Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 30 December 2011

Grrr, Grr...go away

I'm an uncivil editor, I am, I am. I might dare to disagree with you. (I might even, rarely, be right).

Yeah but you're wrong about 'minimal' being the correct adjective in the Induction Cooking article. You are clearly very good at English but I doubt you are a native speaker. The question is, are you man enough to do some research to find out whether you are right or not?

Don't tell me!

When complaining about one of my edits here, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not give me the name of the article in question, nor give any specific hints. If possible, use a different IP address to comment on the edit. I love puzzles and I'll happily devote all my spare time to figuring out which of the last 20,000 edits has displeased you.

"Why did you change that?" --192.168.2.3 - now there's a comment that I can really spend time on. (Don't even give a date stamp...sometimes I don't log in for a few hours, this adds to the challenge.)

B*ching and moaning

Edit warring

If you parse "official" narrowly enough, you can make it mean anything you want...though it helps to have an admin hammer to make consensus. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Manitoba

Oh thank you, I was *so* worried I wasn't going to have permission from some anonymous person on the Misplaced Pages to have my own opinions.--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If arrogance was petroleum, the Mideast and the tar sands would be out of business. --Wtshymanski (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry if you disagree with me on an edit. Just have me blocked. That way, you're sure to get the right version of the article preserved. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Dual in-line package, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bridging (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your unilateral redirects that are stated as merges, without actually merging the information

I'm concerned about your unilateral redirects that are stated as merges, without actually merging the information. I've started a discussion regarding this matter here, at the Administrator's noticeboard: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Unilateral_redirects_without_merging_as_stated_in_edit_summaries_-_User:Wtshymanski. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there.

Please refrain from redirecting to articles and stating that you've merged the information, because I've had to fix several instances where the merge hasn't occurred, including:

• Through-hole technology
• Modular power supply unit
• Electrical lengthening
• Plastic leaded chip carrier
• Low-profile Quad Flat Package

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please address/post any and all comments to the administrator's noticeboard link I provided above, rather than on my discussion page. Northamerica1000 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging without attribution

Hi. I saw the note above on ANI. I see that you are merging without providing the necessary attribution. For instance, you moved content from Through-hole technology to Printed circuit board here with only the edit summary "merged." Misplaced Pages's content is not public domain. You are free to reuse it, but you have to give credit to the authors with at minimum a hyperlink or URL to the original. The minimum requirement for this is a link in the edit summary; when copying is extensive, it's best practice to use {{copied}} on the talk pages of the articles as well. (See Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages.)

I will repair the attribution for this case, but if you have merged content from other articles without the required attribution, please go back and fix this. Without attribution, the material is a violation of our copyright policy. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl 15:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is peculiar. You can use the edit history to recreate the article at any stage back to 2004. When did policy require a link to the merged articles? The whole history of the stubs still exists, it's not like anything has vanished, it's just been reorganized so that all the shards have been glued together in one piece. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar or not, the hyperlink or URL is required by our Terms of Use. :) You have to provide a link to the article from which you are copying content so that it appears in the history, which is the complete record of attribution. Can you please provide attribution for the other articles you've merged? --Moonriddengirl 15:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Every merge? Since 2005? I'm sorry, I can't provide every merge that I've done. This seems a pointless exercise in bureaucracy; every edit is recorded, why put on a redundant template? Two redundant templates, actually. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You must at minimum provide a hyperlink or URL in edit summary to the article from which you are copying. Providing attribution is not optional. --Moonriddengirl 16:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In 30,000 edits there must be ...hundreds? Thousands? of merges. Is there some automatic tool for decorating talk pages with the extra templates, because I don't recall the merges and am not prepared to waste that much time. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained above, the template is "best practice" but not required; the hyperlink or URL is what is required. Every time you hit save, you are verifying that your content conforms to our Terms of Use. Our Terms of Use explain these attribution requirements. Process pages on Misplaced Pages have also long explained these attribution requirements. While Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages has only been in existence since 2009, the procedure for attribution was described in Help:Merging prior to that: "Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting "merge content from article name" (This step is required in order to conform with §4(I) of the GFDL. Do not omit it or omit the page name.)" (bold in original). I don't know how many merges you've done and am very sorry that you are evidently only just now becoming aware of this legal requirement, but it is a legal requirement. Contributors do not release their content here into public domain. --Moonriddengirl 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How is this equivalent to claiming "public domain"? Currently the edit box says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." I seem to recall it used to say "edited ruthlessly". Is it the opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation lawyers that *moving 3 x 5 cards around in a box* constitutes misuse of a contribution? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You are free to edit, use and redistribute the text, here or elsewhere, but you must comply with the license, or you are violating the copyright of the contributors. Each article is a document unto itself, with its own history maintained in accordance with the requirements of GFDL, and we are required by the terms of our license to keep track of the authors of these articles. You can only move content from one article to another without attribution to the contributor if you solely authored it or if it is public domain. --Moonriddengirl 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought the "document" was an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, each article or page is a document; that is why each article has its own "history" page in accordance with GFDL. Otherwise, to comply with our license, we would have to have one huge list of contributors to every page. --Moonriddengirl 16:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused...we do have a huge list of contributors to every page. Just how tightly does the law dictate the formatting of the attribution? It's conceptually possible to have a robot go through the edit histories and piece together any history we would want; I don't see what the templates add to the process. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The template, as I said, is best practice; the requirement is the hyperlink or URL in the edit summary. When you look at the history of Printed circuit board, it gave no indication of where you had merged content from in your edit, prior to my correction. The history was incomplete. If not for our Terms of Use, you would be required to copy over the names of the contributors from the article you merged. Our Terms of Use, happily, allow us to copy content simply with the URL or hyperlink. By doing this, we direct people to the history for the original document to see who authored that material. So long as we retain the history of the article you've merged (and the template helps make sure we do this), we are still compliant with license, which requires that we attach attribution to the document itself. --Moonriddengirl 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)