about. I've tried explaining to the editor why posting copyrighted material is a problem, including to talk pages, and with that last revert I escalated it to a warning. I don't think it will stop, but hopefully the editor will listen to your comment instead. - Bilby ( talk) 10:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you been doing any work on this? Sorry to say I've been a bit slack and distracted with my photos again, per my talk page :) YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 08:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but mostly I'm still lining up my references: I've got a couple of good ones that I'll be get next week. Once the sources are lined up I'll get some real editing done.

Nice pictures, btw. I'll have to vote. :) - Bilby ( talk) 23:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I was about to move it to FARC because it stalled, yes I should get cracking too :( YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 06:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Did a little bit more. Do you have it under control? YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Think so. I'm starting real work over the weekend on it. :) And your stuff is, as always, great. - Bilby ( talk) 08:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I was supposed to move it to FARC in toaday's batch.... YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can give me a week I'd be grateful - I got caught setting up the new subject I have to teach from Monday (200 students, 1 week to prepare). An the plus side, I now have 17 papers on ACT history which will help solve what I see as the main problem in the article - the political issues involving the choice of a site. The other areas, which mostly just need sources, are easy to do. :) If I can I'll make a shot at fixing some of it tonight. btw, some of the sources are rather fun - it was a rather turbulent process, described in one as a "military campaign in four parts". - Bilby ( talk) 13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn - I didn't notice how bad the reference formatting was until I started to add them. I'll start working on that first, as it will give time for the readings to sink in. - Bilby ( talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should double check on the proper procedure for addressing your perceived copyright violations. For example [1]. I thought that you are supposed to use {{ subst:copyvio}} at the start point of the questionable text and then place a </div> at the end point of the copyrighted text. This gives other editors a week to propose an alternative text to the article, and an administrator then evaluates both versions. At least, that is the procedure that I have used. Racepacket ( talk) 14:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

We frequently use a different procedure when addressing Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Since you were aware of and replied to the WP:ANI thread involving you, I trust you are aware that your edits are currently subject to one of these. You should also be aware from the template left at Talk:Salem State College#Copyright problem which linked specifically to the one involving you. The purpose of these is to, insofar as possible, determine if content you have placed violates copyright policy. If it does or if there is reason to believe it does, your contributions may be deleted or removed from the article indiscriminately. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket#Instructions for more, and also policy at Wikipedia:Copyright violations: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." While {{ subst:copyvio}} is sometimes used in CCIs, it does not have to be, and any contributor who does not have a history of copyright problems is invited to help address these concerns. With hundreds of articles here, the purpose is clearing these concerns as quickly as possible. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the explanation, but I am sure that 90% of Wikipedia editors have never heard of CCIs. I do not care whether my wording is used in the article or someone else develops different wording or direction in each article, but it would be a good idea if the scope of each article's coverage is maintained during the editing process. Racepacket ( talk) 14:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• I hope that 90% of them never will. It is not possible to maintain the scope of each article's coverage. The purpose is to eliminate the legal threat to the project created by the unlawful use of previously published materials. At the bottom of every edit screen, it says, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." This material was never legally ours, and our mandate is to remove it as quickly as possible. All other considerations are secondary. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The last time I was involved in a large scale problem, the approach was that someone tagged all suspected copyvio articles (that is, effectively everything on NZ gastropods or some such) with {{tl|subst:copyvio}}, and then for other editors to check each of the articles and remove the problem. That works well - a pile of articles are tagged, removing them from view, and then others are asked to go through and remove problem text. However, that also completely removes all content from public view, leaves nothing for someone interested in the topic, and means that I'm asking a second person to do the essential work of removing the text. So instead, if there is going to be a valid stub left after confirmed copyvio is removed, I prefer to just remove it, leave the stub, and explain on the talk page. This has the advantage of leaving something useful to people who wish to read the article (given the limits of stubs), but has the disadvantage that you need to view talk or the history to see that there used to be more on the topic that needs to be rewritten.

In the case of Boyce McDaniel, there was no question about the problem. My approach is to go through each line in the article and compare it against the source, removing them if they are identical or too close to the original. Then I look at the viability of what's left. In this case, the article opened with:

McDaniel had finished his doctoral thesis at Cornell in 1943, researching the absorption rates of neutrons in indium. While the thesis itself was not considered classified information by the U.S. government, McDaniel and his Cornell mentor, Robert Bacher, understood its implications for weapons research. They marked each page "secret" and locked two copies away in the university's library.

While the source contained:

McDaniel had finished his doctoral thesis at Cornell in 1943, researching the absorption rates of neutrons in indium. While the thesis itself was not considered classified information by the U.S. government, McDaniel and Bacher understood its implications for weapons research. They marked each page "secret" and locked two copies away in the university's library.

Everything removed was similar. As such, and given Cornell's copyright claims on the text (which are incompatible with the GFDL), it wasn't a case of suspected copyvio so much as confirmed. I'd love to see the article rewritten, but it seems worthwhile just to remove the problem text and hope that someone does so, given the extent of the problem in the article. I guess I'm tying my approach to the wording in the procedures: "If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place {{subst:cclean}} on the article's talk page" on the assumption that a valid stub does constitute the page surviving the removal. :) But that's probably open to interpretation, and I'll happily defer to other opinions. - Bilby ( talk) 22:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have gone back and evaluated and changed every sentence in the John Crerar Library article and got into a edit conflict with your change while saving it. I believe that you will find that the current article is much more detailed than the reference which you cite. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 14:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Re: article, Sunfish (sailboat)

Thank you for lending your expertise to helping organize this article. In the process of flling in more fields of the Sailboat Specifications Infobox you added during your edit, I noticed the "Crew" field wasn't displaying. After looking at several other articles containing the same infobox I discovered whenever the "name" field contains an entry the "crew" field fails to display. Is this something you can help to remedy? Thanks again, Cayeway ( talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It should be good now - the numbering system is a bit odd for template components, so that header1 is considered the same thing as data1. Unusual, given that they are different things, but it caused a conflict. It should be good now. btw, I've been meaning to say how much I liked your work on that article - we don't see the Sunfish over here, so I really enjoyed reading about it, and now I want one. :) - Bilby ( talk) 09:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was off reading more about the Infobox and surprised to see things working when I was backing out. Much appreciated ! Thanks about the article - the revision was a long time being researched. It's been difficult to keep the boat distinguished from the racing. Sunfish racers have trouble separating the car from the course - as it were. The Sunfish is an oddity in the sailing world. Where most One Designs are owned predominately by skippers who race, the Sunfish has a huge recreational following (300,000+ built, 1,600 raced). The appeal is the boat's incredible versatility. It can be a trainer, a leisure sailor, or a World Class racer. Add to that it's ease of transport and launch and there's nothing else like the design. I was working on-line with a fella in NZ who has a similar boat and needed pointers sailing a lateen rig. So there must be equivalent boats in OZ too. A great boat in a sheltered bay, but not rugged enough for surf or even moderate (4FT) waves, conditions a HobieCat revels in. I've been sailing since the 1960s on boats through 50 ft, but I’ve always owned a Sunfish. You don’t need to wrangle up a crew to go sailing. Thanks again for your help with the article. Cayeway ( talk) 09:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I noticed that you have been reverting the vandalism that the user 99.243.109.23 has been making, but I am wondering if you would report them the next time they vandalize. I have warned them three times now, and since I don't have the authority to block, and also since I usually don't find the vandalism until a few hours after it happened since I'm not usually on at the time they vandalize and you are, reporting them may be good since just reverting isn't going to work. I know they vandalize and then don't come on/make any vandalism edits for a few days, but if you report them and they get blocked, that might help, since they have vandalized a few times now and may get a block that lasts a while. Abby 96 ( talk) 14:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sunfish (sailboat)

Hello Bilby, Ah, more tools (Wiki-ISBN look-up), I keep learning - Thanks again. Cayeway ( talk) 07:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to go through and format the references - the article is looking so nice after your work, I think you have a shot at WP:GAN, so I thought I'd help out with some formatting in case you eventually want to take that path. - Bilby ( talk) 07:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not much of a copy writer so I'm really flattered by your consideration. I can't take all the credit either. Editors such as yourself have guided me all along the way. In the past this subject has been turned inside-out by zealous sailors wishing to interject their version of history. Hence all my emphasis on references in an attempt to steer readers to reputable source material and dispel urban myth with fact. On your recommendation I will take a serious look at WP:GAN, but, as you can see, my Wiki-talents are rather narrow. Much Appreciated, Cayeway ( talk) 08:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's policy that you must discuss changes, such as removing content form a page, then if consensus is reached then you may remove it. You can't remove it then discuss it. Also you can tag it and if time passes and no change is made then you can remove it as per this.-- Everyone Dies In the End ( talk) 09:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

True enough, but this is a borderline BLP problem, and I'm looking to WP:BRD. - Bilby ( talk) 09:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the Stephen H. Weiss article was sufficiently different to avoid copyright problems. Please reconsider. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 11:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just looking at one of the tagged sources, consider the following:

From the article:

"Mr. Weiss co-founded...the investment management firm of Weiss, Peck & Greer (WPG) in 1970, and served as chief executive officer and chairman of the WPG Executive Committee. Previously, he served 11 years with A.G. Becker & Co., Inc., where he became a vice president, voting shareholder and a member of the Board of Directors.... Weiss was also a member of the Citizens Budget Commission of New York City, and the Citizens Committee for New York City. He was also vice chairman of the Centurion Foundation and served on the board of the Teagle Foundation from 1998-2008.[2] On August 18, 2000, Mr. Weiss was appointed an honorary police commissioner of New York City."

From this source:

"Mr. Weiss co-founded the investment management firm of Weiss, Peck & Greer in 1970. From February 1970 until March 2001, he served as chief executive officer and chairman of the WPG Executive Committee. Previously, he served 11 years with A.G. Becker & Co., Inc., where he became a vice president, voting shareholder and a member of the Board of Directors. Mr. Weiss is also a member of the Citizens Budget Commission of New York City, the Citizens Committee for New York City, and the National Humanities Center. He is also vice chairman of the Centurion Foundation and serves on the board of the Teagle Foundation. On August 18, 2000, Mr. Weiss was appointed an honorary police commissioner of New York City."

I have not looked at the other source, but this is minimal revision, including complete duplication of that last sentence. I'm afraid I would agree that this constitutes a copyright problem. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that about half of the article is a problem. In particular, the above section and two other paragraphs:

In 1992, he established the Stephen H. Weiss Presidential Fellows Awards to honor professors who show an outstanding commitment to undergraduate education. He also endowed positions for the Dean of Cornell's Medical School and two professorships in cardiothoracic surgery and one in cardiovascular biology and genetics.

In one source (NYT Death Notice) we get:

In 1992 he established the Stephen H. Weiss Presidential Fellows Awards to honor professors exhibiting an outstanding commitment to undergraduate education.

And in another NYT article:

He also sponsored two professorships in cardiothoracic surgery and one in cardiovascular biology and genetics.

And for the other

From 1996 to 2005, Weiss was a Trustee of the National Humanities Center. He was chairman of the Center's investment committee and a member of its executive committee. In 2006, he permanently endowed the Center's Meyer H. Abrams Senior Fellowship, which is awarded annually to a distinguished literary scholar.

From the source:

He was chairman of the Center's investment committee and a member of the executive committee of the Board. In 2006 he permanently endowed the Meyer H. Abrams Senior Fellowship, which is awarded annually by the Center to a distinguished literary scholar.

Words have been changed here and there, but both paragraphs follow very closely the original sources.

The other major paragraph has been changed, but it follows fairly closely what was written at Cornell. It's close paraphrasing, which is, in my eyes, shaky but not necessarily terrible, as at the same time there are only so many ways you can list a series of positions. However, the source is not attributed, and combined with the other paragraph from the same source, it appears to be overly derivative. - Bilby ( talk) 13:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that most Wikipedia biographies are organized chronologically, covering career first and charitable activities second, followed by honors and awards. No normative or judgmental phrases from the various sources have been included. Again, I am avoiding looking at the sources when I rewrite because I do not want to subconscously immitate the sources. If you look at each of the sources as a whole and compare each to the article, there is not a major misappropriation of any of them. I challenge either of you to read the article, make a handwritten list of the facts presented. Walk away and write something dramatically different than what I wrote from my handwritten notes. Racepacket ( talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your problem is in walking away. As Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches says, "Editors should always compare their final drafts with the sources they have used to make sure that they have not accidentally come too close in language and structure or failed to attribute when necessary." I always do this, and, in fact, it's possible that i wrote that part myself, though it's been long enough that I'm not sure without checking the article's history. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I do not read Wikipedia Signpost and I suspect that most editors do not either. I have revised the article at: Talk:Stephen H. Weiss/Temp and invite your comments. I have taken great care that no sentence mirrors the articles that you have cited. I suspect that with five or six biographies out there, there are only so many ways that the same facts can be rephrased. I should also note that an important aspect of proving copyright infrigement is whether the same facts were included or whether there was independent judgment as to what is included in the alleged unauthorized copy. Here the article has more facts than any single source. While addressing Wikipedia's copyright policy concerns pushes editors in one direction, the policy requiring accuracy, avoiding original research and verifiabilty is pushing editors in the opposite direction. Please let me know of what you think of the /Temp version. Racepacket ( talk) 20:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked another administrator who works Copyright to evaluate your revisions just to be sure that they are fairly reviewed by a number of individuals. That particular essay I had recommended to you on February 11th with the hope that it might save you some time. It is, of course, your choice to read it or not. :) Given your note about "alleged unauthorized copy", though, makes me wonder: were you by chance authorized to copy such material as the sentence "On August 18, 2000, Mr. Weiss was appointed an honorary police commissioner of New York City"? Because, of course, verifying such authorization makes all the difference in the world under WP:C. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It will be good having another opinion on this. Generally, though, I think you're tending to make incremental changes to the text in an attempt to move it further from the original. It may be best just to rewrite in your own words, rather than make changes to the wording taken from the source. I suspect this is how the initial problems crept in - that you may have taken the original source and tried to add, trim, or make minor changes to it in order to form a new article, rather than writing it anew from the outset. - Bilby ( talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Authorization is important under copyright law. As noted on the other talk page, we are in an impasse on how to document the latitude granted for the Cornell press release materials. But I am not standing in the way of the efforts of others to further document Cornell's intent. Racepacket ( talk) 22:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is, of course, the difference (as you have noted) between being authorised to make a copy of a document, and being authorised to permit others to also make copies of the material. Bu it woudl be cool if that could be worked out with Cornell. However, in this case the material isn't a press release, so my understanding is that it probably wouldn't apply. - Bilby ( talk) 22:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it's somebody else's responsibility to get usable license for the material you want to place on the project, but, okay, I'm game. I wrote Cornell myself pointing them to Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. We'll see what comes of it. Meanwhile, as Bilby points out, that permission would not free the material at [2], although you'd be free to create something with the text at [3]. If permission is forthcoming, you will have to identify all material you've imported from Cornell's press releases with proper attribution. Citing them as a source is insufficient; we do have templates at Category:Attribution templates that can be used for this. I'll let you know when and if they respond. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Racepacket ( talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Feeling more optimistic about it YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're so intent on criticising me and my good faith efforts to clean up spam and vandalism by a blatantly conflicted editor (e.g. here and here), but implying that User:LirazSiri "wasn't necessarily the worst of the two" is overstepping the mark. -- samj _in ^out 19:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess my hassle is that I agree with you and your edits were, in my eyes, correct. But when I looked at edit summaries and comments, I see what looks like one person unilaterally acting, whether justified or not, and doing so in what appears to be a confrontational manner. I do understand the frustration with spamming, but at the same time I also understand that when thrown onto the defensive people can act inappropriately, and while that doesn't excuse their actions, it does tend to explain them. So a wider context is needed - I was expecting a topic ban, and would probably have supported one, but I wanted it to be for the right reasons. I'm sorry that it came across as an attack on you - it wasn't meant to be, so much as an explanation for his behaviour, that was lacking from the original description.

At any rate, I'm happy with the current result - indef for outing was more than warranted, and that isn't something that context has any bearing on. - Bilby ( talk) 03:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that was quite a good summary. If u reinstate it and I will say i agree with it. :-) I choose "b". cheers -- Merbabu ( talk) 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Bilby, for the link to Special:Unified accounts on the Metawiki, a realm that's still largely a mystery to me. The term "unified" makes so much sense, though not when I was trying to recall it! Shall proceed with confidence now. -- Cheers, Deborahjay ( talk) 13:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Terence Goodall, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Nyttend ( talk) 01:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No hassles - I was hoping to do it without any fuss, but I'll raise it at AfD and see where consensus takes us. - Bilby ( talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll make it in time, right? YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes - I'm balancing a lot of things at the moment, but the semester is finally getting under control, and some other projects are either finishing or becoming manageable, so all is about as good as it gets. :) - Bilby ( talk) 10:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, just filing out the refs and harvardise the books per your habit YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your assistance in copyright cleanup, and especially in this now completed CCI. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have most of these on my watchlist, so note when somebody chips away at one. I have really appreciated your work in the CCI department. :) And it's always so encouraging to see one of these put to bed. :D -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! But mostly I'm just glad I can help out here and there - it seems that you, MER-C, and just a small number of other editors are carrying almost all of the copyright burdens, so it is nice to be able to do something to assist. - Bilby ( talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and believe me, we are grateful. :D In fact, I'm here to heap more appreciation on you. I am just about to close Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Zencv, and I'm ecstatic to see another one moving to the archives! -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The FAR delegate Dana boomer ( talk · contribs) has asked for a status report. Australia is also in the firing area now. :( :( The morale at WP:AWNB seems totally broken YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll get back to that asap - I spent about three hours today chasing up the references on legislation and the introduction of the 1988 self government act, so I think I have my head around that now. Seems that there are some significant things that should be mentioned, and I have info on them so that shouldn't be a problem, but the good bit is I have the missing ref. :) It proved to be really interesting, especially when you take the changes to prevent euthanasia into account. If you'd like a schedule, I'm aiming to get that section finished by Wednesday, most of the other missing refs are now covered although not inserted, and I'll need Easter to write up the extra stuff on the problems finding a location. - Bilby ( talk) 07:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get cut off, but if worse comes to worse we could chuck the odd sentence about the oldest house/church and whatnot. The longer the FAR save streak gets, the more addicted/coveted one becomes to it YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the big debate between Rebecca and Fifelfoo that was moved to the talk page? YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried following it all but got lost. :) It was intense, although there were decent points on both sides, as tends to be the way. I'll take it apart when I get back tonight and see what we need to do from that. - Bilby ( talk) 09:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Marsupial,

You fixed some vandalism on my userpage. I am grateful. I owe you a kidney, or equivalent organ should your species lack kidneys. Crafty ( talk) 11:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what I would do with a spare kidney. However, on the plus side, Bilbies are carnivorous. :) - Bilby ( talk) 09:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, thank you -- Zz ( talk) 01:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No problems - I agree with your tag, by the way. There seems to have a been a tendency to rely on text books for those broad claims, which makes me uncomfortable. I think I have Mackie's book somewhere here, but I've hesitated to add anything as I've focused on epistemology for the last decade, so I don't know where things have gone with Plantinga's defence. :) - Bilby ( talk) 01:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Were you going to expand any other bits, or all done? YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Still going - I should be able to spend much of tomorrow on it. But that was the section I cared about most, as it made no sense to have the History of the ACT and not fully cover its formation. - Bilby ( talk) 10:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't sure how to do it. Girlwithgreeneyes ( talk) 22:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you're too worried about boring people. you'll get readers :) YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

However, why waste the time if not many will read? Aaroncrick ^TALK 08:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you two are talking about, but I'm almost transfixed by Aaroncrick's comment: "why waste the time if not many will read?"

Indeed! (A VERY good point!) And there are many other answers. (Many!)

At one extreme they range from Aaroncrick's very pragmatic response, through to the esoteric.

My suggestion? (Noting that I have NO idea what the topic is.) Think about what you want to do. And why. THEN think about how to do it. Then, "just do it". Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Just had a look at Liberal Movement. Luckily, Beneaththelandslide's articles follow the sources well :) YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

chin up on H/ACT YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I need some help understanding wikipedia. Could you adopt me? -- 22percent ( talk) 12:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just letting you know, you appear to have accidentaly removed some pages off the Article for deletion log when you were fixing formating. A bot has fixed the page, so no damage. cheers Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 12:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_7&diff=next&oldid=360667471

Thanks for that - I must have screwed up and looked at an older version of the log. - Bilby ( talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice job starting to get this article cleaned up. ( SEC ( talk) 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC))

Perfect opportunity YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)