User talk:Mathglot/Archive 1

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:
 * visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
 * type   on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly
 * visit the directory of help pages

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome! – Outriggr § 10:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Cool, a sort of messaging system here, too? Now I just have to figure out how to respond to you, to thank you for your kind comments, Outriggr. I did the tilde trick, so that seems to have worked. Where do I put the helpme thing--right here?

Let's try it-- --for this question:

The one thing I didn't quite get was the edit summary thing. Where do I put that, on the talk page? So, say, I edit the main page, do some stuff, finish and save, then go to Talk page, and--what? Add a new section somewhere, saying, "I just did this and that?"

And if someone answers that one before Outriggr, does, how did he send me this, and how do I respond to him directly? Thanks!! (guess I don't have to tilde-sign here, right, cuz it's my user page?)


 * The edit summary is simply the box which says "Edit summary" directly below the edit window. You put a summary of your edit in that. When people look at the history of an article they can then see your edit summary as well as who edited. An exception to this is when editing talk pages, if you use the "+" tab at the top of the page you will add a new section, in this case the title you enter for that section are used as the edit summary. This bring about leaving messages for other users, each user has their own talk page, if you add content to that page they then get notified of that change. In this case the page is User_talk:Outriggr, simply go there, you can then use the + tab at the top of the page to add a new section and leave a message. If you want to add to an existing message simply edit the page/section as for elsewhere. Help:Talk contains some more information on talk pages. It is also normal to sign posts on your own talk page, since they also make things mre readable, helping to mark the end of one comment and the start of the next. --pgk 10:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, adding this anyway)
 * Hi Mathglot. Generally, you do not need to discuss your edits on the article "Talk" page unless they are controversial, need special explanation, etc. The "edit summary" box that you see on every edit screen is where you can describe what you did to the article with that edit. See Help:Edit summary. I'm speaking of article Talk pages.


 * Every user has a user page (User:Mathglot) page and a talk page (User talk:Mathglot). These are more your own personal area, but can be edited (by anyone) just like an article. You get a special "you have messages" notification if someone changes your talk page. It is common practice to sign your comments on your own talk page as well, with ~ . Some people respond to messages they receive (on their own talk page) on the other person's talk page; others respond on their own talk page. Up to you. Hope this helps! – Outriggr § 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. I can see you will be a good editor - so truly, welcome! – Outriggr § 10:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What fun, and thanks for all the help! Mathglot 10:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

reporting copyright infringement and a bizarre form of vandalism
Hi, I've found a confusing case of copyright infringement mixed with vandalism that I suspect to be wholesale cut-and-paste, and need some help on how to proceed.

I have already found my way to the Wikipedia:Copyright_problems page and can see how to add a simple case to the list for the current date, but I need help in two ways before I can do that:


 * format of the listing entry on the Copyright_problems page
 * how and where to report all this

The history of this is a bit convoluted, and involves separate infringements of the same source page from the German and the English Wiki, followed by a bizarre vandalism on the English site:


 * 1st suspected infringement is for the German wiki article 'Mohegan' (call it 'GM'), translated literally from an English web page, call it page 'WP'
 * 2nd suspected infringement is for English 'Mohegan' article ('EM'), many, long paragraphs pasted directly from 'WP' by an editor (let's call him 'E1') in a series of edits
 * vandalism of 'EM' by replacing the entire article with the text of 'GM' processed through Babelfish, again by 'E1'

I'm a little uncertain of the format of the listing entry on the Copyright_problems page: article, history, last edit and all that--can I adapt that to whatever makes sense for this report, or should I stick closely to that format? Also, where do I get last edit from?

The actual infringment concerns English page WP that I found on the web, of which the German wikipedia article Mohegan GM appears to copy liberally from (rendered into German). I verified via the internet archive that WP has been largely unchanged since 1998, and via Wikipedia history that GM dates to only April 4, 2006.

EM dates back to March 18, 2005, but at that time was one paragraph long, and unrelated to the outside web site. As late as October 15, 2006 13:17 the English article was still independent, and a history comparison of March 4, 2006 with October 15, 2006 through many edits shows evolution rather than revolution.

Over a period of two days, 17 and 18 October, a strange series of edits occurred, all by one editor. First, there was a series of edits (Oct 17 14:08-15:15,roughly) completing replacing the October 15 version with text pasted from WP. At the end of these, the EM article was thoroughly readable and of high quality, as the source WP is a very good article about the Mohegans.

Following this, a second series of edits ending October 18 around 15:25 replaced the page wholesale once more, replacing the entire EM article with the incomprensible gobbledygook produced by passing the contents of GM through Babelfish, and pasting it into the EM. (As it happens, the GM plagiarized the same WP, which is maybe not coincidence.)

The effect of this, was to change the EM article over a period of 3 days from an article which on October 15 had been a continual evolution of version 1, to an article on October 17 13:17 which was a wholesale copy of WP, to an article on October 18 21:11 which was incomprehensible rubbish representing the same WP as translated by competent translators into German on the DE site then rendered back into English via Babelfish.

I walked into this thicket about a week ago, unaware of any of this, when I found the gobbledy-gook on EM. (To make things worse, the German article had been recommended for both "Readworthy" (our "Good" article, I believe) and for "Excellence" (our "Featured" article, I believe). There is a Peer Review box on the English article.)

My first thought was to go to the talk pages for both 'en' and 'de' and say that I suspect copyright infringement. What with subsquent edits, these don't always match word for word now, but sometimes they do, but even so, that seems like a lot of work. I'm not sure I have the time to make a Supreme Court brief that will stand up. Nevertheless, any bilingual German-English readers will instantly perceive the similarity.

Stranger indeed when I went further into the history comparisons, was the gutting of the original evolved EM page by an editor over a period of 24 hours, followed by a 2nd gutting replacing perfectly good English (plagiarized though it was) with gobbledygook from the German site.

The more I think about this, look at E1's comments, and talk pages, the more I'm convinced he's an inveterate vandal.

I hardly know what to do first. I think I should alert the people over at the German twiki, and let them know where GM actually comes from, and warn them that an "excellent" page request may not be the right thing right now. I should probably put both EM and GM on the list at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems (or, maybe de.wiki has their own version of same). What about the vandalizing editor--should I call him on it? Refer his actions to somebody? Just throw out everything he's done since he took down the perfectly okay October 15th page and revert back to that?

For the time being, I think I'll just leave a non-committal comment on the Talk page for EM, saying I'm stopping translation for the time being. But in actuality, I'm angry, feeling that I've been "had" by E1. Here's this page EM, recommended for "Peer Review" on how to improve it, and I, like a fool, come along and spend way more time than I ever wanted, attempting in good faith to translate the good German on GM to replace this Babelfish nonsense back into something that never would end up as good as the original English of WP was in the first place. I'm feeling rather disgusted, and wondering if it was a good idea that I even bothered to start in as an editor. Maybe I'll get over it.

But I need some advice, and maybe some hand-holding or encouragement or something. Mathglot 07:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Most info on a helpme call i've ever seen! Don't take this the wrong way, I love it when users are very detailed, however that is quite a bit of info. Is there anyway you can give a concise question about what you need? I'm having trouble following exactly where the articles in question were copied from etc. I would appreciate it. --Skywolf talk/contribs 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I purposely didn't include where they were copied from, but the source is Lee Sultzman's Mohegan article.

Sorry it was so long, maybe it's partly because it's really several questions in one, and partly because it concerns two wikipedias. The question is: what do I report to whom concerning a series of plagiarisms, and one massive vandalism:

1. The German Mohegan article is a translation of Sultzman's, plus/minus Wiki edits over time. (Or, both Sultzman and GM are copies of some unknown third source, which wouldn't change the fact that GM is a copy. Internet Archive shows Sultzman's article present in its current form since 1997.)

2. English Mohegan article was fine until 10/15/06, and had nothing to do with the GM article. On 10/16-10/17, the English Mohegan article was wiped out in a series of edits and replaced by portions of Sultzman's article, word-for-word.

3. Within 24 hours after that in a series of edits, the EM article was replaced again, this time by taking the text of the GM, passing it through the automatic translator Babelfish, and replacing the previous contents of the EM with the resulting gobbledygook, leaving it an incomprehensible babble.

Curiously, the same editor was responsible for both points 2 and 3 above. Possibly he was having second thoughts about 2, and tried covering his tracks with 3?

Regarding point 2, I see nothing wrong with wiping out an article in its entirety to improve it (and it was an improvement, imho) but if in so doing you simply paste an entire web page found elsewhere, isn't that copyright infringement?

Regarding point 3, this seems like vandalism, replacing good English with gibberish.

Should anything be done about any of this, and if so, what? Mathglot 18:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok The english Mohegan article is a rough translation of the german version, its not totally word for word but you can tell it was copied. Now the german version is almost an exact copy of the Sultzman article? I can't read german, but judging by some words I can see that to be likely. If you can understand german, go ahead and place a copyvio tag onto the German article and explain that it was translated word for word into german. Also place a copyvio tag here on the english version stating in summary, that it was translated from the german wikipedia which was copied word for word from that article. --Skywolf talk/contribs 20:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. I think you got half the point, missed the other half though.  Sigh, I guess it's all just too complicated to explain.

''..is a rough translation... is not totally word for word...''

Depends on what section you're looking at. If it's a later section, then it's as close to word-for-word as the gibberish produced by Babelfish is able to approach. If it's an earlier section, then it's my own translation, produced by going to the German site, and translating it into English, and as close to word-for-word as my translation ability can manage. (Having said that, I'm not going to translate quotations which were originally English in the first place for which we don't have original English text--instead, I went and found originals, in English, about a similar topic, and used those instead.)

Now the german version is almost an exact copy of the Sultzman article?

Yes, word-for-word in large part. Take the 'Population' section, for example, or read the longer treatment of this that I just added onto the German talk page. It's clear that to make it look more Wiki-ish, the wiki editors there have added some sections and structure which don't come from Sultzman's article at all, so it's not identical top to bottom--wouldn't look like Wiki if it were. But I'd guess 70% or more of the text is word-for-word.

Also place a copyvio tag here on the english version stating in summary, that it was translated from the german wikipedia which was copied word for word from that article.

Well, I'm the one doing the translating from German, at least I was, until I realized the copyright violation on the German site. My translating was for what I thought was a good cause at the time--namely, in order to replace the Babelfish vandalism on the English page (which in turn, replaced the word-for-word cut-paste in good English directly from the Sultzman article--the one which only lasted 24 hours until it was replaced by gibberish). This happened before I knew the German page was a copyvio, but since the English page is derivative, even if I was doing it with the best of intent, it's still a copyvio, and it should stop, and I have.

It's all connected together, and I realize this must make one's head spin, but I don't know how to explain it any better.

In any case, based on your advice, I have done (or will soon do) the following:
 * stopped translating the German page into English
 * placed a tag on the German page, which is like our copyvio
 * added an explanation on the German talk page of why I added the tag
 * will add a copyvio tag to the English page, and something to the talk page

Thanks for your response and help.

(I was organizing this in e-mail order, that is newest entry at the top, but having seen others' pages, I guess it's more normal to put it in chrono order on Wiki, so will restore it to chrono order and follow that convention.) Mathglot 06:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry you found your way into such an odd situation during your first editing project on Wikipedia. This circumstance certainly isn't common. I would encourage you to move on to other editing pastures if need be, but don't leave, because, like I said, you're a good editor. – Outriggr § 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And you're right, it is pretty odd. But I think I'll stick around, I like the sense of community I'm starting to get here. I'm sure I just landed in a weird spot to start out, and other pastures will be greener! Mathglot 06:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

fixing Edit summary ex post facto
Being the newbie that I still am, I neglected to use Edit Summary in the beginning. Is there a way I can go back and retroactively add them in now? Even for my own purposes, if no one else's, I'd like to have them there.
 * No, there's no way to alter an edit summary. (I've often wanted to correct typos in edit summaries I've made, and even to preview edit summaries occasionally, but it just can't be done.) You can choose to have edit summaries enforced in your preferences if you like; you could also make a dummy edit to the same article explaining your previous unsummaried edit. --ais523 07:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Login time-out?
A couple of times when I used four tildes, I got my IP address in the article, not my name, even though I had been logged in when I first started. Is there a time-out on my log-in? Is there some "preferences" section or something, where I can make it longer, or turn it off? Mathglot 06:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a known problem in various Internet setups; if you aren't on a public computer, you can correct it by using the 'Remember me' checkbox when you log in. (The login normally lasts until the browser closes, but the cookies the browser sets seem to get lost sometimes and log a user out prematurely.) --ais523 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dead link
Hi, thanks I've fixed the link. -- Willtron ( ? )  09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohegan
Thanks for the warning - i didn't know pages with this copyright violation message were "off limits". But I understand it: a better translation will not change the copyright situation. To leave the page in the state it was in seemed downright silly: the (machine) translation was laughable. I would think US-based Wikipedia users would find it beneath their dignity to leave this item in the state it was in. [missing sig here, appx. 10/31/06 8:00-ish UTC]

Sure thing--comment above by.. Vegaswikian, I presume? You're right about it's being downright silly--like you, I couldn't stand to see it in that state either, which was why I started translating it directly from the German. I stopped as soon as I realized there was a problem. Mathglot 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment was mine, sorry, i thought the tagging was automatic. So, what next ? Sjoerd22 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Such pages aren't exactly off-limits--they give a link right in the copyvio box itself, and if you click it, you can start to create a new page in a temporary area--read the box, it explains it.

What's interesting, is that the German article had the same problem, and I also put a URV (German copyvio) notice on the page there, and then I asked the same question as you, there on the German Mohegan Talk page (I assume you read German). German User Napa came in after me, and reverted the page to the way it was months earlier when it was only a paragraph long. I'm actually not sure that's the way you're supposed to do it, because the information in the box says to differently, but he's been around a lot longer than me, so I'm not going to argue.

So to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what's next. I did add the page, like the box says to, to the Copyright_problems and I guess admins come by and deal with it. Mathglot 06:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey there, just following up on this sitation. See Talk:Mohegan for what exactly I did.  You did the right thing.  For articles that are ALL copyvio, we just delete them, which is an admin action.  You can tag them with db-copyvio.  For articles that are mixed, you take them to Copyright Problems as you did.  An admin has to delete the history with the copyvio and restore a clean version.  Any questions, let me know.  Thanks --  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mathglot, you can find the response on my German site: de:Benutzer:Nikater --Nikater 08:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help, just I sent an e-mail to Mr. Dill,--Nikater 11:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox area for proposal pages
I have two questions, one concerns what I'll call a "proposal page" (but if there's an accepted term for this concept, please tell me what it is).

Here's what I mean: I've been looking at the Oneness Pentecostal article, and I'd like to propose a complete rewrite. I don't want to just barge in as a first-time editor on that article, and blow away three years of work by numerous people. What I'd like to do, is have a sandbox somewhere, where I can half-write, half-sketch out the structure of the article the way I think it could be, without messing up the existing one, and then invite editors on the Talk page of the current article to have a look and discuss whether they'd like to go that route or not. This seems much more likely to ultimately yield improvements to the article than just replacing it. Is there a way to create a temporary test area like this, perhaps hanging it off my Talk page?

My second question concerns archiving.

My Talk page is too long. I'd like to move a good deal of the stuff here to another page somewhere, and link to it from here. That way my Talk page would be easier to view and navigate, and still have links to the other stuff for anyone who was interested. I'd probably summarize long archived sections in the archive in a sentence or two here on my main Talk page as an introduction for anyone who wished to follow the link for more info. How do I create such an archive page?


 * Hi. You can make subpages in your user space, have a read of Subpages and How to archive a talk page Brian | (Talk) 22:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

topics speculating about future human events
Can anyone point me to Wiki policy pages where I could look to find statements about the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of Wiki pages whose primary raison d'etre appears to be to speculate about future man-made events?

I looked at the page United_States_Democratic_vice_presidential_candidates%2C_2008 and I question whether such a page should exist. If so, how one would decide what content is appropriate for it, and if not, whether to nominate it for deletion.

This seems rather different than, say, speculating on future oil prices, or future global weather patterns which might be complex fields of study tied to a combination of human and natural process and thus be a legitimate field of study.

But a future choice possibly made by a single person based on reasons known ultimately only to them--is that a legitimate topic for a Wiki page?


 * WP:CRYSTAL says; If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. I'd say that the topic you mentioned has seen quite a lot of speculation in the media world. Hope that helps, Master of Puppets  Call me MoP! :)  02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Afd help
helpme How do I recommend an article on Wikisource for deletion?

Was on Wikisource, looking at the article about translation of the German Grundgesetz (Basic Law) Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany (Wikisource) and wanted to add a Afd Template to it. But it seems like Wikisource doesn't have that template. I tried Prod and subst:afd1, and those don't exist, and Help didn't help either, so I can't see how to do it.

More specfics on the article's Talk page.
 * Try here: s:Wikisource:Proposed deletions --Closedmouth (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Useful links
Note to self: had to revert vandalism for the first time, and had some trouble finding out how to do it. Here's Help:reverting for next time.

create an archive
Create another: How_to_archive_a_talk_page