User talk:John Cummings/Archive 16

YouTube linking
Hi. If you believe there is a justification for adding links to YouTube videos in an article, it is a good idea to - at a bare minimum - ask first on the talk page, and give an explanation that includes evidence that the link does not run contrary to the WP:COPYVIOCITE policy (e.g., show that YOU are the person who produced the video, and hold copyright yourself, or some notice within the video that says it is not copyrighted material); WP policy specifically warns editors against adding links to YouTube. If everything checks out, and other editors support the inclusion, that's when you should go ahead - but not before. Peace,

March 2023
Hello John Cummings. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to QWSTION, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:John Cummings. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. US-Verified (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, this spam. Please disclose edits now onwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by US-Verified (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you are aware but Template:COI requires that "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning."

Please can you describe what evidence you have that I have been paid to create the article there. If you don't do this the rules state "This tag may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found".

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that the editor who tagged the article didn't see your earlier response to me where you explained that you have not been paid for producing that article. That editor obviously saw the same paid writing symptoms as I did when I tagged the article a couple of weeks previously.
 * I note that thpugh you responded to the Paid tag, you didn't respond to the others. Can you think of a reason I should not replace them? Thanks, - Roxy the dog 13:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for your message, could we discuss this on the talk page of the article so the conversation is easier to find? It would be helpful if you could explain for each of the tags which specific parts of the article you want the tags to relate to. Its difficult to respond to something without specifics and examples. John Cummings (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi John. Thank you for your reply. Fair enough - I've striked my message as it is not fair to keep it here when there is no WP:COI (per your response) But we need to write articles in neutral tone per WP:NPOV. Some of them were not and that's why I thought it would be better if the community can decide on this. Can you please share your opinion on here. Thank you. US-Verified (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Geeetech for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Geeetech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Geeetech until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. US-Verified (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of QWSTION for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article QWSTION is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/QWSTION until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. US-Verified (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Notification
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. US-Verified (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of WYSE International for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WYSE International is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/WYSE International until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. US-Verified (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Fidelity Communications for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fidelity Communications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Fidelity Communications until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. US-Verified (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethical Journalism Network for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethical Journalism Network is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ethical Journalism Network until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. US-Verified (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of RepRap Fisher for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RepRap Fisher is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/RepRap Fisher until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. US-Verified (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:John Cummings. Thank you. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Dora Goodman Cameras for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dora Goodman Cameras is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dora Goodman Cameras until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. US-Verified (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hi John. I've removed autopatrolled from your account based on the concerns raised at WP:ANI. This means that pages you create in the future will appear in the new page patrol queue. I strongly recommend you respond to the questions about conflict of interest at ANI as soon as possible. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: March 2023
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 23:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: November 2023
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 08:39, 11 December 2023 (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)  14:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks very much for the message. I understand why this has happened, but the text is available under an open license. In the sources section I added an open license credit for the source, which I helped FAO upload to Commons and they've done an VRT/OTRS ticket for the publication. I know this is very easy to miss, I've been working with FAO to help them openly license their content and unfortunately its got a bit confusing since its being dual licensed. Hopefully in the near future they will also chose to openly license more content and also change the license on their website. Obviously you've removed that edit from public view so I can't check if I've made a mistake and not put a sources section in properly by accident (I've been doing quite a few edits today with text from this publication), very sorry if I messed that up. Thanks ahain for your message. John Cummings (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry John. When I did the reversion there was a faint note in the back of my head saying "are you sure?". I now recall that the FAO has this annoying habit of creating longform reports with full copyright and more or less simultaneously releasing sure reversion/abstracts with acceptable CC licenses. The problem arises because our copy patrol tool looks at the edit, looks for matching text, and provides to me a link to a site with the exact text which is identified as fully under copyright. I know this is come up before so I should have caught myself, but I convinced myself that the issue I was remembering related to UNESCO. I don't know for certain where the UNESCO does the same thing but I really should've remembered that it was the FAO.
 * Due to the nature of the tool this is likely to happen again. If I'm the one who happens to look into it I hope I'll remember, But I'll point out that I'm handling about a thousand cases a month, and I certainly don't recall the specific circumstances of each and every case. (Writing this will help me :) I also can't be sure what will happen if a different volunteer handles the report.
 * I'll suggest an easy solution. I see you are using edit summaries — would be too much to ask that your edit summary specifically note that the FAO ref is CC licensed? I can't speak for all volunteers but I virtually always look at the edit summary before taking action and even that short note will be a reminder to look further before reverting.  S Philbrick  (Talk)  17:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi really no worries :) Yes the FAO dual licensing thing is not ideal, but hopefully they will change it in the future. UNESCO content was being flagged before because while the text was open license in the pdfs on their website, people were plagarising UNESCO on various blogs and the tool at that time couldn't see inside pdfs but could see the text on the blogs. Yes I agree including it in the edit summary is good, I was doing it before but forgot yesterday. I just added instructions for doing the edit summary in Help:Adding_open-license_text_to_Wikipedia, is there anything else that would help you and other copyright patrol people? I would much rather I got the issues and improved the documntation now than if this becomes more widely adopted and less experienced editors bump into issues with less friendly copyright patrol people :) Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks S Philbrick  (Talk)  12:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: December 2023
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 05:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fedia


A tag has been placed on Category:Fedia 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! 01:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Muskan Ahirwar
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Forestry
FYI: This did indeed get tagged by CopyPatrol. Nobody ( talk ) 06:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for letting me know, there's a license statement in the Sources section on the article showing it is under a compatible license. Often text from UN publications get flagged because text from them is widely copied to other websites online. John Cummings (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I marked it as a false positive. But still, thanks to your edit summary, it was easy to see why it was hit and check that it was attributed correctly. Nobody  ( talk ) 07:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries, thank you for checking the edit summary before you did anything. :) John Cummings (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Image license question
John, you seem to have added two FAO stats images, File:Production_Of_Cereals_(2021).svg and File:Main Traded Cereals, Top Importers And Exporters (Quantities, 2021).svg to Cereal, and I believe you add them and similar images regularly to other articles. You've stated on Commons that the license is CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO Deed. However, FAO's policy states Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC BY-NC- SA 3.0 IGO), which is not sufficient for Commons. Which is correct? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks, yeah, sorry its confusing, I need to find a way to make the licensing more clear. I'm working with them on licensing currently for their content. At the moment we have a work around where I'm helping them upload the publications to Commons and then we can share the graphics like these ones. If you follow the second link under 'source' for these files you'll see that they've does a VRT permission for the publication which includes these graphics. John Cummings (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, I have clarified these two images by writing


 * |permission=VRT Ticket from FAO for whole document is on File:World Food and Agriculture - Statistical Yearbook 2023.pdf, it is ticket number 2021120710007605.


 * This makes the situation immediately comprehensible to any GAN or FAC reviewer, and should probably be the standard rubric on every image from the document, it's just a cut-and-paste job. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much, I'll do the others. Hopefully they will open license more content on their website in future, lets see. John Cummings (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This Month in GLAM: January 2024
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 01:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

This Month in GLAM: February 2024
About This Month in GLAM · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · Romaine 13:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Artists4Ceasefire
 * added links pointing to Belly, Drake, Miguel, Sarah Jones, Jesse Williams, Wale, Brian Cox, Sam Richardson, John Early, Tyler Johnson and Jenny Yang

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mirna El Helbawi
Hello! Your submission of Mirna El Helbawi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Artists4Ceasefire
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mirna El Helbawi
Hello! Your submission of Mirna El Helbawi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Revert
Here is the part of the article that mentions what you recently removed from TikTok: "The real reason so many people are making posts like these is because they think they have worked out a way to game the TikTok algorithm, thereby increasing potential traffic to their monetised OnlyFans accounts." CurryCity (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi thanks for writing to me. This makes sense, but that's not what was said in the Wikipedia article. Please feel free to add in a sentence that reflects what's covered in the source. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)