User talk:Mackintyre

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society[edit]

Hi Mackintyre
I made several corrections and improvements to this, but you appear to have reverted or otherwise changed them back?

I added a proper title to ref. #23 & added <ref name="buccaneer"> (now back as it was), and
Removed a redundant entry (#158) by using <ref name="adi gil hit"> (now back again! refs. #157 & 158 are the same!)
Also where it said Kaiko Maruthe ( not Maru ) incorrectly.

Did you realise this?, or is there a good reason for it? If so please let me know. It took me a lot of time doing this manually as I am not yet too familiar with the syntax used in cites. And I don't type very fast!
The reflist is in a poor state (bare URLs, poor formatting, no dates etc.) with ≈23 refs. needing attention. I might go though it, but if my work is undone? I assume Good Faith, but I find it incredibly frustrating to have my work undone. Please get back to me ASAP. Cheers! ps. you may need to get my attention with a talkback tag "{{tb|User_talk:Mackintyre}}" on my userpage. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 220 -

So sorry to have undone your edits to Sea Shepherd! It was inadvertent - I'm somewhat new to the process too - and I completely understand how frustrating it must have been. Anyway, please, by all means add them again, and I promise to keep unruly fingers off.

Cheers! Mackintyre (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well after first having a 'brain explosion', I've retrieved all my skulls contents from the roof and stuffed it back where it belongs. If there's a reason for the policy on recentism, this is it. I'm starting to think it's well and truly better to sit back and watch for 'current events'. Too many editors tripping over each others attempts to 'fix it'. Happened to other editors too over the next day or so.

All water under the bridge (or boats under the surface?), I don't even know for certain the darn Ady Gil has sunk!. It went back and forth at least 5 times, and last I heard 'officially' was it was 'abandoned'. The SSCS article has since been split up into 2/3 pieces (Neptune's Navy and SSCS Operations, & Earthrace re-named Ady Gil.

The silly thing is, over 24 hours after the "collision/accident/ramming/act of war/piracy etc" we had 2 articles (SSCS & Ady Gil) that said completely contrary things, about the same event! (One sunk, other not sunk!) Probably with exactly the same sources too! NPOV??

Only thing I would suggest is, checking the edit history of a 'current event' to see how 'busy' the editing is. And the Talk page too is a good idea, you may inadvertently stumble into an ongoing revert 'war', or 'frank exchange of differing viewpoints'. I think most of what I mentioned has been fixed since, so in the end what does it matter?

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... In researching a painting by Caravaggio, I discovered that the text of the Wikipedia article "Christ on the Mount of Olives (Caravaggio)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_on_the_Mount_of_Olives_%28Caravaggio%29) appears to be a direct and unattributed lift from a book published in January 2015 by Richard Donaldson, entitled "Caravaggio" (ISBN-10: 1507519524; ISBN-13: 978-1507519523). The book is still for sale on Amazon and other sites. The relevant passage from the book can be found on Google Books here: https://books.google.com/books?id=GRwlBgAAQBAJ&pg=PT55&lpg=PT55&dq=Christ+on+the+Mount+of+Olives+-+Caravaggio&source=bl&ots=ySugbOcb0R&sig=dfT1pB9MK9ZAqvtML6IsbvS6fEQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEcQ6AEwB2oVChMIw_LU9LfAxwIVSjc-Ch1nVAU-#v=onepage&q=Christ%20on%20the%20Mount%20of%20Olives%20-%20Caravaggio&f=false

I did a brief search on a section of the text and found several instances in which the text had been copied from the Wikipedia article, with attribution.

Because the article's history seems only to include edits from 2007 and 2009 - and the book was published in 2015 - I'm not clear on exactly how to address this, but thought an experienced Wikipedian might want to look into it.

Mackintyre (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the content has been on Wikipedia years longer than the book has been published, my instinct is that the book lifted the content from Wikipedia, not the other way around. This could be true even if they failed to properly attribute the text to Wikipedia. However, if you suspect it may be a copyright violation, this seems a case for WP:Copyright problems to investigate. Cheers, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 06:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]