The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.
I understand that there are a lot of immature individuals out there that abuse Wikipedia by using their own ideas and place them as fictional statements for their own enjoyment under different profile works. I have been for sometime now editing assorted Wiz Khalifa (Guest appearances, Videos & Tours) while there being no protection for the page. I have then as of today (2/28/11) decided to create an account for Wikipedia with hopes of continuing to edit this page.
Okay, so on the 3RR page, it says that one exception to the 3 revert rule is for Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. What I'm wondering is, does a close paraphrase that mostly uses the original author's wording count as a copyright violation? --- c y m r u . l a s s(talk me, stalk me) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a legal question ("substantially similar", originality, etc. in the US). You might want to tell us what you're looking at. In terms of 3RR, I'd err on the side of caution.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking of the page Spirited Away. The two reverts I made: 1, 2; the two edits that added the close paraphrase: 3, 4; the discussion on the userpage of another editor: here. The other edit is claiming a ref (just a typical footnote citation, nothing more) is enough to justify close paraphrasing, but that isn't what I'm reading on pages like WP:PARAPHRASE and WP:COPYVIO. I'm currently at two reverts; the editor has yet to revert my last revert, but I'm wondering if s/he did, would a subsequent reversion by me be a violation of 3RR? Thanks! --- c y m r u . l a s s(talk me, stalk me) 02:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking in too much detail on the issue, if an editor such as yourself challenges some text then the defending editor should gain a consensus that it is not a copyright violation before reverting, the burden of evidence would be on him. As to whether this is a "clear" copyright violation, it's probably a matter of opinion, it would appear to be close enough to me. Personally I believe it's close enough that any neutral party would agree with you if 3rr would become an issue. Such wording should be kept to the reception section anyway. Rehevkor✉ 03:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okie doke, thanks! I don't really specialize in copyvios, so I don't have much confidence in the area. This really helped :) --- c y m r u . l a s s(talk me, stalk me) 03:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope it helps, please be aware this is just my opinion.. I'm not an expert on much of anything. Rehevkor✉ 04:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of comments. On the issue of copyright violation, I think the wording of the Wikipedia article, when compared to the NYT review, is susbtantially similar. Also, bear in mind that WP:COPYVIO states that material should be removed if it "appears to be a copyright infringement". (For many reasons, the copying here probably qualifies as fair use, but based on my understanding of policy, we're not supposed to take fair use into account in this context.)
On the 3RR issue, 3 reverts does not violate 3RR; it has to be 4 (or more). You could always be accused of edit-warring, which is more subjective than the bright-line rule, but you wouldn't violate 3RR. Also the four reverts have to take place in a 24-hour period, and your second revert was more than 24 hours after your first.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
The Valley Beat was never formerly the pulse weekly. Can you please the picture associated with The Valley Beat? Somone changed the information to state that this was formerly the pulse weekly which is out of business. Can you please update this page. I changed it when you click on it, but when it is in the search engine page it has a picture of the Pulse Weekly and information that states this is formerly the Pulse Weekly. Thanks Don J The Valley Beat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.164.87 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on my talk page, you can see an admin said he would give me one day to keep my articles, but it hasn't even been one day, and he deleted them! Why did he lie? MickWithoutGlasses (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the deletions (example log entry) were made about 16-17 hours after the warning post to your talk page. I see that you have posted at User talk:DragonflySixtyseven. You are more likely to get a polite reply if you assume good faith yourself; this could just be a confusion caused by differing time zones. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take this up at User Talk:DragonflySixtyseven, and if you do not get satisfaction, see WP:DR. Forum shopping and accusing people of bad faith (even if it were not for the point that John of Reading made about times, changing one's mind is not the same as lying) will not help your case. --ColinFine (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said I'd give him "1 day", not "24 hours" - and it was indeed the next day. He had responded to my earlier request to get rid of the stuff by telling me that this Hugely Popular Band he invented is Really Real: "Oh no, no, no! They are not my friends or a garage band. They are an established musical group with a hit single" (they're not). If he really wants it back, it can be e-mailed to him -- except, of course, for the stuff that had to be oversighted. He's still got one user subpage left; that's because that one's real. DS (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
did the HTML source code of Wiki recently changed?[edit]
Hi.
I did read and get lots of infos from Wiki pages in past few years.
Thank you folks.
But on the contrary I'm a newbie for writing so it seemed to be quite difficult to participate in editing.
so never done yet
and so writing this question is my first shot I think.
If I'm violating the writing code(form) a little bit now please understand I didn't really mean it.
I prefer to copy(Ctrl+C) the words of wiki and paste(Ctrl+V) to my favourite word processing programme
and then analyze and edit a little bit by my own taste and make a summary and then save it in my own PC.
Because for me it's more easy to read.
But there's a strange feeling the HTML source code of wiki pages have been changed recently.
I'm not sure but I mean the "line changing" part thing.
did the HTML source code of Wiki recently changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.125.176.246 (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki! There are other wikis out there. Wikipedia is just one of them.I don't know the answer to your question; but it is irrelevant to editing. Even if you wish to edit in an external program, you must not copy and edit the displayed page but the Wiki markup. Pick 'Edit', and then copy the text from the editing box, not from the displayed page; and finally copy the text back to the editing box.
Rather than using an external program, you may find it more helpful to create an account, and then set your preferences to use WikEd, which is a much richer editor available within some browsers. --ColinFine (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) I don't think the OP intends to paste the edited version back into Wikipedia.
Your third screenshot, the one you don't want, shows that you are somehow losing the "newline" at the end of the section heading, causing the paragraph text "Tilly, the third..." to follow straight on from the heading "Early life".
I don't think there has been a change, despite the software upgrade a week ago. I've had a look at the HTML text of the current Meg Tilly page, and at an archived version from 2009. Both end the heading with a "</h2>" tag followed by a "<p>" tag.
Can you tell us which browser and operating system you are using? And which word processing application you are copying into? I'm using Windows Vista, Firefox, and either Notepad or MS Word; I haven't been able to make that newline disappear. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi folks its me again. Thank you for your answers.
To ColinFine, thank you for your tip about "le Wikipedia" account. And picking 'edit' means click, not drag, right? I'm not sure.
To John of Reading, thank you for checking the 2009 one, and that's the expression I've been looking for. Yes, I'm "losing" it. Reading your words, it seems nothing of the Wikipedia is changed much, So I think I've got to think about the word processor. Maybe I messed up the configuration.
I'm using Windows XP, Internet Explorer 8.0.6001.18702, and Hangul Word Processor made by Hancom. I don't think you're familiar with south Korean made HWP. of course there's a Wikipedia page about the programme and the company. I can ask the company by phone. Thank you again for checking the old page of Meg Tilly and making the fact sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.125.176.246 (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do lose the "newline" when pasting out of IE8 into Notepad. But I can work round this by viewing the printable version of the article, and copying the text from there. That's an option on the left hand side, under "Print/export". Any good? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah well that's some kind of a way too. Lovely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.125.176.246 (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But pasting from IE6 to Notepad 5.1 I don't lose the newline. Fascinating. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does one go about deleting a double article?[edit]
After adding articles to the book, and following links, the book creator automatically resets the article count to zero and removes all pages from the list.
I started over again, several times, using Opera Browser. After the page count goes up and the books are listed, at a certain random point all pages are just magically erased and the page count of my book goes back to zero. I clicked on view the book, and sure enough, the list of pages was empty. This happened several times.
I logged in with Firefox browser, and got the same problem several times again. All the pages I included in my book just disappeared.
Please advise. I wasted two hours browsing and trying to compile the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alleghenia (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many pages are you trying to add? I just did a 33 page book without any problem. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be anything to with the OP not being autoconfirmed? The right side panel at Help:Books says that some book functions are disabled for new users. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have some errors with book creator. I never had this problem before, but since the past few weeks, whenever i create a book and hover the mouse over a link the "Add page to Book" option doesn't come. It does comes for some links. I am using chrome latest version. Is this a known problem/update to newer version of book creater that is causing this?
CHROME: Same issue here. I logged in to my Wiki account using Chrome, added several pages to a new book. What I did in some cases was directly hover over the link until it gave me the option to add the page, and in some other cases, opened the page in a new tab to ensure that they contained the content I wanted. I got some to add, got a chapter made, went back to add some more, and it LOST my book (didn't even save it in my directory). I lost the book three times. I finally started keeping a text list of the pages, and will try again from another machine and a different browser. It seems Opera, Firefox, Chrome are having this trouble, I'll try IE (much to my unmitigated disgust). I am not a new user; I have been here for years although I'm not a high-volume contributor, and almost exclusively for minor spelling/grammar/syntax errors. Dianaramadani (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity (well, not entirely, since I'm participating in an AfD, see contribs), who closes the AfDs, as in decide to delete, keep, merge, etc? I know (from the AfD mainpage) that it's either an admin or highly reputable non-admin, but just who chooses them and who are they? By who are they I mean do they have to have some kind of knowledge of the subject? Zlqq2144 (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(non/admin comment) Admins are volunteers too. If admin X closes AfD Y, it is because he/she chooses to do it; and the same goes for all the administrative tasks. Expert knowledge of the article subject-matter is not needed, since the decision must be based on the agreed Deletion policy. There's more at Deletion guidelines for administrators. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins can only close under certain conditions, generally non-controversial keeps, as described at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Whether an admin can be trusted to close deletion discussions sensibly is one of the key things people try to determine when evaluating someone's suitability to become an admin; anyone who shows poor understanding of the deletion policy or poor judgement during a deletion discussion is unlikely to be elected. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you've !voted in an AfD, then you should not close it. The closer needs to be someone totally uninvolved in the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing articles on English Wikipedia with lists of legislative speakers. Some of them, especially in the German Landtage, belonged to the nobility. Shall I add the peerage to their names? Shall I write Günther Graf von Versleben or just Günther von Versleben. Some German Wikipedia articles list their names, while other list both their names and titles. In the Portugese Wikipedia article about the Speakers of the Brazilian House of Representatives full titles are included. Please help me. Best wishes Mbakkel2 11:19, 1 March 2011 (CET)
As a rule of thumb, link to the article about them, if there is one already, using the format that article uses. We're not big on honorifics in the English-language Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Some of the German article titles contain information about their peerage, while others don't. Best wishes! Mbakkel2. 22:10, 1 ;arch 2011 (CET)
I'm looking for the template that goes at the top of an article to notify readers about a move proposal under discussion on the talk page. Roger (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason the main templates used for this are not listed at the page linked above (though they should be). They are {{movenotice}} and {{move header}}. Note that placing such notices in the article is completely optional.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does the "Sign me in globally" checkbox on the login page do?--Mikespedia is on Wikipedia! 10:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it means that you sign in your accounts on other language wikipedia as well (e.g. French, German, etc) Zlqq2144 (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
could you please help me, im looking for the above name of my watch but can not find it anywher, many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.185.138 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A question about "list of last surviving..."[edit]
The AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of World War I made me think about this. What happens when there is a list of "Last surviving veterans of something", and even the last remaining person on that list dies? Has there even been such a case previously? At least for famous wars, there are still plenty of veterans of World War II left, but all veterans of the American Civil War, or the War of Finland, or the Napoleonic Wars, or the Hundred Years' War, etc., died long before Wikipedia was invented. Is this article therefore to set a precedent? Should we then simply delete the article, or edit it to mention "there are no living veterans of World War I", or what? JIP | Talk 20:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned a couple of times in that Afd, when all the survivors have died, the list should be made into a redirect to the most relevant article, so that the edit history is preserved per the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and GFDL. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From List of last living war veterans#Mexican Revolution onwards there are several wars where the last veteran died in Wikipedia's time, but I don't know whether any of them had articles for surviving veterans. They are smaller wars with less interest in English speaking countries. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear/Madam,
l,Mrs Jessica, l,m a Registered Nurse from Nigeria,i want verify if my registered nurse certificate can be acceptable here in Berlin Germany for work.can you please give me details or information how it can be used here. contact me through my mail address.email address removed Chzz ► 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thanks God bless.
Jessica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.186.105.17 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. This page is only for questions about how to use Wikipedia. Chzz ► 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've written a page for "Motty Perry" a year ago, and it received a note saying:
"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. "
Everything on the page has references and links, there is nothing there that is not supported by facts.
How can I get the note deleted?
Reference 1 is a CV, a primary source. Ref 2 does not work ("The requested page could not be found"). Ref 3, fmep, requires a login so I could not check it at this time. Ref 4, ref 5, ref 6, and ref 7 do not seem to mention Perry. The final reference is a directory listing.
Therefore, at this time, the article does not seem to show "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source", which is the general notability guideline. If you are able to provide more references (which are reliable sources, and show substantial coverage), please detail them on the talk page of the article, which is Talk:Motty Perry, and please put {{Request edit}}, which will alert others to check it.
.png)
Resolved