User talk:CompulsiveResearcher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:DiamondRemley39)
SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Women in Red[edit]

Hi there, DiamondRemley39, and thanks for all the articles you have recently been adding, especially biographies of women and books written by women authors. It seems to me you would be a useful member of WikiProject Women in Red where we are trying to chip away at the gender gap. If you would like to join, you can sign up under "New registrations" on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/New members. In any case, I look forward to many more new articles. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing up and welcome to the project. You seem to be pretty familiar with the technicalities of Wikipedia editing but if you have not already done so, you might find it useful to look at some of our essays, perhaps starting with our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Flora Foster is a very good article. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!!! Compulsive Researcher (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - June 2023[edit]

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Copyright problem: Flora Warren Seymour[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello CompulsiveResearcher! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Flora Warren Seymour, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://books.google.it/books?id=XJSdT_4NWTMC&pg=PA204 (Jennifer Scanlon (1996), American Women Historians), and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Flora Warren Seymour saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers Well... How about you tell me what synonyms I ought to use for proper nouns and verbs and dates and such? Compulsive Researcher (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For that, see Talk:Flora Warren Seymour, where I've replied to you in detail. Please note that I've also blanked this, which has exactly the same problems as the mainspace article. Inadvertently adding copyvio to a page is one thing, knowingly creating a page that contains copyright violations is another; you can expect to lose your editing privileges without further discussion if you do that again, so ... please don't! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Justlettersandnumbers Please take it easy on the bad faith accusations. I recreated my old draft as it had existed in my userspace so I could edit the text in my userspace into something that could once again go into the mainspace because I did not want the repercussions of editing the article in the mainspace in a way you would find unacceptable. It wasn't edited for hours because you did not respond for hours.
Please do not edit articles in my userspace again. If you want something changed in my userspace, please find an uninvolved admin to do so. Thank you.
Please find an uninvolved editor to communicate with me further on this matter; I cannot take the tone of the communications I receive from you. Thank you. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see here. I'm not "involved", my only interaction with you has been in my capacity as an administrator, attempting to ensure that you have not violated our copyright policy in this project other than in that one page, and that you will not do so again. Please be warned that I intend to block your account if I see one more copyright violation from it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear CompulsiveResearcher, about your question as to what synonyms [you] ought to use for proper nouns and verbs and dates and such, you are not supposed to take a single source and introduce a whole passage from that source verbatim, or mostly verbatim, or not really verbatim, but with only superficial alterations such as by replacing words with their synonyms, as that is close paraphrasing. The main thing to do on Wikipedia when adding content is to consolidate information from multiple sources. That reduces copyright concerns and makes for much more valid encyclopedic content insofar an encyclopedia is precisely that kind of work—which summarizes and consolidates information... from multiple sources. Using a single source for a whole string of claims is risky, and doing it right can be a pain; at least differentiate essential from non-essential claims and carry over only the most essential information while leaving the detail out. Writing reasonable content can be difficult sometimes, and copyright and plagiarism considerations contribute to that, but editors must take up the challenge. Whether there's a copyright problem in this instance or not (haven't looked in depth), I do not know, but maybe this will help you not attract a notice like this one in the future. Sincerely—Alalch E. 22:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I believe people should be able to disagree and discuss without taking things personally. I mean the below in good faith and I will reiterate that later.
I'm told I'll be blocked if I make the wrong call, but no one has yet explained what the right one is or indicated having read what's there.
You say haven't looked at the article in-depth, and I am not unfamiliar with copyright, so I'll expand on my points below:
  1. Re: synonyms, etc.: That is quite relevant. I struggle to provide job title/employer/date info in a way that will please the above-mentioned admin, and perhaps you as well, if we do not share the same reading of "Substantial similarity" section on the close paraphrasing page you linked. It includes a quote from the US Copyright Office: "Copyright law does not protect names, titles, or short phrases or expressions... The Copyright Office cannot register claims to exclusive rights in brief combinations of words ... To be protected by copyright, a work must contain a certain minimum amount of authorship ... Names, titles, and other short phrases do not meet these requirements." These are not unique sentences. These are brief combinations of proper nouns and verbs. A similar sentence to those in question: "From 1961 to 1963, Kennedy served as President of the United States." I suppose "The United States employed Kennedy from 1961 to 1963," but a clunky object the subject makes there, and if someone would call such a change superficial and reordering, well, how are things to be communicated?
  2. Re: "Using a single source for a whole string of claims is risky"--We were talking about copyright, and I don't follow... do you have an issue w/ the number and sort of sources I used? This article was hardly single-sourced; none of the claims are being questioned as far as I know. The source lists other sources. The subject has been dead over 70 years. It's essential to say Seymour worked for the War Department during WWI, and I believe her involvement in the other 2 bodies is important as well; the facts are not problematic and to leave them out would downplay her accomplishments, making the resulting Wikipedia article less than it ought to be.
  3. Re: the difficulty writing "reasonable content": Is it unreasonable to write "Jane Doe taught ninth grade at John Adams High School" because a source wrote "Jane Doe was a ninth grade teacher at John Adams High School"? If so, well...
What is my best option? My next best? I keep asking for help. So far, I get generalities or statements, some emphasizing that I am wrong or ill-informed. Yours is an exception; your words have kept the focus on the content with no allusions to my character and in the right place for it and I am caused no grief. But I have no indication anyone who knows substantive similarity has applied that to the words in question. Yet people will talk.
Don't feel as if you have to respond. I am going to take a Wikibreak for some time shortly. I thank you again for your reply and I hope you have a good career on Wikipedia. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked at any of your past edits to assess what others have already concluded. However, I would say to your Q3 that the alternative wording you offered is quite acceptable to me. But that is in one single sentence. If you were to take the entire contents of a copyrighted page and simply rephrase each and every sentence in a similar manner, without restructuring the work, then you could, quite rightly, be accused of close-paraphrasing that page or paragraph. It can be a difficult judgement call when it comes to a single sentence, but it can become obvious if all someone has done is use slightly different wording for all the sentences in a copyrighted book. That's where the creativity side of Wikipedia editing comes in. And, in answer to your earlier question - no, I don't feel it would be proper to do what you wanted. But using multiple sources to create new content in your own words is a really good way to avoid the paraphrasing issue in future. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting with a statement that you haven't looked at my past edits and acknowledging that others have already come to conclusions. So far, no one has stated an issue with any article except this one, but always in motion is the future.
We're talking about 3 simple sentences like I'd mentioned in #3. Or 1 simple sentence and 1 complex... It's good to know you think my example is OK; someone in one of these discussions (it's all running together) spoke against those kinds of changes... I added more sources in userspace and worked on the phrasing there because I thought that was OK, but the page has been blanked with the template and I have been warned not to touch it. (That was my mistake, and though I had good intent, I take responsibility for my actions.)
Questions: Is it within policy to take that content as I had edited and place it or a link to it (userspace) where someone can review it? If so, where is the best place for it to go that would raise the fewest eyebrows?
Thank you for being thoughtful and well-spoken. You are the first person to read an example I have written and respond to it, I think. I'd give you a kitten if I weren't so exhausted! Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Star Mississippi 13:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as I said on AN, you're welcome to edit in other areas but given your confusion over copyright - you should not be editing in article space until it's resolved. Star Mississippi 13:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm more confused with what the AN is about. No one there has asked me anything, but I'm blocked. That's OK.
Related to the block: If I notice a problematic change in an article, where may I request someone review those and revert or cite if necessary? I watch a few articles with BLP or COI issues. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You absolutely can. You're not blocked from Talk space or anywhere else. If you convince others at the thread that you understand copyright (hint: not arguing that it's not technically copyright!), and there are no other issues identified within your edits, you'll likely be unblocked Star Mississippi 15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
  1. I'd rather remain blocked for now. But, if/when I opt for an unblock, where would I convince others of my knowledge of copyright? At the AN thread (now-ish)? Or in the unblock request (later on)?
  2. Does "abuse of editing privileges" refer only to the "wikilawyering"? Or something else? I want to be accurate.
  3. May I use articles for creation to submit articles?
  4. May I draft in my namespace? That is my preference. But as one page has been blanked twice in the last day, I don't know what are my limitations on using my namespace.
Have a good day. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You can convince admins in whicghever location you prefer. You're not community blocked so assuming you decide to request an unblock later, you can request it here and someone will take action. You're welcome to use AfC or your userspace drafts as you prefer, but I would think hard about what @Justlettersandnumbers advised you before you write in either space. You may or may not not be correct about whether it's technically copyright, but it's better to avoid it looking as if it's copyright if you want the drafts approved for mainspace. Star Mississippi 16:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I promise this will wrap up soon; I know you have other things to do.
  1. Can admins warn me, blank my userspace pages, or beyond if they object to my work, including if they interpret content in my works in progress as copyright violations, or do such have to have existed in the mainspace first? Basically: can they tie my hands as I draft or not?
  2. You didn't answer #2 in my list above. I would like to know what abuse of editing privileges means as that is the reason for my block. Wikilawyering? Potential copyright infringement?
Thanks again. Compulsive Researcher (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. is wikilawyering, which I know you don't think you're doing. Copyright violations are not allowed anywhere on the project. If someone judges your draft to be one, they can blank it. Diannaa and Moneytrees are the admins most experienced with copyright violations and I'd check with them if you think you're anywhere close to problematic content. Abuse of editing priviliges is because there is a potential copyright issue. As it's a legal issue for the project, we cannot have copyright violations even if an editor thinks they are not. So abundance of caution, everyone's favorite phrase in the last three years. Star Mississippi 17:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. OK. I'm sorry my questions are wrong to have. I wanted information so I could make informed decisions rather than proceed as I have been and end up in hotter water, but it's wikilawyering. Maybe this demonstrates I'm not cut out for volunteering here. I don't know anymore. Thank you for providing the names of two admins; I will consider pinging them to review my future work if and after I establish contact.
  2. A copyright violation in the mainspace. Check. Thank you.
Compulsive Researcher (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this dispute here and at the Administrator's Noticeboard. I'm sorry this has all gone south so quickly. Looking at your talk page history, it looks like you've stayed away from disputes here and just worked away building Wikipedia. Then suddenly, people are jumping up and down and then - bam - you're blocked.
I left a couple of comments: [1][2]
I was an admin in the past -- that's a very unusual sequence. I think it partly has to do with the issue of copyrights. Wikipedia can be sloppy and inconsistent about many things but for legal and ethical reasons, the community and the Wikimedia Foundation have very short fuses about two issues - biographies of living people and copyright. Things can escalate very quickly as they did here.
I'm sorry this has happened. I appreciate what you've done here for coverage of women. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading and commenting; you've provided bold support and I need that very much tonight. I want to say a lot more to you, but I'm afraid it could be used against me, so for now I'll just say I appreciate you greatly.
I hope you have the best weekend! Compulsive Researcher (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red July 2023[edit]

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red 8th Anniversary[edit]

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
In July 2015 around 15.5% of the English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. As of July 2023, 19.61% of the English Wikipedia's biographies are about women. That's a lot of biographies created in the effort to close the gender gap. Happy 8th Anniversary! Join us for some virtual cake and add comments or memories and please keep on editing to close the gap!

--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red August 2023[edit]

Women in Red August 2023, Vol 9, Iss 8, Nos 251, 252, 277, 278, 279, 280


Online events:

See also:

  • Wikimania 2023 will be held in Singapore, 16–19 August, and will be facilitated by the
    affiliates in the ESEAP (East/South East/Asia/Pacific) region.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

September 2023 at Women In Red[edit]

Women in Red September 2023, Vol 9, Iss 9, Nos 251, 252, 281, 282, 283


Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • The books she wrote might be notable, too; learn 5 quick tips about about book articles.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red October 2023[edit]

Women in Red October 2023, Vol 9, Iss 10, Nos 251, 252, 284, 285, 286


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red - November 2023[edit]

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red December 2023[edit]

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Carolyn Crimi for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carolyn Crimi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Crimi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2024[edit]

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


Online events:

Announcement

  • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
    of the #1day1woman initiative!

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

Women in Red February 2024[edit]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298


Online events:

Announcement

  • Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event.

Tip of the month:

  • AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red March 2024[edit]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red April 2024[edit]

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CompulsiveResearcher&oldid=1216399952"