User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

UlfRSamuelsson

 * I made two changes to the page for the Second Battle of Fallujah. Only the second (a single sentence) was a minor edit.
 * Yet you deleted both.
 * The first, which definitely changes the meaning of the article, was not marked minor edit.
 * It included a source that shows that the whole chapter is hogwash, and the name of the applicable treaty, as well as a quote of the applicable treaty which again shows that the whole chapter is hogwash.
 * By removing that, complaining of ”minor edit”, is vandalizing.
 * The second change was made, marked minor edit, and I apologize for that.
 * So right now, the wiki page is in error and needs correcting.
 * Please revert the change of the first addition. UlfRSamuelsson (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @UlfRSamuelsson I didn't revert the edits because one of them was improperly marked as minor- I reverted them because Wikipedia is not the place for original research or righting great wrongs. If you want to add material into a Wikipedia page, it has to be based upon reliable sources, written from a neutral point of view, and, if you do want to quote something, you have to mark it within quotes, even if the material is in the public domain. When you don't clearly mark material in quotes or a blockquote, it becomes a question of plagiarism because it makes it seem as if the work is your own. If you have any further questions, the volunteers over at the teahouse will be happy to assist you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The treaty governing the use of Incendiary Weapons is the authoritative source on the use of Smoke Shells.
 * So the whole chapter is wrong, and the authoritative source confirms that.
 * What is the preferred way to correct this?
 * To me, removing the whole chapter seems to be the best way, but I did not want to do this myself. UlfRSamuelsson (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss the content of an article, you can open a discussion on that article's talk page. Alternately, you go to the talkpage, see what Wikiprojects the article falls under, and start a discussion there. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Tanka
Hi! I wanted to ask you about a edit you made on the Tanka article! You said, "I can find no evidence that the material from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19342039.2016.1120610?scroll=top&needAccess=true was compatibility licensed, so I am removing the material." I didn't want to undo your edit without making sure. Here's a link to the journal's terms and conditions for their open access materials: https://www.tandfonline.com/terms-and-conditions#link4:~:text=has%20been%20accepted.-,Taylor%20%26%20Francis%20and%20Routledge%20Open%20articles%20are%20normally%20published%20under%20a,Creative%20Commons%20Attribution%20License%20https%3A//creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.,-It%20is%20essential. Let me know if the information I've added still doesn't meet those standards :) Braithwc (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Braithwc Hi, and thank you for double checking. Unfortunately, in that link, it also states that "However, authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License". Wikipedia publishes everything under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, which isn't compatible with the CC-BY-NC licenses. (You can read more on what licenses are ok here) Can you find evidence that this individual article was published under the CC-BY 3 license and not a CC-BY-NC? If you do, you can revert my edit, and I'll be happy to show you how to attribute the text to make sure it doesn't get removed again, and we don't accidentally plagiarise. However, if we can't find evidence of a compatible license, you're still free to re-insert the information back into the article- just not the text! I've never heard of Tanka poetry before, and it would be lovely if the article was more in depth than it is now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you for getting back to me! I'll definitely look into that later! Follow up question, did you mean to undo the other things I did? Like the image I added and the person to the list of poets. If that wasn't intentional, could you put it back? Thank you! Braithwc (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Braithwc Sorry about that. No, those things should be fine. Apologies- I was moving a little quickly yesterday, and I didn't see the image or the entry. I've gone ahead and added them back in for you. Let me know if that looks okay! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Fuchsia glazoviana description Copyvivo
How do you want me to rewrite these facts so it is not an copyvivo? It is from here which got the description from here

here is my attempt to rewrite it again:

Fuchsia glazioviana is a shrub that can grow 0.5 - 4 meters tall, often climbing trees or bushes. Its branches can spread up to 6 meters long, densely packed, and may have a purplish color with detachable small hairs. The leaves are usually in pairs or groups of three, oval to narrow oval, 15 - 40 mm long and 8 - 15 mm wide, dark green and smooth on top, paler and mostly smooth below, with small glandular teeth on the edges, and 4 - 6 with secondary veins on each side. Leaf stems are short, 3 - 6 mm, purplish with sparse hairs, and spaced 3 - 12 mm apart. Stipules are broadly triangular, 0.6 - 1.2 mm long and wide, purplish, and easily fall off. Flowers are usually solitary in upper leaf axils, with thin, sparsely hairy stems, 12 - 26 mm long. The ovary is oblong, 4 - 5 mm long and 2.5 mm wide. The flower tube is cylindrical, 5 - 7 mm long and 2.5 - 4 mm wide, with few hairs outside and smooth inside. Sepals are 17 - 22 mm long, lance-shaped, joined at the base for 4 - 5 mm, with free lobes 3 - 4 mm wide. Petals are purple, oval, 9 - 12 mm long and 6 to 9 mm wide. Filaments are red-purple, 22 - 32 mm and 16 to 28 mm long. Anthers are oblong, 2.5 - 3.5 mm long and 1.1 - 1.6 mm wide. Style is red, smooth or somewhat hairy, with a club-shaped stigma 2 to 3 mm long and 1 to 1.4 mm wide, extending out 5 - 20 mm beyond the anthers. The fruit is a shiny dark purple berry, narrow cylinder, 10 - 16 mm long and 5 - 8 mm wide. Seeds are oblong, 2 - 4 mm long and 1 - 1.5 mm wide.

Is it ok or if not what parts should be changed? --Cs california (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cs california
 * Well, for starters- what are the most important details about the plant? Things like height, colour, and flower shape. We're an encyclopedia, we don't need every detail. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we include it- and we especially don't include it if it would mean our article is just going to regurgitate the source. Even in the word of species taxonomy, if your description is only superficially different from a previous description, you just refer the reader to the older description and make note of what you found that was different. I think you'll notice that even the Smithsonian page isn't a closely-paraphrased version of the Berry article.
 * If I was going to write a description for the plant based on that source, here is what I would write:
 * The Fuchsia glazioviana has purple, cylindrical, flowers that produce dark purple berries. The plant itself has dense branches, sometimes tinged purple along with the leaf stems. It has dark green leaves, and has been known to climb small trees or shrubs. In their description of the plant, AUTHOR NAME(S) HERE reported that specimens were usually between one-half and four metres tall, with branches up to 6 metres long. [citation here]
 * Yes, there's a lot less. Some editors might make it a little longer, and some might just settle for the fact it's a plant with purple flowers. Ideally, both of those editors will *also* be taking from more than one source. But, well- that's normal? Nobody's out there paraphrasing the entirety of a Ken Burns documentary into a history article.
 * And that's it. If you have any more questions- go to the teahouse or the help desks or experienced editors in the plant-article-sphere or whoever you want, really. You told me that if I cared about the links so much, I could add them- so I'm going to go back and continue doing that. I'm going to leave you with one question though- but there's no pressure to respond.
 * Why, when I and several other editors over the years asked you to start adding the attribution links, didn't you? And then, when you realized you forgot so much, and where even told where, did you not go back and fix them yourself? Why do I have to do it? Why is your writing, and your contributions, so important that I have to spend over a hundred hours combing through your edits, fixing them one-by-one, while you sit back and can't even bring yourself to say "I'm sorry I made I mistake. Thank you for helping me fix it?"
 * GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for making a mistake thanks for the fixes. But I did thank you several times on the edit when you added the info on several pages did you not see that? I am just asking you as a courtesy so there is less work for the both of us. That is really sufficient because purple berries are in the whole section Quelusia has the similar features, and the whole genus has cylindrical flowers so that is why I try to add everything so it can be compared. There is not much other content that can be added on some of these pages. Feature pages like zebra put more measurements in. The measurements are free data we can use. I just think adding more information distinguishes it from Simple english wikpedia otherwise it would be a pretty empty page. But If you think less information will prevent copyvivo issues. I am ok with adding less as long as the page is past the point of being a stub. I just don't want to spend lots of time rewriting stuff and then have it blanked. The reason I tell users they can add links and edits if they want is because there are instances when people disagree with my changes and I want them to make it themselves instead of having me do it and then telling me I did it wrong. But if you are interpreting that the wrong way I am sorry I got you worked up. --Cs california (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Women in Red
Hi there, GreenLipstickLesbian. I see you have been following the activities of Women in Red for some time and am pleased to see you have finally registered officially. Thanks for all your biographies of Spanish wome. I hope there will be many more. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * @Nthep thank you! <3 And thank you so much for handling all the RD1 requests I've been throwing you way for the past year, and being patient as I've learnt the nuances of when or when not to file them. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!

 * @Clovermoss thank you! <3 Trust me, a barnstar from an editor I respect (such as yourself) means so much more to me than cookies ever could. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's good because I'm an utter failure when it comes to baking cookies. I'm much better at other domestic skills like knitting. But cookies? Somehow I've failed literally every time. In all seriousness though, I continue to be amazed every time someone talks about how much they look up to me. So thank you for that. :) Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Clovermoss @GreenLipstickLesbian, talk page stalker here to report that I'm a big admirer of both of you. Thanks for bringing such care and warmth to this occasionally-humdrum website! I forget all sorts of things on Wikipedia — the acronyms, the wikitext, pretty much all of the topic-specific guidelines about when to capitalize the word "the" (surprisingly complicated), etc — but I always manage to remember the people who make this place feel human. Thank you! I am excited that we are all in the Usernames-That-Depict-Green-Things Club (or is it capitalized "The"??) Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There actually is a special club. Unfortunately, adminship is a suffrage requirement. Here's to hoping both of you will eventually join :) Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Attribution, public domain
Over at Requests for adminship/DreamRimmer, you asked, "What is your interpretation of the attribution policy when it relates to copying from public-domain sources". I'm curious to know what your own interpretation is. The context of this is so I personally can better understand. If it came up right now, I'd just defer to editors with more experience dealing with copyvios, though obviously I'd have objections if someone falsely claimed they created the material. No problem if you don't want to answer (to avoid biasing DreamRimmer's answer, perhaps) or wish to do so privately by emailing me. --Yamla (talk) 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Yamla It's okay, I don't mind answering here! I wouldn't even mind if DreamRimmer asked me. I don't want to play a game of "Got-cha" on finer policy points, I want admins who understand them.
 * While not technically a copyright violation, copying and pasting public domain material into an article without clearly marking that it's not your own work is a straight forward example of plagiarism. Even if you don't explicitly claim the work as your own, it's still plagiarism because when you save an edit, there's an expectation that everything you wrote in your edit is exactly that-something you wrote. It's not the type of error you get sued over, but it is the type you can loose your degree for. The the easiest way to fix public domain plagiarism is to add something like the   template to the reference and the    template to the user's talk.
 * On a similar note, if the work is copyrighted, but under a compatible license (such as CC-BY-SA 4 or CC-BY-4), then the lack attribution does technically make it a copyright violation. It's most CCI people's favourite type, because it's the easiest to fix. You just add the creative commons text attribution template, or make a dummy edit for copying within Wikipedia stuff, and make it clear in your edit summary when the material entered the article. Adding an attribution template to the talk page is a good idea (I use the deputy script for this), but not required. I see translators get this backwards a lot. It's actually made me wish that our translation templates were better built to support multiple revision ID's and notes, so we could maybe make their use a viable alternative. But I think I got off topic a long time ago, so I'll cut myself off here. I hope this helped! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks so much for the detailed response! In particular, you helped me with the understanding around falsely claiming ownership. Also veering off-topic, it really annoys me when other sites attribute "Wikipedia" for, say, an image licensed under CC-BY-SA 4, thinking "Wikipedia" is sufficient attribution. :( Thanks for taking the time here, I appreciate it. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright
Source of content is all CC BY. I am still working on it and will add the final template. Thanks for the patience... Anthere (talk)
 * If you can show that, then brilliant. But I noticed on your talk page that you don't always choose to add the attribution. That's a bad idea. Adding CC - BY or CC BY SA content without a proper attribution is still a copyright violation (since you're ignoring the terms of the license), and it creates more work for the editors monitoring WP:Copypatrol. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes...it is true I sometimes tend to forget that last bit... I only put it when the text copied gets long... and I do not always plan to do long when I start. I did not plan long in this case. And as I was fixing... I thought the article was really too short, vague and unhelpful. So I improved it... By the time I was done... I forgot... I was not disconnected yet... I was busy translating them in French...
 * but it stays a rare occurence ! my eyes are crossing, I will stop now. Getting tired. I hope I forgot nothing now. If you notice I forget again, ping me and it will be great !
 * for your reference, the terms of use are here : https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html. And I am 200% sure they are good because I actually made them change their TOU. Their published texts/reports were in 3.0 IGO initially. But the website terms were unclear. Now the TOU are clear about the CC BY 4.0 for both reports and online content (a good part of their Flickr images are ok as well). Good night and thanks for the little chat. Anthere (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Anthere Okay, it's good to know that we're (literally) on the same page. Here's my sticking point.
 * "Except for some content published under more restrictive terms, new WIPO online publications and other online content are issued under an Attribution 4.0 International CC license (CC BY 4.0)."
 * Given that this page is about their Open Access policy that they implemented in 2016, I'm taking "new" to mean "published after Nov. 2016". As this text was available, on the same webpage, prior to that date, it cannot be classified as a new online content. But I see your point- I suppose it depends whether or not the adjective "new" applies strictly to "WIPO online publications" or whether it applies to "other online content" as well. I believe it applies to "other online content" as well. The addition of another adjective in front of "online content" does complicate its interpretation, however, so I see how it could be taken to mean "new WIPO online publications" and then the completely unrelated set of all "other online publications".
 * I don't like assuming that something is CC BY 4 licensed under a technicality, but thanks to your explanation, I feel much more confident that that your interpretation of their TOU is in line with what organization intends. On top of all the great work you've done, getting them to release so much under the CC BY 4 license, would it be possible for you also get them to swap the order of the sentence so that it reads "online content and new Wipo online publications"? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nod. That might be an interesting change that would make our life easier. That clarity could be worth it. I am going to share that thought with them. Might take a few months... but would be worth it if they agree. Anthere (talk) 08:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and review about my additions to the article Ann Marshall.
 * I write a great deal, and try very hard to change the contents of online sources I use as carefully as possible, but sometimes things slip through as I write relatively long wiki articles.
 * I've added two sources for Marshall's 4 x 100-meter freestyle world record. Actually, I believe we can quote Wiki as a source if we quote the source used by wiki (though I could be wrong about this) instead of wiki itself. I couldn't find the wiki source on the wiki page article for the record. The information on Marshall's 4 x 100 freestyle world relay record I provided was accurate according to the two new sources I've found to support Marshalls 4x100-meter freestyle relay world record. As the meet was with East Germany, the dual match in 1974 was significant and prophetic. As you may know, East Germany, also known than as the GDR was the American Women's team closest rival in the 1976 Montreal Olympics. The East German women's team was later found to have been using steroids, though they won nearly all the Gold medals, and the American team performed below expectations as a result. Shirley Babashoff wrote a book about the 1976 Olympics and her belief that the East German women's team had been using steroids, which has since been verified. The Olympic committee never changed the official results, though they tried to make certain ammends to the American team. Jim Montgomery, an American 1976 Olympian swam in this meet, as well as in the 1976 Montreal Olympics, in fact he competed against American Olympian Jack Babashoff, Shirley Babashoff's brother. I've since known him as a Master's swimming coach.
 * Dcw2003 (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 * Dcw2003 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Sorry, forgot to include my return address. Dcw2003 (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi @GreenLipstickLesbian thanks for your edit on my Lewis of van page. It's my first ever attempt at creating a historical page and I'm grateful for any help! Sincerely. Demosthenes1999 (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Demosthenes1999! Absolutely no problem! Let me know if you need any more help. I can't say I'm an expert in historical family articles, but it seems like a really interesting topic. My best piece of advice is to look at other, similiar articles which have passed a Good Article Review or a Featured Article Review, and see how they're structured, what sort of information they include, what kind of sources they cite, etcetera. Good luck! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll definitely take a look at the good article review and featured article review! It's hard to fit in the time outside of work, and my wife has told me to stop working on the article so much! LOL. It does get very addictive! It might just be me but, I think the bar for getting an article up is actually a lot higher than most people realise. lol. Thanks again. :) Demosthenes1999 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Welcome to the DCWC!


Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, GreenLipstickLesbian! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:


 * Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
 * Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
 * Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
 * New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
 * Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators:, , or. (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping clean up the Florida State University main article
Thank you for your recent efforts to help clean up the FSU main article. I appreciate it! Sirberus (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Sirberus, it's no problem! Once I saw that the article was under a GAR, I decided I was going to do my best to remove all the close paraphrasing and blatant copyvios as quickly as possible. (Although I do have to thank @Nikkimaria for doing a very comprehensive first pass- and for discovering the issue in the first place). Tensions tend to run really high with CCI investigations, where you have one side frustrated that all their hard work is being damaged because somebody couldn't follow the rules, and the other side frustrated that they have to spend hours to days cleaning up after somebody who should have known better, and neither side gets access to the standard Wikipedia content dispute cycles and procedures such as WP:BRD. I figured the least I could do was try and eliminate as much of the copyright angle as I could. We're all in this thing together, right? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are! I cannot express how much I appreciate your culling out the suspected material.  I have spent months (years?) researching sources and then trying to write something useful which meets standard and then edits appear over time which are copy-paste entries.  I'll keep chipping away, but thank you for the hard work!Sirberus (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * @ARandomName123 😊 thank you so much! And right back at you- I have some CCI pages on my watchlist as well, and it's always a relief to see your name show up because a) I'm not alone in these! and b)I know you've done a good job and the case has just gotten that much easier to work through. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

RE your ANI question
Per the docs of they don't work with the reply tool, collapse bottom needs to be on its own line. – 2804:F1...B0:83D1 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I knew it must have been something I was doing wrong! Thank you for telling me, 2804:F1. <3 You know, as much as I'm sure we'd all be happier and more productive if ANI got vanished occasionally, I'd at least like to be doing it intentionally, lol. 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's surprisingly easy to accidentally vanish most of a page, this is the third, and third different way, that I've seen it happen in ~12 days(1st, cause - 2nd). – 2804:F1...B0:83D1 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well watch this space if you want to find any more- one of my only compsci classes ended with all three TA's hunched around my laptop, murmuring in hushed tones "But how did she do that?" But seriously, it nice to know I'm not the only one trying to surreptitiously hide half of all Wikipedia pages. Thank you for being on hand to explain what's going on! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:South Korean Methodist ministers


A tag has been placed on Category:South Korean Methodist ministers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)