User talk:Clooless

Welcome!

Hi Clooless! I noticed your contributions to Miscarriage of justice and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 07:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wrongful conviction of Alan Hall has been accepted

Wrongful conviction of Alan Hall, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

– robertsky (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrongful conviction of Alan Hall

Thanks for your great work on this article. Well done. :)

One point of feedback is please don't mark revisions as Minor if you have made changes to wording (other than corrections of spelling mistakes/typos etc). Your most recent edit on the article seems fine to me, but it is definitely not minor. Please see WP:MINOR Cheers Marshelec (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wrongful conviction of Mauha Fawcett (October 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Wrongful conviction of Mauha Fawcett may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Clooless! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! bonadea contributions talk 08:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Wrongful conviction of Mauha Fawcett

I've emailed you a copy of the wiki markup of the last version of the draft, before deletion. I hope that's useful to you. JBW (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't seem to have understood the point that you must not post the material which was deleted because it infringed copyright back to Wikipedia. I emailed it to you for your own use, off Wikipedia. If you continue to post copyright-infringing material to Wikipedia then you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator. JBW (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

No I did not understand that I cannot post something in my Sandbox so that I can work on it. I thought that was what the Sandbox is for - to work on articles until they are ready for submission. Your approach suggests that articles must be developed offline before submission. Is that really how wikipedia works. If so what is the Sandbox for?

As you must have noticed, I have made substantial edits to the article and was just about to submit it a second time again when you deleted it. Can you please submit the new version for consideration as a new article. Clooless (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a sandbox is for working on articles until they are ready for submission. However, posting material which infringes copyright is not acceptable on any page on Wikipedia, whether a sandbox or any other kind of page. If I discover that someone has posted work of mine on the internet without my permission, I don't think "Oh, it's all right, because they have put the word "sandbox" at the top of the page, so that makes it OK for them to steal my work." Also, if you were "just about to submit it a second time" for review, then you really haven't grasped the point at all, because the draft was still a copyright infringement. You need to write material totally in your own words; neither copying someone else's text directly nor substantially copying it but making a few changes to the wording is acceptable. That is Wikipedia's copyright policy, and it is totally non-negotiable. JBW (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You refer to wikipedia's copyright policy. The policy does not say "You need to write material totally in your own words." Here are some quotes from the policy: "Facts cannot be copyrighted. Be careful not to closely paraphrase..." "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text." I believe my second version of the article follows that.

Can you please be more specific and highlight some phrases or sentences in my second version you believe are too closely paraphrased and perhaps infringe copyright.

Could you please email me the second version so I can see what you mean. I promise I won't put it back in the Sandbox, although I must admit I don't understand your thinking about that. It seems to negate the whole purpose of the Sandbox. Clooless (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You are, of course, perfectly right in saying that the policy does not say "You need to write material totally in your own words"; that was my wording, not a quotation from the policy. Sorry for not making it explicit that I was writing a general description of the essential principle in my own words, rather than following the exact wording of the relevant policy. I'm afraid it didn't occur to me that you might think otherwise.

It took me a little while to find the quotations you gave above, because they are not in the copyright policy, but in a page of advice that some editors have written, called Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. It would be futile to try to wikilawyer over exactly what "limited" should be taken as meaning in this case, but I really don't think it makes sense to interpret as covering a case where the substantial majority of a page of well over 2000 words is substantially copied. (Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives a similarity value of 87.3%.) However, the really strange thing is that you actually quote the words "so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text", despite the fact that you gave no attribution whatever.

You ask me to "highlight some phrases or sentences" which were closely paraphrased. I'm not sure whether there is much point in doing that, because obviously you know that you substantially copied what you posted, making some rearrangements of wording here and there, and nothing I can tell you will add to that knowledge which you already have. However, since you have asked, here you are, with the differences highlighted:

• Original: in September 2021, High Court judge Rachel Dunningham ruled the evidence gained by police in their interviews with him, including his supposed confessions, was unreliable and inadmissible.
• Your version: in September 2021, High Court judge Rachel Dunningham ruled the evidence gained by police in their interviews, including his supposed confessions, was so unreliable it was inadmissible.

• Original: She had been beaten about the head and legs, raped, strangled, and stabbed numerous times, and was dead before being thrown in the river.
• Your version: She had been beaten about the head and legs, raped, strangled, stabbed numerous times, and was dead before being thrown in the river.

...and so on and so on. JBW (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You are being disingenuous. In regard to your second example, the newspaper article says (in the very first sentence):

• "Thirteen years ago, Christchurch sex worker Mellory Manning was abducted, raped, killed and dumped in the Avon River."

• My version says: "She had been beaten about the head and legs, raped, strangled, stabbed numerous times, and was dead before being thrown in the river. " I ommitted that she was a sex worker in Christchurch and that she was 'killed'. I would hardly call that close paraphrasing.

In regard to your first example, I have provided a fact about the judge's decision. Bearing in mind that facts cannot be copyrighted, can you show me how you would write this in your own words without paraphrasing. I am hoping you want you to help me, not prevent me from contributing.

Can you please email me my second version so that I can continue working on it. Clooless (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to start making unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith, such as claiming that I am being disingenuous, then I shall no longer spend my time trying to help you, as I have been doing. However, I will say just one last thing. Yes, the article from which you copied says "Thirteen years ago, Christchurch sex worker Mellory Manning was abducted, raped, killed and dumped in the Avon River"; I never said that it didn't. It also says "She had been beaten about the head and legs, raped, strangled, and stabbed numerous times, and was dead before being thrown in the river", as I stated. I am perfectly willing to assume that you just made a mistake in missing the relevant quotation and instead quoting an irrelevant one, rather than accusing you of being disingenuous. JBW (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I missed that.

So please explain how you would write this sentence "in September 2021, High Court judge Rachel Dunningham ruled the evidence gained by police in their interviews, including his supposed confessions, was so unreliable it was inadmissible" in your own words. Clooless (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)