User talk:DanSD19

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! S Philbrick (Talk)  13:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, and other recent edits, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask. S Philbrick (Talk)  13:37, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello User:Sphilbrick, as you can see from the link below, a permission was given for the use. is this enough to keep the content online? Thanks!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Forest_Resources_Assessment_2020_%E2%80%93_Key_findings.pdf

Copyright issues
Hello DanSD19. This report was issued with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence, which is not a compatible license, because it does not allow commercial use, and our license does. This means that I have had to remove all contributions you made that copied from that report. Please let me know if you have any questions.— Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello [User:Diannaa|Diannaa], as you can see from the link below, a permission was given for the use. is this enough to keep the content online? Thanks! DanSD19 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Forest_Resources_Assessment_2020_%E2%80%93_Key_findings.pdf


 * You are correct Dan. In the future please add the OTRS ticket as part of your permission statement using the following markup: . I will go back and add the ticket to the edits you have already done. Sorry for the mistake.— Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is what I recommend:

How to "ping" someone
If you wish to attract someone's attention, you can ping them. There's a couple ways to do it. (1) Link to their username using the format User:Username ; or (2) use the or  templates. for example,. For the ping to work, you must sign your post using four tildes. You will receive a notification if the ping has been successfully sent. Please see Help:Notifications for more information. Neither SPhilbrick or myself were notified of your above replies, because your posts were not properly formatted. — Diannaa (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help and useful tips  !
 * (1) Don't include the "code" or "nowiki" markup or it won't work. Copypaste what you see on the page, not what you see in the edit window. (2) Pings don't work unless the ping and your signature take place in the same edit.— Diannaa (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Tree
Hi, I already edited your lengthy addition to this article, relocating it to 'Conservation', so it was with some consternation that I saw you had added the same or more, again, without looking either at the article or at the edit comments in the 'History'. If you haven't tried doing that yet, now's the time. I think we have quite sufficient on that topic, and I've had to revert your edit. Please therefore take more care; it might be advisable to discuss anything else you feel like adding to the article on the talk page (Talk:Tree) as the article has been formally reviewed. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your help and apologies for accidentally adding content twice. I'll be more careful in the future. I have one question, though: I remember adding the "sources" disclaimer stating that the page contains content from The State of the World's Forests 2020 thanks to an OTRS permission. I can't seem to see it any longer at the bottom of the page. Can I add it again? Thanks DanSD19 (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Why? The text here is not copied from that source, so the attribution is not just irrelevant, but actually wrong. That would remain true even if we use the source in the usual way, making our own paraphrase and citing the source. We would in that event not be copying, as we don't from millions of other sources. To be plain, they are not the authors of any text here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The situation seems to be that the text was added from the FAO report and attribution given since the text is available under an open licence. This text was then modified by Chiswick Chap. Arguably, the template which notes that the text has come from the FAO source would no longer be needed if the information was paraphrased as happens with most sources. That said, the text is still very similar so perhaps it would be appropriate to re-add the attribution template.


 * Current text in article:
 * Out of the more than 60,000 tree species known, more than 20 000 are in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. More than 8,000 of these are globally threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable), and of those, more than 1400 are critically endangered and in urgent need of conservation action.


 * Text in the openly licensed FAO report (bolded to indicate similarities):
 * More than 60 000 different tree species are known, more than 20 000 of which have been included in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, and more than 8 000 of these are assessed as globally threatened (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable). More than 1 400 tree species are assessed as critically endangered and in urgent need of conservation action.


 * Richard Nevell (talk) 12:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Right, I'll fix it. I really don't hold with copying such text, free stuff or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. For future reference, a common view on Wikipedia, to which I subscribe, is that we should never populate Wikipedia articles with other people's text, other than brief quotations which contain something really distinctive about the "voice" of the person quoted, and in that special case the quotations are introduced in a way that directly attributes them to the cited source, e.g. "Tolkien stated that he could not abide Shakespeare's treatment of myth, saying '.....'".[31]" I do hope this is clear. For my money, anything else is at best laziness and at worst an abuse. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * That is certainly one philosophy, but adding openly licensed text that is compatible with Wikipedia is little different to using an image from Flickr under an open licence but taken by someone else. It becomes problematic when the sources in question are outdated (I'm looking at you, 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica) but that isn't the case here. Text may not always gel 100% with Wikipedia, but that's where some light copyediting comes in, analogous to cropping an image to make it more suitable for an encyclopedia. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Well this isn't the place to discuss image philosophy, but with images we have little choice in most cases - use it and do the CC attribution bit, or go away. With text, except in the special case I outlined, there's almost always a choice. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and choosing to use or adapt openly licensed text is fine. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * So we agree on images. On text, if there is a choice between saying things in Wikipedia's voice and our own words, or cribbing somebody else's stuff, I know which is better and so do thousands of experienced editors. In the case of the IUCN redlist, there is absolutely no reason to copy their text, as all they're saying is that species X has status Y, which we can and should readily state, and cite: as we do on many thousands of articles, and all we need to do in every one of those cases is to cite the IUCN source, as usual: anything else would frankly be ridiculous overkill for such a simple fact. But this is not the forum, as I've said already, so I'm signing off now, i.e. not watching this page. And don't ping me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Aquaculture article
re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaculture Hello DanSD19. I noticed you updated the FAO global data diagram with a new one (cf. illustration 2 in the article lead). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquaculture&oldid=989685223 Unfortunately this diagram does not differentiate between capture fisheries and aquaculture production - it apparently is adding them together which doesn't help this aquaculture article very much. The previous diagram https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aquaculture&oldid=975837777#/media/File:Global_total_fish_harvest.svg was much clearer although it didn't break down that data into species groups. Have you seen if there is an update similar to the previous diagram in an FAO report? Regards ASRASR (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  14:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Licensing note
This Fao puplication has a creative Commons license but it is the following license:

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO)

That license is not one of the acceptable licenses for use of content in Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Sphilbrick, the publication for which we requested a permission (ticket n. ticket #2022020110007811) is https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:In_brief_-_The_State_of_Food_and_Agriculture_2022.pdf
 * I also added a reference to the main report: https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9479en
 * Please let me know if you need additional information. DanSD19 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I may have malformed my ping. Please see User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk for a discussion involving your edits. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Agricultural machinery
Hi DanSD19, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is likely related to the above section. Regarding this edit to Agricultural machinery: I see that much of it was copied from "In Brief to The State of Food and Agriculture 2022" which has been appropriately uploaded to Commons and verified, but a few sentences, such as "Motorized machines are increasingly complemented, or even superseded, by ..." are not in that specific document and are copied from the main report, not the "In brief" one. Would you be willing to either release the main report under a compatible license, or rewrite the parts of the article that are not included? Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * By the way, same question (and to a greater extent) at Mechanised agriculture, where most of the copying seems to be from the main report and not the In Brief version. DanCherek (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also checked content and references in that page, too.
 * Hope all references have been properly added/corrected.
 * ~ DanSD19 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see related discussion at User_talk:Red-tailed_hawk. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear the sentence in green is taken from another [source https://www.fao.org/3/cb2186en/CB2186EN.pdf] and apparently it has been rephrased.
 * I double checked references to make sure I added the main report whenever the content was rephrased and the In brief whenever content was taken as is.
 * I take the opportunity to thank you for checking and helping with references.
 * Hope everything has been cited properly now.
 * ~ DanSD19 (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Dan, thanks for the response, but I'm still a bit confused. The sentence I quoted above (in green) does not appear to be contained in the Agriculture 4.0 document - at least, it doesn't show up when I enter it in the search bar, but it is in the 2022 State of Food and Agriculture. This, and other sentences copied from the full report, are still present in articles like Agricultural machinery and Mechanised agriculture, which is an issue because the main report has not been released by FAO under a compatible Creative Commons license. DanCherek (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Dan, thanks for checking - you are right, the reference was wrong. I rephrased the content in green - and added the reference to the full report.
 * "With digital automation technologies, it also becomes possible to automate diagnosis and decision-making. For example, autonomous crop robots can harvest and seed crops, and drones can collect information to help automate input application. Tractors, instead, can be transformed into automated vehicles that can sow fields independently ." DanSD19 (talk) 10:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, sorry but I have temporarily undone your recent edit at Automation because much of it was, like the above, copied from the full State of Food and Agriculture report, not the "In brief" version. You can see the textual overlap by clicking here and clicking on "iThenticate report". DanCherek (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing the report. What about short sentences with technical terminology that are difficult to rephrase? Anyway, I'll look into that again. Thanks! DanSD19 (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Technical terminology is sometimes okay, but when we usually talk about things below the threshold of originality, we're talking about things like lists of awards, proper nouns, and bibliographies. In my opinion that doesn't really apply to these cases here.Thanks very much for working on Agricultural machinery again to reword the sentences that were copied from the full report. Just a reminder that Mechanised agriculture also needs some work - see this CopyPatrol report to see some of the sentences that were copied from the full report as well. DanCherek (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, happy new year! I worked on the page and rephrased the content using the report as a reference. Happy to provide further clarifications or rework the text again if needed. DanSD19 (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)