Utopes (talk / cont) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 23:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: It seems like these silly arguments about {{press}} are something of a regular occurrence. A couple years ago there was consensus at the talk page for that template to clarify that its purpose was to contextualize talk page discussions and not to formally endorse the websites as "news outlets", but I fear I may have been too subtle in what I actually wrote in the documentation, since the arguments continued nonetheless... I guess maybe it is condign to make it a little clearer. jp×g🗯️ 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in this kind of discussion since at least 2018, Talk:Stanley_Kubrick/Archive_10#Press-box_BRD, it's something of a habit. Sometimes they go one way, sometimes the other. I guess I'll ask for closure of the current one at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, 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. Each review will earn 1 point. 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 25: Hacking Night @ Prime Produce

You are invited to join the Wikimedia NYC community for NYC Hacking Night at Prime Produce in Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan. It is intended primarily for technical contributors, though newcomers are welcome as well! All attendees are subject to Wikimedia NYC's Code of Conduct and Wikimedia's Technical Code of Conduct. Meeting info: Thursday, April 25 Hacking Night @ Prime Produce (optional RSVP on-wiki). 7:00 pm – 9:30 pm (Introductions + Hacking) 9:30 pm – 10:00 pm (Showcase) (Prime Produce, Hell's Kitchen, Manhattan)

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPxG, While i understand your view for the revert, your edit summary: A single sentence of close paraphrasing isn't a "nuke and revdel" issue is clearly wrong, as it it was three sentences that were word-for-word copied, not close paraphrased. Nobody (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion is, fundamentally, something which breaches the open-source credo of Wikipedia (it takes a page history from a matter of "here are the facts, decide for yourself, you the general public are our proofreader and editor" to a matter of "here are the facts an administrator decided you should have access to"). I see it as a necessary evil, that should only be done on mainspace articles in rare circumstances when absolutely necessary (i.e. when legally required).

There's only so many ways you can represent direct factual statements, without resorting to deliberately contorted phrasings. For example, if the source says this:

• After the book was published, Jones vociferously denied the embezzlement allegations, and said that 'the whole thing was a misunderstanding'.

We have a few ways of writing this information directly into an article.

• Jones vociferously denied the embezzlement allegations.
• Jones vociferously denied the embezzlement allegations.^[34]
• The allegations of embezzlement were vociferously denied by Jones.^[34]
• Jones denied the allegations.^[34]
• Philip Sneedmeyer reported that Jones "vociferously denied the embezzlement allegations".^[34]

The reason I say that it's not copyvio to repeat the sentence directly is because we've got the source right there and it would be extremely easy to give attribution by adding "Philip Sneedmeyer reported that" and a couple quotation marks. It's certainly bad form to copy a sentence fragment unmodified, and probably it is plagiarism, and at any rate it doesn't comply with Wikipedia policies and should be fixed, but I don't really think it is a legal issue that there existed some version of a Wikipedia article which quoted five sequential words directly from a source. jp×g🗯️ 19:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get why you didn't RevDel it. And the part about rewriting it instead of nuking it makes sense too (I followed this policy which just says removing, which can probably also be interpreted as rewriting). But I believe for word-for-word copied sentences it doesn't matter if they added the source, it's still a Copyright violation. I agree it's probably not a legal issue, but still a policy violation. Nobody (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	Greetings, JPxG. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Ahecht
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]