User talk:Fulleraaron

Feedback reply
Posted here: Requests_for_feedback/2011_April_29. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

David Jack
Thanks for expanding David Jack (scientist). I kind of ran out of steam after filling in the infobox... Qwfp (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Elizabeth Hill (linguist), Fulleraaron!

Wikipedia editor Barney the barney barney just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Please don't undo constructive edits I make."

To reply, leave a comment on Barney the barney barney's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Your edits to Elizabeth Hill (linguist)
Hey there. I reverted your changes to Elizabeth Hill (Linguist) since it is a redirect page. It seems like you meant to edit Elizabeth Hill (linguist), but instead edited Elizabeth Hill (Linguist) (note the capitalization). Please make your changes to Elizabeth Hill (linguist), instead. — daranz [ t ] 22:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Hugh Gurling) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hugh Gurling, Fulleraaron!

Wikipedia editor Noian just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Some more sources such as from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/07/hugh-gurling would be helpful, but nice job!"

To reply, leave a comment on Noian's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.


 * Defence Reform Act 2014 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Commencement, Ministry of Defence and Territorial Army


 * Mike Griffiths (police officer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Carlisle and John Sampson


 * Jacqui Cheer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Suffolk Police

Adam Simmonds
Hi Fulleraaron & thanks for your edits on Adam Simmonds. I hadn't looked at it for some time & hadn't realized, until your comments about wp:npov that it had deteriorated. JRPG (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ursula Brennan
Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

deOrphaning script
Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as 's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
 * This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of —  14:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 9 May
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Ebony-Jewel Rainford-Brent page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=661625380 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F661625380%7CEbony-Jewel Rainford-Brent%5D%5D Ask for help])

cci
Hello, Fulleraaron. I'm sorry to have to say that after reviewing the request for a contributor copyright investigation initiated by User:Wikimandia I have felt that it was necessary to open the CCI. It can be found at Contributor copyright investigations/20150513.

I believe that you have been working in this area in good faith and with no intention of creating issues. Unfortunately, your contributions have not always conformed to Wikipedia's approach to copyright. In a nutshell, content based on information you find in copyrighted sources needs to be put in your own words and structure except in the case of limited, clearly-marked quotations. If the copyrighted source is compatibly licensed or if the source is demonstrably public domain, you can copy more, but must acknowledge explicitly that you are copying to comply with Plagiarism. If content you add based on information from copyrighted sources follows the original source too closely - changing a few words, for instance, or lightly modifying structure, you create a derivative work, and only the original copyright holder has the authorization to create or license derivative works. I see that you recently did some cleanup work of copyright issues identified in Frederick Stewart (geologist) and am afraid that you have closely paraphrased the source. Please see for more explanation. Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for repairing and avoiding such issues.

CCI is not a disciplinary process; it's a cleanup process. The system is quite backlogged as only a few people routinely work there, so work on this may be delayed or quite sporadic. To avoid flooding you with warnings over an issue you now understand, we ask people not to give you individual notice if they discover problem articles. I'd suggest watchlisting that page if you are interested in keeping up with work done there.

Your assistance with cleanup of any lingering issues would be very welcome and a great way to demonstrate that you are now familiar with our approach to copyright on Wikipedia and working in good faith to comply with it. We ask that you not "resolve" an issue by removing the diffs (you can see how I did that here), as this should be done by others, but if you put a note beneath an individual listing indicating that problems have been corrected, it will help the investigator(s) close it out more quickly. When the CCI is completed, it will be courtesy blanked.

If you have any questions about copyright going forward, please reach out - you can come by my talk page or request feedback at the help desk, for instance. Especially when an editor is working in good faith as I believe you are, I want to try to help you avoid future issues, which can lead to sanctions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, and I'm sorry for not replying before now. I appreciate that you making the point of saying that you believe I was acting in good faith - I entirely understand that it's a cleanup process for the good of Wikipedia and its users, rather than a disciplinary one. Although it's upsetting for it to happen, it was helpful that you've explained the context. You mention that I had done some work on the Frederick Stewart (geologist) and, although that work didn't remove all of the the issues, I'm hoping that in general, the cleanup work I did when I was originally identified as possibly having violated copyright, reduced the volume of the total issues.

On to business! I have added the cci page to my watchlist, as you suggested. I've also read the essays that the various cci pages linked me to, either directly or indirectly. Apologies if what follows seem like stupid questions, but a lot of them are just checking my understanding.

1. Can I help, through editing pages myself, to reduce the problem? I see that the note says I shouldn't '"resolve" an issue by removing the diffs (you can see how I did that here), as this should be done by others'; does that mean that although I can't resolve an issue simply by deleting the suspect content, I can help by taking a suspect piece of text and rewording it so it's more clearly in my own words?

2. I've looked at the checking that you've done - thanks for that work - and so now I need to understand what happens next. Looking at the cci page, I think that the way it works is that an editor would go to one of my suspect edits - say the first one (), have a look at it, and decide whether it's a copyright violation, or not. If yes, they would tag it as 'yes', and if no, then they would equally tag it thus. Either way, it would move to the top of the page as having been resolved, in the way that the suspect edits you resolved, are now at the top of the page. My question is, if that's what happens, then as each issue gets resolved, wouldn't it disappear from the cci page? So, wouldn't it be obvious when the issues around a particular page get resolved? I'm more than happy to note when a page gets 'cleaned' as it were, but I'm a bit confused as to how exactly to do that.

3. Is there a position on whether I should edit pages with outstanding issues? My instinctive feeling is that I shouldn't, in case I edit material that's at issue, an that in doing so, it looks like I'm trying to do things I shouldn't.

Thanks again for your help. I wrote to Wikimandia before I embarked on the edits to my biography articles, (the ones which were the first sign of a problem) and said that the gist was 'I've screwed up'. I'd like to do whatever I can to fix things, as soon as I can. Fulleraaron (talk)


 * Hello, Fulleraaron. Thank you for the note at my talk page. :) Questions do not bother me; you can ask as many as you like!
 * 1. Absolutely, you are welcome to edit pages yourself to reduce the problem. You can delete content or rewrite it. But you do need to be careful that it is completely in your own words. In processing a CCI, content that is too closely paraphrased (see Close paraphrasing if I haven't recommended it already) is routinely removed, so if the problem area is not completely rewritten it may be taken out anyway. It is really very hard to rewrite sentence by sentence; I find it so much easier to rework sections than try to clean up that way, as at the sentence level we often wind up just replacing a few words or shuffling a little bit of structure. It's helpful to keep in mind that the specific language is not the sole issue in copyright; if it were, translations would not be a copyright problem, as every single word is changed out, but the concept and feel remains the same. Again Close paraphrasing has some recommendations for avoiding that.


 * 2. They would tag things, yes, but not move them - so here's an example of a CCI in process. The listings are by size of contribution - highest at the top of the page to least. As each section is completed (see near the bottom), that section is collapsed. Until the section is completed, the list for that section remains in place, just slowly being resolved. When the whole thing is completed, the page is courtesy blanked and filed away. The reason I recommend that you note that a page has been cleaned is because those pages list all your contributions to the date the CCI is opened and then become static. If you find a copyright problem in the article Apple, for instance, and clean it up, the listing for Apple on your CCI would not reflect what you've done. A CCI reviewer would come to the listing for Apple, find the diff string, and evaluate for copyright problems. Once they find it, they will then evaluate the article to see what remains. If you tell them that there is a copyright problem and that you've evaluated it, you reduce the amount of time required for review substantially. That helps process your CCI and reduces the time it takes others to invest in it. So it's a good thing. :)


 * 3. Absolutely you can and should edit pages with outstanding issues, unless you they are blanked with the copyvio template, in which case you can rewrite them in the temporary space that is linked from the template that blanks the page. Again, the biggest thing to avoid is creating too close a paraphrase, so I would really recommend that you thoroughly rewrite any content you change.


 * If you have remaining questions or more questions, please let me know. :) If you place (curly brackets and all) in your reply, it will ping me so that I make sure not to miss your note. [Caveat: be sure to sign your note when you do that! If you don't, or add your signature later, the "ping" template will not work.] You can also, obviously, just leave me another note on my talk page, and I'll stop by. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for that note. I notice that Diannaa (you'll see why I haven't hyperlinked her name so she can see this note, in a second) has just cleaned up a load of the outstanding edits, which is great. Going back to what you say above about marking pages as being completed, does this mean, for instance, that I can put a note below the CCI notice on David Omand, because there are no outstanding edits on that page?

It's a pity that there's no 'video walkthrough' or something around this work, because it's hard to get the 'aha!' lightbulb moment when the discussion is taking place through text only. (That's not in any way a crisicism - I know everyone's doing their best to be clear, it's a limitation of text itself!) I did think about going to a Wikipedia meetup for a tutorial on cci cleanups (on the basis that 2 minutes watching someone do it might make it all clear) but unfortunately there are none near me any time soon. Thanks for bearing with me if I appear dense! Fulleraaron (talk)

Reference errors on 23 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Ministry of Defence Police page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=668379920 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F668379920%7CMinistry of Defence Police%5D%5D Ask for help])

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Peacock (police officer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bangor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!
Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:
 * https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Mark Pettini page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=683359141 your edit] caused a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F683359141%7CMark Pettini%5D%5D Ask for help])

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Archived refs
Hi, I restored one of the refs you deleted from Linda Hamilton as there is an archived copy available at the Internet Archive. There is also Memento that should find other archives, too. Regards, --Cavrdg (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

GOCE February 2018 news
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Guild of Copy Editors September 2020 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

December 2020 Guild of Copy Editors Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June 2021 newsletter
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 12:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

September 2021 Guild of Copy Editors newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter
Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"Byron (2003 BBC Drama" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byron_(2003_BBC_Drama&redirect=no Byron (2003 BBC Drama] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 01:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)