User:Doncram/TimelineOf2015-05-08


 * Tag-bombing applies, yes. Also wp:POINTY removal of an entire section "Related works" because YOU don't believe they are related.  I have undone some of this editor's edits, but have been reverted.  Call it edit warring perhaps.  I spent a long time today explaining at Talk page, etc.  I don't have more time.  I request that an admin now block Nikkimaria and ask questions later, after this article is not getting hits from prominent DYK-link on main page.  That would be a PREVENTATIVE block. -- do  ncr  am  17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You were reverted by another editor who agreed that my concerns were valid ... and "block first and ask questions later" is never a good approach to a problem.
 * This article should not be on the main page right now: it includes verbatim copying from this source, very extensive close paraphrasing from this source, and other issues. That's why there are close-paraphrasing tags on the article, as explained at talk. And again, the only reason perceived tag-bombing is taking place is because you insisted that the single tag I initially added was too marring and that I should instead individually tag sections. I would be happy to replace most of the individual tags with the article-level version, but I don't want to get into an edit-war with you on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec, and not responding to last entry) Okay only some of the edits are entirely nonsense, like where the editor detected multiple 2-word phrases used in both of two similar articles. I am sure there are some valid concerns in Nikkimania's edits that should be addressed, but with reasonable time, through reasonable process. It is not necessary to attack it for hours.  This one editor wants a citation, so removes a whole section.  Or inserts two tags into the lede.  Again I don't have time for this.  Can't. -- do  ncr  am  18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been "attack[ing] it for hours"; it just takes significantly more time to tag issues individually, particularly when there are many of them, then to just add a single whole-article tag. Finding the copyright issue added more time to that - since one of the sources being copied wasn't cited in the article, this requires more extensive searching beyond the existing sources. The other issues you mention have already been explained at the talk page, where this dispute belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No block is warranted here; the editor raises perfectly valid concerns on the talk page.  Hi DrNick ! 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Will some responsible admin please get this off of the mainpage now? Here we are, five years after the infamous DYK blowup, and we still have DYK putting copyvio, plagiarism, cut-and-paste, non-reliable sources ... you name it on any given day ... on the mainpage. (And, if not for Nikkimaria being one of the very few who pay attention, we'd see even more of this.) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has now been removed from the main page (thank you Harrias!) and discussion is proceeding on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't take the credit for removing it, that was, I just tidied up the errors page afterwards! Harrias talk 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake - thanks TRM. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * S'ok. Us "worst admins around" occasionally mistakenly do something right, even sitting in my car on my phone waiting for my world class dinner to be prepared.  It's just statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nikkimaria is trying to address real problems. Instead of denying that problems exist and then starting an AN/I thread, doncram should consider facing up to, or perhaps even fixing these problems. Seeking a preventative block in order to stop people putting tags on a front-page article is missing the point - very much so. Our need for policy-compliant articles trumps the need to remove embarrassing warning tags. bobrayner (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oooh, watch out User:doncram, someone might try and pull out a cubist boomerang. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No block Even though it appears as if the issue could have been communicated better, blocking for the editor action is way over the top. prokaryotes (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What I saw was multiple rapid-fire edits by this editor that marred the article. A good number of which looked clearly unnecessary, so seem wp:POINTY to me. With terse explanation like "tag", and no explanation beforehand at Talk. Inadequate explanation at Talk, only in response to multiple other concerned editors.

especially after the editor was asked nicely enough at the Talk page to refrain from tagging the top of the article while the DYK was on the front page.

Starts here: 03:14, 7 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (60,985 bytes) (+48)‎. . (fixed dashes using a script) (undo | thank)

03:17, 7 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs)‎. . (61,006 bytes) (+21)‎. . (→‎top: tag) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 03:14, 7 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (60,985 bytes) (+48)‎. . (fixed dashes using a script) (undo | thank)

03:19, 7 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria (talk | contribs)‎. . (61,021 bytes) (+15)‎. . (→‎top: fix) (undo | thank)


 * 3 edits that made dozens of hyphen-dash changes and tagged top of article with wp:OR tag]. The edit summary for the tagging was "tag". Who cares about dashes vs. hyphens, but why mar the article with the tag at top?  No edit at Talk.  The edit summary was "tag" is inadequate.

13:43, 8 May 2015‎ I remove  "rm tag for original research, at least for now. pls. see Talk section, and pls. explain concern"

14:15, 8 May 2015 32 minutes later, Nikkimania reverts "Undid revision 661410329 by Doncram (talk): will explain at talk shortly"

13:41‎ Doncram at Talk (+397)‎ "(→‎original research?: new section)"

13:53, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at Talk "(→‎original research?: concerns?)"

13:47 Nikkimania, 40 minutes later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess&type=revision&diff=661415509&oldid=661411822 , 8 May 2015 (UTC) replies at talk], with

13:48, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,572 bytes) (+550)‎ . . (more about wp:or concern maybe not justified)"

14:21 "(this is why the whole-article tag was more appropriate). (TW)"

14:21 Nikkimaria at Talk "(→‎original research?: re). In the same minute does both? how about allowing for some discussion.

14:25, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,107 bytes) (+795)‎ . . (ec) (undo)

14:29, 8 May 2015‎ Gerda Arendt at talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,280 bytes) (+173)‎ . . (→‎original research?: tag section (ec)) (undo | than

14:39, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,459 bytes) (+179)‎ . . (→‎original research?: agree) (undo | thank)

14:41, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,121 bytes) (+1,662)‎ . . (→‎original research?: ec replyt) (undo)

Can you please not interfere with that, for the moment, and use an inline tag or two instead, or, better, raise your specific concerns here on the Talk page for discussion here instead. Some may be resolved by consensus that no change in the article is needed, others may be resolved by addition of a source.

14:42, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram in article "(rm tag, per apparent consensus on Talk page. Pls discuss there.)"

14:46, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,427 bytes) (+306)‎ . . (→‎original research?: use cn tag for example) (undo)

15:10, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,890 bytes) (+463)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

15:23 N in article removes an entire section leaving no trace behind, with edit summary "related according to whom?" Come on, because you have a question you remove the whole Related works section? What is the rush, where is any justification at Talk. When the relatedness of every item could likely be documented by explicit footnotes later?


 * At 15:23 Nikkimaria in article adds section-top wp:OR and inserts a page-needed tag.  C'mon now, is that really necessary?  They couldn't mention the page-needed in a list of their own, or on the talk-page?
 * does not explain the section OR question on the talk page.

15:27, 8 May 2015‎ Gerda Arendt at talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,394 bytes) (+236)‎ . . (→‎original research?: If imrovement is wanted, details need to be pointed out.) (undo | thank)

15:15, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,158 bytes) (+268)‎ . . (→‎original research?: a slight conflict) (undo | thank)

15:44, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania in article "→Exhibitions and reproductions: tags"

15:51, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,817 bytes) (+423)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

15:59, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,031 bytes) (+4,214)‎ . . (→‎original research?: reply) (undo)

16:02, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,335 bytes) (+304)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: sign, other) (undo)

16:05, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram in article "(restore section that was just dropped. Discuss at Talk, pls, see what i wrote already.)"

16:10, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,302 bytes) (+967)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

16:13, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article  "(→‎Related works: tag)"
 * I restore the section, then merely 8 seconds later the editor tags the section with wp:OR.

16:25, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,370 bytes) (+795)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: note) (undo)

16:23, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,575 bytes) (+273)‎ . . (→‎original research?: concerns) (undo | thank)

16:50, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(tags)" 16:50, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(fix)" tagged as minor edit

16:44, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,129 bytes) (+759)‎ . . (→‎original research?: misapplication of dupdet tool) (undo)

"The "duplication" detected at that link given is not valid. That is a mis-application of a Wikipedia tool, "DupDet", http://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ . It compares this Wikipedia article Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess to another Wikipedia article Femme_au_miroir. Any duplication would not be a copyright issue at all. And the application was run with the tool's default settings, looking for a 2 word string that has at least 13 characters. Of course there are many overlaps, e.g. for any source used twice, or for any mention of painting titles, etc. --doncram 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

16:54, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,743 bytes) (+614)‎ . . (→‎original research?: close paraphrasing detected may be entirely erroneous) (undo)

16:55, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,895 bytes) (+152)‎ . . (→‎original research?: I see) (undo | thank) "Ah, I see. Well that's an easy mistake to make. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

16:58, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(→‎Crystal Cubism: tags, ce)"

17:00, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,112 bytes) (+217)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: update) (undo)

17:02, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(→‎Description: tags, ce)"

17:07, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK | contribs)‎ . . (15,656 bytes) (+544)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

"I think you may have misunderstood. Duplication between Wikipedia articles could quite easily be a copyright issue, per WP:CWW, given the lack of correct attribution. However, it can also make an article ineligible for DYK, particularly when the duplication is extensive. I haven't checked whether that's the case here, as the article is already ineligible for DYK for external copyvio. It's just unfortunate that this issue wasn't caught sooner. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

THAT IS PAthEtic, is what i doncram thot

17:07 Doncram in article "(→‎Crystal Cubism: rm tag suggesting original research for same reasons as at article level)"

17:09 Nikkimaria in article: "Reverted good faith edits by Doncram (talk): Per talk, tagging "precise section[s" (this is why the whole-article tag was more appropriate). (TW)"]

17:14, 8 May Nikkimaria in article: "‎top: mos, tags" which mars the lede section by two citation needed tags. Probably)

17:18, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,779 bytes) (+1,123)‎ . . (→‎original research?: duplication alleged is entirely false, based on misapplication of a tool) (undo)

17:22, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,149 bytes) (+370)‎ . . (→‎original research?: no external copyvio) (undo)

"Nikkimaria's allegations of external copyvio appear to be entirely false. Please see now-bolded "The duplication detected is nonsense" refutation by me, above. --doncram 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

17:24, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram in article, undoes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess&type=revision&diff=661439342&oldid=661438162 "(Undid revision 661437371 by Nikkimaria (talk))"

17:26, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram, in 2 edits (rm nonsensical citation needed tags in the lede. The lede is a summary, does not need citations. This is basic editing 101.)"

17:28, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (17,443 bytes) (+294)‎. . (→‎original research?: oh joy) (undo | thank)

"Nikkimaria is right about attribution - there is a need to add complete-waste-of-time bureaucratic colourful and informative tags to show from where material has been copied (or even close paraphrased, it seems). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

(cur | prev) 17:29, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at TALK(talk | contribs)‎ m. . (17,442 bytes) (-1)‎. . (→‎original research?: oh joy) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:37, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (20,572 bytes) (+3,130)‎. . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank) 17:37 Close paraphrasing/copyvio Article:
 * "The exhibition was a three-venue exhibition at the University of Chicago that brought to light the interdependence ...."

........EXAMPLE WITH TWO PASSAGES......... ".... These examples are sufficient to demonstrate a very clear problem here, but they are only examples: one need only read this source in tandem with the article to note additional problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

there will be       No more edits at article by Nikkimaria or by me.

17:39 at article, another editor reverts, restoring 2 tags in lede and a section-top OR tag.

17:51, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (21,821 bytes) (+833)‎. . (→‎Close paraphrasing/copyvio: reply, have requested a block) (undo)

"There is room for improvement probably, including editing to make phrasing more different and crediting the source being relied upon. It does not require you to mar whole sections of the article while it is linked from main page."

"Your continual attacks are wp:POINTY and bad in other ways right now, all while the article is prominently linked from the main page. Another fault is that you inserted citation needed tags into the lede, which doesn't need sourcing. I made request for you to be blocked at wp:ANI. This has cost hours of time trying to undo what you are doing all the more intently. I don't have time for this. --doncram 17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

17:51, 8 May 2015‎ Awien at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (20,988 bytes) (+416)‎. . (→‎Bravo: new section) (undo | thank)

17:56, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (22,432 bytes) (+611)‎. . (→‎Close paraphrasing/copyvio: re)"

"You will recall that I said above that a whole-article tag makes far more sense than more specific tagging of individual issues; surely we can agree that the latter approach is far more "marring"? The lead does not need citations insofar as it is a summary; however, when information is introduced in the lead that does not appear in the article itself (such as the bit about the press), that does need either citing or removing. Rather than trying to undo what I am doing, perhaps we could work on fixing the problems? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

WHAT A CROCK, i am thinking.

xxxxxxxxxxx

ANI warning, opening, notice given

17:30, 8 May 2015 Doncram at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop: new section)

17:39, 8 May 2015 Doncram at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: new section)

_______request block DYK-related preventative right now

Could an admin please block editor, who has been attacking the article linked from the great leading DYK on the main page, Soldier at a Game of Chess. Allegations of copyvio, plagiarism, everything else appear to be entirely false. Editor mis-applied Duplication Detection tool. Editor intent on marring the article with unnecessary tags. One technical violation is that they used Twinkle to revert, which used to be taken as a serious problem, if that helps. This started when I removed, with support on Talk page already, the OR tag put at top of article.

I don't have time for this, really. See the Talk page, Talk:Soldier at a Game of Chess and see the edit history in the article. -- do ncr  am  17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

17:41, 8 May 2015 Doncram at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop)

17:42, 8 May 2015 Doncram at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop: wp:ANI proceeding on your edits has been opened by me, requesting that you be blocked)

17:46, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ "(→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: re)"


 * I have provided evidence at the talk page that the copyright issue is not "nonsense". As for the tagging, I had initially added only a single, article-level tag; however, Doncram and others insisted that each section/issue should be tagged individually instead, despite my objection that given the extent of the issues a whole-article tag would be more appropriate. I realize that the number of tags being added looks like tag-bombing - that's not what I would prefer, but I'm trying to indicate what and where the issues are, per the request on talk. I've also asked that the article be removed from the main page given the copyright concern, but that hasn't yet been actioned, so it would be very helpful if someone could do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

17:48, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop: re)

17:56, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania at Talk:Soldier at a Game of Chess ‎ (→‎Close paraphrasing/copyvio: re)

17:56 doncram at wp:ANI. "Tag-bombing applies, yes. Also wp:POINTY removal of an entire section "Related works" because YOU don't believe they are related. I have undone some of this editor's edits, but have been reverted.  Call it edit warring perhaps.  I spent a long time today explaining at Talk page, etc.  I don't have more time.  I request that an admin now block Nikkimaria and ask questions later, after this article is not getting hits from prominent DYK-link on main page.  That would be a PREVENTATIVE block. -- do  ncr  am  17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

18:03, 8 May 2015 (diff | hist). . (+1,021)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: re)

18:08, 8 May 2015 (diff | hist). . (+259)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: links)

18:24, 8 May 2015 (diff | hist). . (+580)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: re)

FINALLY, ONLY AFTER WPANI in progress, makes a show of responding. 18:28, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,691 bytes) (+259)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: re) (undo | thank) editor states a question at Talk, in section set up for it, more than 2 hours earlier at "16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)".

It would have been nice for you to respond sooner.

... 22:57 8 May 2015 (edit) (undo) Coldcreation in article Removal of 3 tags and Four footnotes added

some posting content was
Can you please not interfere with that, for the moment, and use an inline tag or two instead, or, better, raise your specific concerns here on the Talk page for discussion here instead. Some may be resolved by consensus that no change in the article is needed, others may be resolved by addition of a source. --doncram 14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC) You could use inline template, instead. E.g. "cn:May 2015" --doncram 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Er, no. We don't refrain from tagging issues just because an article is at DYK, and this article's issues are not IMO limited to a couple of sentences or a single section - the broader tag is more appropriate given the current situation. One potential benefit of the tag is that readers will note that the article could be improved, and may even contribute to that process. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I guess it depends if you want to flag to as many readers as possible that improvement is needed. Or to direct attention to the actual sentences that need attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC) If imrovement is wanted, details need to be pointed out. A global tag raises mistrust, in this article and by implication in Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC) As well it should, as it turns out: I've just found some significant close paraphrasing, bordering on copyvio. This source, this source, possibly others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Too close paraphrasing" would be a problem, but sheesh it should not be regarded as a trumping issue. If at least one editor believes there is too close paraphrasing, then it can/should be addressed. It does not justify tagging the article as copyvio, say. Note even when there are long passages copied exactly from some source, it is not always bad...there could be permission from original author, for example. --doncram 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC) There could be permission, but absent evidence of said permission we are legally required to assume that there is not. So yes, near-verbatim copying from a copyrighted source is absolutely a trumping issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC) In a DupDet tool link you provided below, you made the mistake of searching for 2-word strings. If you ran DupDet using those settings, "Soldier at a Game of Chess" and many other phrases would be detected, and red lights might flash, but titles and many other 2-word phrases are not copyvio. You need to show specific passages as they appear in this Wikipedia and as they appear in one of those sources. --doncram 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In the first source identified, the offending passage would be "Soldier at a Game of Chess next to X-ray Composite based on Jean Metzinger's “Soldier at a Game of Chess” / On the left is Soldier at a Game of Chess (c 1915–16) by Jean Metzinger (oil on canvas, gift of John L Strauss, Jr in memory of his father, John L Strauss); on the right is X-ray Composite based on Jean Metzinger's “Soldier at a Game of Chess” by Adam Schwertner, Stephen Thomas, and Brian Callender, digitally assembled radiographic scans, superimposed on an image of the painting (radiographic images provided by the Department of Radiology at the University of Chicago Medical Center)."

Before "entirely dismiss[ing] all negative allegations made", perhaps it would be helpful to look more closely at the actual text rather than simply an automated tool. See below. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The duplication detected is nonsense. It must have detected overlapping use of phrases like "Soldier at a Game of Chess" and "University of Chicago Medical Center". On this basis I entirely dismiss all negative allegations made. --doncram 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

BIG DUP TO FIX
I opened an ANI section: request block DYK-related preventative right now

statement
What I saw was multiple rapid-fire edits by this editor that marred the article. A good number of which looked clearly unnecessary, so seem wp:POINTY to me. With terse explanation like "tag", and no explanation beforehand at Talk. Inadequate explanation at Talk, only in response to multiple other concerned editors.

especially after the editor was asked nicely enough at the Talk page to refrain from tagging the top of the article while the DYK was on the front page.
 * 3 edits that made dozens of hyphen-dash changes and tagged top of article with wp:OR tag]. The edit summary for the tagging was "tag". Who cares about dashes vs. hyphens, but why mar the article with the tag at top?  No edit at Talk.  The edit summary was "tag" is inadequate.

13:43, 8 May 2015‎ I remove  "rm tag for original research, at least for now. pls. see Talk section, and pls. explain concern"

14:15, 8 May 2015 32 minutes later, Nikkimania reverts "Undid revision 661410329 by Doncram (talk): will explain at talk shortly"

13:41‎ Doncram at Talk (+397)‎ "(→‎original research?: new section)"

13:47 Nikkimania, 40 minutes later, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess&type=revision&diff=661415509&oldid=661411822 , 8 May 2015 (UTC) replies at talk], with

13:48, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,572 bytes) (+550)‎ . . (more about wp:or concern maybe not justified)"

13:53, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at Talk "(→‎original research?: concerns?)"

14:21 Nikkimania in article "(this is why the whole-article tag was more appropriate). (TW)" adds several tags.

14:21 Nikkimaria at Talk "(→‎original research?: re). In the same minute does both? how about allowing for some discussion.

14:25, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,107 bytes) (+795)‎ . . (ec) (undo)

14:29, 8 May 2015‎ Gerda Arendt at talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,280 bytes) (+173)‎ . . (→‎original research?: tag section (ec)) (undo | than

14:39, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,459 bytes) (+179)‎ . . (→‎original research?: agree) (undo | thank)

14:41, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,121 bytes) (+1,662)‎ . . (→‎original research?: ec replyt) (undo)

"Can you please not interfere with that, for the moment, and use an inline tag or two instead, or, better, raise your specific concerns here on the Talk page for discussion here instead. Some may be resolved by consensus that no change in the article is needed, others may be resolved by addition of a source."

14:42, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram in article "(rm tag, per apparent consensus on Talk page. Pls discuss there.)"

14:46, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,427 bytes) (+306)‎ . . (→‎original research?: use cn tag for example) (undo)

15:10, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at talk | contribs)‎ . . (5,890 bytes) (+463)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

15:23 N in article removes an entire section leaving no trace behind, with edit summary "related according to whom?"

Come on, because you have a question you remove the whole Related works section? What is the rush, where is any justification at Talk. When the relatedness of every item could likely be documented by explicit footnotes later?

15:23 Nikkimaria in article adds section-top wp:OR and inserts a page-needed tag.

MY VIEw: C'mon now, is that really necessary? They couldn't mention the page-needed in a list of their own, or on the talk-page? does not explain the section OR question on the talk page.

15:27, 8 May 2015‎ Gerda Arendt at talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,394 bytes) (+236)‎ . . (→‎original research?: If imrovement is wanted, details need to be pointed out.) (undo | thank)

15:15, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,158 bytes) (+268)‎ . . (→‎original research?: a slight conflict) (undo | thank)

15:44, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania in article "→Exhibitions and reproductions: tags"

15:51, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,817 bytes) (+423)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

15:59, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,031 bytes) (+4,214)‎ . . (→‎original research?: reply) (undo)

16:02, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,335 bytes) (+304)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: sign, other) (undo)

16:05, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram in article "(restore section that was just dropped. Discuss at Talk, pls, see what i wrote already.)"

16:10, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,302 bytes) (+967)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

16:13, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article  "(→‎Related works: tag)"
 * I restore the section, then merely 8 seconds later the editor tags the section with wp:OR.

16:25, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,370 bytes) (+795)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: note) (undo)

16:23, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,575 bytes) (+273)‎ . . (→‎original research?: concerns) (undo | thank)

16:50, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(tags)" 16:50, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(fix)" tagged as minor edit

16:44, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,129 bytes) (+759)‎ . . (→‎original research?: misapplication of dupdet tool) (undo)

"The "duplication" detected at that link given is not valid. That is a mis-application of a Wikipedia tool, "DupDet", http://tools.wmflabs.org/dupdet/ . It compares this Wikipedia article Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess to another Wikipedia article Femme_au_miroir. Any duplication would not be a copyright issue at all. And the application was run with the tool's default settings, looking for a 2 word string that has at least 13 characters. Of course there are many overlaps, e.g. for any source used twice, or for any mention of painting titles, etc. --doncram 16:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

16:54, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,743 bytes) (+614)‎ . . (→‎original research?: close paraphrasing detected may be entirely erroneous) (undo)

16:55, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,895 bytes) (+152)‎ . . (→‎original research?: I see) (undo | thank) "Ah, I see. Well that's an easy mistake to make. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

16:58, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(→‎Crystal Cubism: tags, ce)"

17:00, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,112 bytes) (+217)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: update) (undo)

17:02, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria in article "(→‎Description: tags, ce)"

17:07, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK | contribs)‎ . . (15,656 bytes) (+544)‎ . . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank)

"I think you may have misunderstood. Duplication between Wikipedia articles could quite easily be a copyright issue, per WP:CWW, given the lack of correct attribution. However, it can also make an article ineligible for DYK, particularly when the duplication is extensive. I haven't checked whether that's the case here, as the article is already ineligible for DYK for external copyvio. It's just unfortunate that this issue wasn't caught sooner. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

THAT IS PAthEtic, is what i doncram thot

17:07 Doncram in article "(→‎Crystal Cubism: rm tag suggesting original research for same reasons as at article level)"

17:09 Nikkimaria in article: "Reverted good faith edits by Doncram (talk): Per talk, tagging "precise section[s" (this is why the whole-article tag was more appropriate). (TW)"]

17:14, 8 May Nikkimaria in article: "‎top: mos, tags" which mars the lede section by two citation needed tags. Probably)

17:18, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,779 bytes) (+1,123)‎ . . (→‎original research?: duplication alleged is entirely false, based on misapplication of a tool) (undo)

17:22, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,149 bytes) (+370)‎ . . (→‎original research?: no external copyvio) (undo)

"Nikkimaria's allegations of external copyvio appear to be entirely false. Please see now-bolded "The duplication detected is nonsense" refutation by me, above. --doncram 17:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

17:24, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram in article, undoes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soldier_at_a_Game_of_Chess&type=revision&diff=661439342&oldid=661438162 "(Undid revision 661437371 by Nikkimaria (talk))"

17:26, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram, in 2 edits (rm nonsensical citation needed tags in the lede. The lede is a summary, does not need citations. This is basic editing 101.)"

17:28, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (17,443 bytes) (+294)‎. . (→‎original research?: oh joy) (undo | thank)

"Nikkimaria is right about attribution - there is a need to add complete-waste-of-time bureaucratic colourful and informative tags to show from where material has been copied (or even close paraphrased, it seems). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

(cur | prev) 17:29, 8 May 2015‎ Martinevans123 at TALK(talk | contribs)‎ m. . (17,442 bytes) (-1)‎. . (→‎original research?: oh joy) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:37, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (20,572 bytes) (+3,130)‎. . (→‎original research?: re) (undo | thank) 17:37 Close paraphrasing/copyvio Article:
 * "The exhibition was a three-venue exhibition at the University of Chicago that brought to light the interdependence ...."

........EXAMPLE WITH TWO PASSAGES......... ".... These examples are sufficient to demonstrate a very clear problem here, but they are only examples: one need only read this source in tandem with the article to note additional problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

there will be       No more edits at article by Nikkimaria or by me.

17:39 at article, another editor reverts, restoring 2 tags in lede and a section-top OR tag.

17:51, 8 May 2015‎ Doncram at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (21,821 bytes) (+833)‎. . (→‎Close paraphrasing/copyvio: reply, have requested a block) (undo)

"There is room for improvement probably, including editing to make phrasing more different and crediting the source being relied upon. It does not require you to mar whole sections of the article while it is linked from main page."

"Your continual attacks are wp:POINTY and bad in other ways right now, all while the article is prominently linked from the main page. Another fault is that you inserted citation needed tags into the lede, which doesn't need sourcing. I made request for you to be blocked at wp:ANI. This has cost hours of time trying to undo what you are doing all the more intently. I don't have time for this. --doncram 17:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

17:51, 8 May 2015‎ Awien at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (20,988 bytes) (+416)‎. . (→‎Bravo: new section) (undo | thank)

17:56, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK(talk | contribs)‎. . (22,432 bytes) (+611)‎. . (→‎Close paraphrasing/copyvio: re)"

"You will recall that I said above that a whole-article tag makes far more sense than more specific tagging of individual issues; surely we can agree that the latter approach is far more "marring"? The lead does not need citations insofar as it is a summary; however, when information is introduced in the lead that does not appear in the article itself (such as the bit about the press), that does need either citing or removing. Rather than trying to undo what I am doing, perhaps we could work on fixing the problems? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)"

WHAT A CROCK, i am thinking.

xxxxxxxxxxx

ANI warning, opening, notice given
17:30, 8 May 2015 Doncram at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop: new section)

17:39, 8 May 2015 Doncram at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: new section)

17:41, 8 May 2015 Doncram at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop)

17:42, 8 May 2015 Doncram at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop: wp:ANI proceeding on your edits has been opened by me, requesting that you be blocked)

17:46, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ "(→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: re)"

17:48, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania at User talk:Nikkimaria ‎ (→‎please stop: re)

17:56, 8 May 2015 Nikkimania at Talk:Soldier at a Game of Chess ‎ (→‎Close paraphrasing/copyvio: re)

18:03, 8 May 2015 (diff | hist). . (+1,021)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: re)

18:08, 8 May 2015 (diff | hist). . (+259)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: links)

18:24, 8 May 2015 (diff | hist). . (+580)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎request block DYK-related preventative right now: re)

FINALLY, ONLY AFTER WPANI in progress, makes a show of responding. 18:28, 8 May 2015‎ Nikkimaria at TALK talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,691 bytes) (+259)‎ . . (→‎relatedness: re) (undo | thank) editor states a question at Talk, in section set up for it, more than 2 hours earlier at "16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)".

It would have been nice for you to respond sooner.

... 22:57 8 May 2015 (edit) (undo) Coldcreation in article Removal of 3 tags and Four footnotes added

more posting content was
Can you please not interfere with that, for the moment, and use an inline tag or two instead, or, better, raise your specific concerns here on the Talk page for discussion here instead. Some may be resolved by consensus that no change in the article is needed, others may be resolved by addition of a source. --doncram 14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC) You could use inline template, instead. E.g. "cn:May 2015" --doncram 14:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Er, no. We don't refrain from tagging issues just because an article is at DYK, and this article's issues are not IMO limited to a couple of sentences or a single section - the broader tag is more appropriate given the current situation. One potential benefit of the tag is that readers will note that the article could be improved, and may even contribute to that process. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC) I guess it depends if you want to flag to as many readers as possible that improvement is needed. Or to direct attention to the actual sentences that need attention? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC) If imrovement is wanted, details need to be pointed out. A global tag raises mistrust, in this article and by implication in Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC) As well it should, as it turns out: I've just found some significant close paraphrasing, bordering on copyvio. This source, this source, possibly others. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Too close paraphrasing" would be a problem, but sheesh it should not be regarded as a trumping issue. If at least one editor believes there is too close paraphrasing, then it can/should be addressed. It does not justify tagging the article as copyvio, say. Note even when there are long passages copied exactly from some source, it is not always bad...there could be permission from original author, for example. --doncram 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC) There could be permission, but absent evidence of said permission we are legally required to assume that there is not. So yes, near-verbatim copying from a copyrighted source is absolutely a trumping issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC) In a DupDet tool link you provided below, you made the mistake of searching for 2-word strings. If you ran DupDet using those settings, "Soldier at a Game of Chess" and many other phrases would be detected, and red lights might flash, but titles and many other 2-word phrases are not copyvio. You need to show specific passages as they appear in this Wikipedia and as they appear in one of those sources. --doncram 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

In the first source identified, the offending passage would be Soldier at a Game of Chess next to X-ray Composite based on Jean Metzinger's “Soldier at a Game of Chess” / On the left is Soldier at a Game of Chess (c 1915–16) by Jean Metzinger (oil on canvas, gift of John L Strauss, Jr in memory of his father, John L Strauss); on the right is X-ray Composite based on Jean Metzinger's “Soldier at a Game of Chess” by Adam Schwertner, Stephen Thomas, and Brian Callender, digitally assembled radiographic scans, superimposed on an image of the painting (radiographic images provided by the Department of Radiology at the University of Chicago Medical Center).

Before "entirely dismiss[ing] all negative allegations made", perhaps it would be helpful to look more closely at the actual text rather than simply an automated tool. See below. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The duplication detected is nonsense. It must have detected overlapping use of phrases like "Soldier at a Game of Chess" and "University of Chicago Medical Center". On this basis I entirely dismiss all negative allegations made. --doncram 17:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion is
..request block DYK-related preventative right now Could an admin please block editor, who has been attacking the article linked from the great leading DYK on the main page, Soldier at a Game of Chess. Allegations of copyvio, plagiarism, everything else appear to be entirely false. Editor mis-applied Duplication Detection tool. Editor intent on marring the article with unnecessary tags. One technical violation is that they used Twinkle to revert, which used to be taken as a serious problem, if that helps. This started when I removed, with support on Talk page already, the OR tag put at top of article.

I don't have time for this, really. See the Talk page, Talk:Soldier at a Game of Chess and see the edit history in the article. -- do ncr  am  17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have provided evidence at the talk page that the copyright issue is not "nonsense". As for the tagging, I had initially added only a single, article-level tag; however, Doncram and others insisted that each section/issue should be tagged individually instead, despite my objection that given the extent of the issues a whole-article tag would be more appropriate. I realize that the number of tags being added looks like tag-bombing - that's not what I would prefer, but I'm trying to indicate what and where the issues are, per the request on talk. I've also asked that the article be removed from the main page given the copyright concern, but that hasn't yet been actioned, so it would be very helpful if someone could do that. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tag-bombing applies, yes. Also wp:POINTY removal of an entire section "Related works" because YOU don't believe they are related.  I have undone some of this editor's edits, but have been reverted.  Call it edit warring perhaps.  I spent a long time today explaining at Talk page, etc.  I don't have more time.  I request that an admin now block Nikkimaria and ask questions later, after this article is not getting hits from prominent DYK-link on main page.  That would be a PREVENTATIVE block. -- do  ncr  am  17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You were reverted by another editor who agreed that my concerns were valid ... and "block first and ask questions later" is never a good approach to a problem.
 * This article should not be on the main page right now: it includes verbatim copying from this source, very extensive close paraphrasing from this source, and other issues. That's why there are close-paraphrasing tags on the article, as explained at talk. And again, the only reason perceived tag-bombing is taking place is because you insisted that the single tag I initially added was too marring and that I should instead individually tag sections. I would be happy to replace most of the individual tags with the article-level version, but I don't want to get into an edit-war with you on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec, and not responding to last entry) Okay only some of the edits are entirely nonsense, like where the editor detected multiple 2-word phrases used in both of two similar articles. I am sure there are some valid concerns in Nikkimania's edits that should be addressed, but with reasonable time, through reasonable process. It is not necessary to attack it for hours.  This one editor wants a citation, so removes a whole section.  Or inserts two tags into the lede.  Again I don't have time for this.  Can't. -- do  ncr  am  18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't been "attack[ing] it for hours"; it just takes significantly more time to tag issues individually, particularly when there are many of them, then to just add a single whole-article tag. Finding the copyright issue added more time to that - since one of the sources being copied wasn't cited in the article, this requires more extensive searching beyond the existing sources. The other issues you mention have already been explained at the talk page, where this dispute belongs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No block is warranted here; the editor raises perfectly valid concerns on the talk page.  Hi DrNick ! 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Will some responsible admin please get this off of the mainpage now? Here we are, five years after the infamous DYK blowup, and we still have DYK putting copyvio, plagiarism, cut-and-paste, non-reliable sources ... you name it on any given day ... on the mainpage. (And, if not for Nikkimaria being one of the very few who pay attention, we'd see even more of this.) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has now been removed from the main page (thank you Harrias!) and discussion is proceeding on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't take the credit for removing it, that was, I just tidied up the errors page afterwards! Harrias talk 20:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, my mistake - thanks TRM. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * S'ok. Us "worst admins around" occasionally mistakenly do something right, even sitting in my car on my phone waiting for my world class dinner to be prepared.  It's just statistics. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nikkimaria is trying to address real problems. Instead of denying that problems exist and then starting an AN/I thread, doncram should consider facing up to, or perhaps even fixing these problems. Seeking a preventative block in order to stop people putting tags on a front-page article is missing the point - very much so. Our need for policy-compliant articles trumps the need to remove embarrassing warning tags. bobrayner (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oooh, watch out User:doncram, someone might try and pull out a cubist boomerang. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No block Even though it appears as if the issue could have been communicated better, blocking for the editor action is way over the top. prokaryotes (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

end of ani
=