User:WikiUser70176/sandbox

@WikiUser70176, this Wikipedia has not enabled machine translation with the translation tool. It was available for a brief time, but the results were terrible. Editors using it did not correct the many errors in produced with machine translation. This is explained at Wikipedia:Content translation tool#Why machine translation is disabled in content translation. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

But, but... but that was 7 years ago! It's like that idiot with the failed shoe bomb who is the reason why all of us in the US have to take our shoes off for airport security. But the rest of the world moved on and no more shoe bombs and no taking off shoes for security either. Case in point: the tool works just fine for other languages and there are no massive translation-related vandalisms in those languages. One incident does not a trend make. Deeeep sigh.... Thank you User: StarryGrandma for the info and User:199.208.172.35 for trying to help. Perhaps it is time this rule is submitted for revision. After all, consensus can change. If truly aspiring to be the sum of all human knowledge, Wikipedia needs greater coverage of people and topics beyond the English-speaking world. To that end, the tool is invaluable for enriching Wikipedia with content outside the native English speaking community. Case in point: the story behind Popeye and iron in spinach is hilarious, but no Wiki has it better sourced than the French wiki. Alas... it shall remain there for I loathe to translate and format all those refs at the moment. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 18:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can certainly change, @WikiUser70176 - if you're interested enough, you could start the ball rolling at one of the village pumps. Not sure if it would fit best at Policy or Proposals (or maybe the idea lab to start out with). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) @WikiUser70176, if you enable User:Equazcion/SidebarTranslate, the list of languages for Wikipedia articles will display a "G" next to the languages when you hover your mouse over the language name. On the Spinach page clicking that for the French language will open a translation of the article into English. Unfortunately that doesn't handle reformatting sources for the "Legend of iron" section. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I have that Gadget enabled. No G though... Hm.. Perhaps because the languages are not displayed like they used to, in alphabetical order, but in that mind-boggling ultra-annoying format with suggested languages, followed by languages by continent (God Almighty, whoever came up with that deserves a special place in hell, for translators like me that use 4 or 5 languages simultaneously from different continents find that "Classification" of languages a very inventive hell indeed. But that's another pet peeve for some other time). The google sidebar works to translate stuff from English to any other language, but not the other way around, pretty much like the regular translation tool. The french wiki doesn't have this gadget, so I can't enable it there and use it to translate Fr-->En. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I suspect the powers that be do not want the other wikis translated in English because of that 7 years ago debacle, and that's that. At least for now. Anyway, thanks for the help! I am translating that French story into other European languages, with a sneak peak to the Polish version which has a good page mark. Sorry en.wiki! ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦(My talk page) 21:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@WikiUser70176, while it works fine for me in the Vector legacy skin it doesn't seem to be available in the new Vector 2022, where that weird new sorting of languages lives. Sorry about that. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

TEMPORARY cleanup for memorial talk page
The earliest description of the memorial that I could find online is the description on its Wiki.ro page, which, unfortunately, is either not attributed to anybody or the links are dead. That edit is from 2007. Any description of the document that I found in English is after the ro:wiki edut and seems to be plagiarized from ro:wiki, e.g. [|Flaviu Predescu's DC News article from 2019]. Of course, it's all too plausible that both wiki.ro page and Flaviu Predescu plagiarized from a third, unknown source, as the historical section of the magazine cited on wiki.ro page is now defunct.

I posted this here for future editors to be mindful of this particular situation when editing along with a few guidelines:


 * Per WP:RSUEC, English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are fine if they are better sources for other reasons (e.g., only they contain the necessary information). It's definitely better to cite a non-English source than leave the source unclear.
 * Be careful not to violate WP:COPYRIGHT. To the best of my knowledge, the description of the monument was either initally release by the Romanian government in a pamphlet and that makes it public domain; alas, I found no trace of this pamphlet.
 * Interwiki translations must be attributed per Wikipedia's licenses


 * Make a note of a source that's copying Wikipedia to avoid circular reporting like:
 * [|2019 Flaviu Predescu's DC News article]


 * It is fine to copy or translate content from other Wikipedia articles. However, you need to note the source of the material in your edit summary, so make sure you do that next time.
 * In this case, though, the Romanian Wikipedia article was copying without proper attribution from elsewhere, so you don't want to simply copy that into English Wikipedia because that introduces the same problem here.
 * The description itself should be presumed to be copyrighted unless evidence is found otherwise. I found this from the Romanian Wikipedia article which attributes the descriptions to government pamphlets; normally, I would presume the descriptions to be written by a government employee, which in Romania's case leaves me uncertain on its copyright status (Romanian copyright law seems to perhaps be less strict than American). However, you said that you know the description was actually written by the monument designer himself. I would presume that he owns the copyright then; that it was published widely may or may not be evidence that the description is freely licensed or public domain.
 * Per WP:RSUEC, English sources are preferred, but non-English sources are fine if they are better sources for other reasons (e.g., only they contain the necessary information). It's definitely better to cite a non-English source than leave the source unclear. Keep in mind that non-speakers of a language can usually get at least a rough sense of what a source says by running it through a machine translator.
 * So this matter is actually rather complicated. If you have a source that identifies the description as the author's, I would say that it's fine to re-add the descriptions alongside some note that they are the artist's own description (rather than someone else's), because then the descriptions are an important part of understanding the work. If you can't find such a source anymore, then I'm not sure what the right action is.
 * Regarding your last question: the edits where you added the infobox and did other things were deleted because they are the same edit (or after the edit) where you added the memorial's description, so hiding those revisions was necessary to actually remove the description from Wikipedia. Because you are the only person who edited in that period, though, this is not an attribution problem; everyone can still tell that it was you who added it by comparing the revisions before and after the deleted ones. I can't undelete the edits because I'm not an administrator; I only requested that they be deleted. You can ask the deleting admin to do so and point him to this conversation.
 * Sorry for the misunderstanding. I hope I clarified everything adequately for you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Romanian copyright law says "simple facts and data" are ineligible for copyright. I'm not sure the descriptions of the monument come under that heading. If not, then the standard Romanian copyright term of lifetime +70 years applies - there isn't an exemption for government works.
 * Compassionate is right in the reason why the edits to the infobox were also revision-deleted. To work properly, all the revisions in which the copyrighted material appeared need to be hidden from view. otherwise someone would only have to look at old revisions in the article history to see the copyright violation.
 * It's unfortunate that the ro-wiki article was under-cited and I think the best we can say about this is that it's an accidental and unintended copyvio where the transalation and addition to the en-wiki article was made in good faith. Nthep (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I agree with you both. I'll leave a better edit summary next time. Thanks for clarifying why the edits were greyed out! As for the monument's description, like for everything else, best to leave it out if uncertain. I found more sources with that description, but all are dated after the wiki.ro edits, so I don't know which is what. I know about the naming of the four elements because I was there a bit after they erected it and its unpopularity caused quite a stir, so I didn't think it necessary to find a source for that, since it's mostly public knowledge. Anyway, it's not big deal; I just randomly stumbled upon that page, it's not something I'm an expert in. Thanks again to you both for the assumption of good-faith, which is not misplaced in my case, and happy editing.  ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦ (My talk page) 19:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Refs
A

B

chapter

Gallery
referințe Morcovul (Daucus carota) is...


 * Spinach
 * Cornus mas

Interesting user page design from User:Blaze Wolf