Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:54, 5 September 2015

3 September 2015

Category:1 BC deaths

Category:1 BC deaths (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An initial discussion took place at the administrator's noticeboard. There are two issues at stake: there is a conflict between consensus in a discussion (in favour of a double upmerge of categories) and a guideline (that mostly prohibits upmerging biographies to non-biographical categories). The conflict is entirely unintended, as far I'm concerned, as nominator for the merge proposal. There is also a practical issue, the implementation of the merge has been stopped halfway: the merging has already taken place but the emptied categories still exist. Basically there is a stalemate situation now that can probably only be resolved by a DRV. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal, I'm willing to remove the biographies from the year categories manually, if consensus would agree on this, in order to have the nomination go ahead according to its intentions while keeping within the guideline. It would take quite some time to do this manually, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• I can't see a problem with the discussion or the close, or a discussion between yourself and the closer. From a DRV perspective, I'm seeing an Endorse (go back and sort out the details with the closer). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Comment/Overturn - I don't think this is really an issue for deletion review, and disagree with the people who said to bring it here. Deletion review is generally used for when the close doesn't reflect the consensus or when there are other procedural problems with the close. In this case, I think the close does reflect the consensus, but the consensus was made in ignorance of the relevant guidelines. However, I also don't think we should just keep punting this discussion to other locations, so now that it is here, I think we should discuss it here. As such, I'll give my opinion. I think the close should be overturned in its entirety. The reason given in the CFD discussion for making this change was WP:SMALLCAT, but that section says it doesn't apply when "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". These categories seem to clearly be part of a large and well accepted sub-categorization scheme, as spelled out in the guideline Misplaced Pages:People by year. Therefore WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply to these categories, and there wasn't a valid reason for changing them. While it seems reasonable to me to group the years with few birth/deaths into decade categories, it doesn't seem necessary. I think the right place to discuss such a change would be WT:People by year, as such a change should be reflected in the guideline page. If the guideline gets updated to support grouping some years together into decades, then it would be reasonable to have CDF discussions on categories that look like they should be grouped together. However, I don't think a CFD discussion should be effectively changing a guideline without first discussing the guideline itself. As has been pointed out, the additional upmerge into the year categories that weren't for people also went against the guidelines, and I certainly think that part should be overturned (as even the person who proposed the merge seems to be suggesting that part should be undone). So basically, I think all the changes that were made as a result of these CFDs should be undone in light of the guidelines contradicting them. Calathan (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

International Space Elevator Consortium (closed)

Poetry in the early 21st century

Poetry in the early 21st century (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Reporting WP:HOAX by disruptive IP-hopping editor following report by EdJohnston and other admin regarding the disruptive editor for IP-hopping and trolling

Recently some articles at Misplaced Pages went through rapid RfD deletion following false reports from IP-hopping editor(s) who have since been blocked and identified for repeat trolling and vandalism. Originally, admin had given the then new IP-hopping editor false reports credence following good faith assumption for new IP-editors. The false compyright complaints were then actioned by other Admins for rapid RfD and deleted. Following these article deletions, the IP-Hopping editor appears to have felt empowered to then initiate a trolling campaign on another page for Birdman (film), where the IP-editor was blocked and the Talk page there is now page protected. The IP-hopping editor is now blocked and the false report concerning copyright violations of material outside Misplaced Pages is now discredited. There are no copyright violations in the article deleted for "Poetry in the early 21st century" which is in agreement with all policies stated in WP:CWW and which is rated as an article of "High Importance" by WikiProjects.

The false copyright reports from the now blocked IP-hopping editor should now be corrected and the page for "Poetry in the early 21st century" should be restored along with its sibling articles. Now that the disruptive IP-editor has been identified by separate administrators, then there is no reason to support their past false reports and the article for "Poetry in the early 21st century" should be restored. MusicAngels (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I've put some material that MusicAngels copied from my user talk in a collapse box above. It is uncommon to see material being copied wholesale from talk pages, without getting permission first. (Ironic because of what we are discussing here). Since the decision to delete Poetry in the early 21st century was taken by User:Nyttend, I hope he will comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• I don't rightly see the problem here. MusicAngels seems to be arguing two things. a. there was no copyvio; b. the copyvio report was a hoax and half a dozen admins fell for it. Well, I'll be glad to cite the very first paragraph of Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages:

  Misplaced Pages's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Misplaced Pages's page history functionality lists all edits made and its users. It cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Misplaced Pages requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination.

  No such notes were made, of course. I just looked at Poetry in the early 21st century, where the biographies of A. R. Ammons, Gwendolyn Brooks, and Octavio Paz were copied into, without a note of proper attribution, in an edit summary or on the talk page. So that's quite clear--unless, of course, MusicAngels wishes to argue that all that text and all its coding was copied from another site which had copied it from Misplaced Pages but somehow MusicAngels didn't realize this. I don't think they would want to argue this.

  Now, this and other articles were deleted because it was deemed impossible to sort through the mess and figure out what text came from where, and that's why these were deleted--besides other qualities deemed unsuitable, I suppose. In other words, once the copyvio is established, the IP editor is no longer perpetrating a hoax the six admins of the Apocalypse fell for. (That the IP editor is in other respects a complete jerk is beside the point.) Drmies (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, that quote given by User:Drmies from WP:CWW also gives the criteria for the authorised reuse of old Misplaced Pages material which was done by links to the source pages being included in the Lede section and in the article by: "this means a link to the source page." I have also felt that further supplementary links and dummy edits could be made to further show this reuse, though the links were already there as indicated by WP:CWW. There is no copyright violation here, as User:Bearian has aptly stated it in the above text, the old articles belong fully to Misplaced Pages and the new articles belong fully to Misplaced Pages. There is no copyright issue "at all" as stated by User:Bearian and WP:CWW confirms this. The opening paragraph in WP:Copyvio also excludes the application of procedures for copyvio even for materials found outside of Misplaced Pages if they originated from Misplaced Pages and are owned by Misplaced Pages in the first place (for example, from KnowledgeGraphs or other sources which copy material from Misplaced Pages.) The Misplaced Pages article being discussed here has no copyright issues at all to my knowledge (it fully belongs to Misplaced Pages in the same way that the old Misplaced Pages articles fully belong to Misplaced Pages) and the article should be restored. MusicAngels (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• It's not about "belonging". You seem to be arguing (again, "seem to be" because I think you do not sufficiently grasp the terminology) that because you wikilinked those articles you have somehow given attribution. You haven't. What you should have done, and this is quite clearly spelled out in the policy which you don't seem to want to read, is state explicitly what content comes from which article. That's the rule. That's how we do it. I echo Nyttend, who says, below, that apparently you just don't get it. Let me reiterate: there is nothing in any of the edit summaries or on the talk page that indicates material was borrowed from elsewhere, and (as was discussed in the ANI thread) there was so much material lifted from so many articles that giving proper attribution after the fact, which can be done in simple cases, simply wasn't possible here. That is all: you misunderstand our policy, and you are under the mistaken impression that you adhered to it anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - MusicAngels' claim that the copyright concerns were invalid doesn't hold water. If we were 100% satisfied that the copyright problems were solved, we would then have the option of another level of review, that is, whether this article is appropriate for inclusion in Misplaced Pages. (That's an AfD level issue). But we aren't there yet, and it doesn't appear that MusicAngels will be at all cooperative in addressing the copyright issue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse - First of all, the old articles do not belong to Misplaced Pages, nor do the new articles. Misplaced Pages owns no articles. They host material that is owned by hundreds of thousands of editors like myself. This is why copyright infringement against Misplaced Pages editors is not treated differently than copyright infringement elsewhere. It is the same. Anyone who tells you that you can copy/paste from within Misplaced Pages is wrong, the policy (and US law, where the servers are hosted) say otherwise. If this had been a few instances of copyright infringement OR this had been an extraordinary article, we would still enforce the rights of the original editors and insist on proper attribution, but we might think it is worth the time to fix. In the case, there seems to be a great deal of infringement, plus the article is riddled with other problems and is not extraordinary by Misplaced Pages standards. Deletion was and is the only logical solution. I can believe you didn't mean to, and no one has asked for sanctions that I'm aware of, but you need to learn our copyright policy better. As for "hoax", I don't know or care, I just know it can't be undeleted because of the copyright issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Option A: Regarding ownership of copyright of Misplaced Pages articles the WP:Copyright page states that it is in the collective possession of Misplaced Pages's editors and contributors. This is what is published under WP:Ownership stating that no individual author has the right to act or have expectations associated with them "as though they are the owner of a particular page":

No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organisation which is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Misplaced Pages. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Misplaced Pages.

I have already stated that I am all for further attribution of the articles being used and have previously offered to add templates for "Main" or "Further" to give further attribution. Nonetheless, even though I have followed the current instructions for WP:CWW attribution by linking to the articles adapted into the article, there may by a better solution. Since I was never fully pleased with the quality of the short biography adaptations which WP:CWW encouraged me to adapt, I can offer to rewrite them one-by-one into better quality material (it is a "C"-class article now as rated by WikiProjects after I did the Start article, and I had wanted in the future to refine it into a "B"-class article as part of its eventual improvements.) If the article can be restored as a "Draft" article then (since I know where all the linked and adapted passages are) I can delete them from within the "Draft" and include a temporary note to the edit community like "This subsection should include a 150-200 word summary of Poet XYZ". I would do this throughout the article and it would give the larger edit community a chance to collectively contribute to a better version of the article, possibly a "B"-class version. If I need to do this myself, it will take me about a month since there are 14-15 poets per article in its draft form. With assistance from others at WikiProjects it might possibly take less time. I offer this since I only wrote the article as a Start article because it was not previously available on Misplaced Pages, and the article was quickly rated as of "High Importance". The outline and supportive text is still entirely original and fully usable, and I know that it is unlikely that someone else will be found to entirely rewrite the full article from scratch. No-one had previously done it or even tried to do it in the last fifteen (15) years of Misplaced Pages. Is it a worthwhile option. MusicAngels (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse. . Of course, if this were all a lie by the IP in question, it would be different, but a quick search for random text from Poetry in the early 20th century demonstrated that claims of copying from other articles without attribution are definitely accurate. For example, MusicAngels had copied the entire "Poetry" section of the Arthur Rimbaud article into the early 20th century article, even including the picture of the poem on the wall. MusicAngels copied material from other articles without attribution. As I noted in my statement at his talk page, this is an infringement of other authors' copyright, and by ignoring the text license's mandatory attribution clause, the license for the text in question was no longer valid for MusicAngels: to quote the license itself, This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. MusicAngels violated applicable law and now wants us to restore the content? This deletion review request demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he did wrong. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Recently, I was preparing to re-write some sections of WP:Copyvio and WP:CWW concerning emphasis being placed on copying outside of Misplaced Pages on the one hand, and on the other hand copying within Misplaced Pages. My examination of the various Noticeboards was that many editors and administrators were using the term "copyvio" interchangably to apply to both. I read the following text in WP:Copyvio: Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Misplaced Pages in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Misplaced Pages's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. This seems to suggest that there is an exclusion for re-using old Misplaced Pages material in new Misplaced Pages articles from the use of the "copyright" phrase at it is largely applied at Misplaced Pages. My question is, is "copyvio" being used as a term-of-art at Wikipiedia to describe the re-use or forking of old Misplaced Pages articles into new Misplaced Pages articles, or is this a misapplication of the legal code understanding of the phrase which recurs in the day-to-day usage of the term among many Misplaced Pages editors and administrators? (I am asking this about the Misplaced Pages side of things and not the legal code side of this question.) Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MusicAngels, but I've been busy off-wiki. I don't think that re-using parts of old articles into new ones is at all a copyvio. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

• In this case, you did not add the next sentences from Bearian: "However, it's good practice to use the edit summary to say what one is doing. For example, write "copying some text from Leprosy to Leviticus". Which you didn't follow. So can we put this to rest now? Drmies (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• My support was fully in agreement with him on this, regarding my support for adding further supplementary "edit summary to say what one is doing." My Talk page shows that an extensive template was all but prepared and ready to be transposed into the article when the article suddenly disappeared. Even though CWW in its current form does not currently require the supplementary summary at this moment, I was ready to supplement it anyway to allow for even more attribution than the required links to the source article as currently indicated in WP:CWW as the requirement, and all of which were included as links in the Lede. MusicAngels (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse - I was glad to see the article removed. I saw no reason for a large article to exist which left out many influential minor poets. Any visitor to the page (this one or similar pages I see were also deleted -- I think it was Poetry in the early 20th century) would not know about minor poets such as H. Cordelia Ray or Albery Allson Whitman, even though these poets were influential at the time. Any article of such a combined nature would tend to limit and the blessedness of wikipedia is that there are no space limits. JRW03 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Sultan ul Faqr Publications

Sultan ul Faqr Publications (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD discussed with the closing admin already.

The initial concern was notability but a number of independent sources exist:

Available sources Google Books Google Scholar The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.s

• on Open Library
• on Marymartin
• on Britannica
• on ISSU
• on SCRIBD
• on buyurdunovels.com
• on blogspot.com

Sultan ul Faqr Publications is a notable publication house in Pakistan. Sultan ul Faqr Publications does not advertise itself as it is non-commercial. It is dependent upon funds and contributions which is which is why it should not be expected that it would have media news. The publication runs mainly on its online readership system where e-books can be downloaded for free. Hence, if significant coverage in independent sources cannot be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. As the publication is included in the List of Urdu language book publishing companies, its notability criteria should be judged by comparing the other companies enlisted in the same article:

• –No third-party sources
• –No third-party sources
• -2 possible third-party sources
• –No third-party sources

The active participants in the AfD do not belong to Pakistan and have no idea about publication houses in Pakistan but the article belongs to the Portal:Pakistan and the editors unfortunately are ill-informed about the notability of this publication and publication houses in Pakistan.

Also, the article is a stub and of course requires improvement but this does not qualify the article to get deleted. Various other publication pages exist as stubs and the far less content and certainly less or no sources. It is a biased decision to even tag this article as deleted. The article was created on the 8th July 2015 and like most articles in general require time for improvement by editors so does this article. Kindly, restore the article. Markangle11 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Have anything to add that isn't covered by WP:DRVPURPOSE #1, 3, and 5? —Cryptic 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This same list of sources was refuted by user @Jeraphine Gryphon: in the AfD. Deletion review is not for plugging away again with the same arguments, this isn't a second chance for you to argue the case, but rather to review the actions of the closing admin for possible errors or missteps. The closing admin found a consensus to delete based on the arguments presented. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. That someone would say, with a straight face, that this bit of user-submitted content actually provides "significant coverage" is utterly ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address errors or issues in the deletion process. It is not an appeal forum or somewhere to get a second hearing of the same arguments. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)