Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2019 May 2

= May 2 =

Marxism - poor definition
I disagree with Wikipedia's definition of marxism. Marxism historically is an ideology of a radical revolutionary socialist movement. I would like to see that, included in the definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.255.100 (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable source (see WP:RS) that has a definition you think is correct, and add the definition from that source and cite the source. Since this is likely to be at least a little bit contentious given the history of Marxism, you might want to start by discussing this on the article's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarized text
The second section in Granja Comary (CBF) is taken word-for-word from the cited source, a Brazilian govt. website that says CC3.0, so I believe this is plagiarism but not a copyvio. This was done about 5 years ago by a now blocked editor. If it just needs to be rewritten, is there an appropriate tag for this? MB 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the text is suitable for an encyclopedia, there is no need to rewrite: Just cite the source and add something like "text taken from" after the ref tag and before the cite template. Or, if you think it flows better, you can use quotation marks and cite the source. However, please first verify that Wikipedia copied that source instead of vice versa. -Arch dude (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, if someone copied it from that site into Wikipedia, then it IS a copyright violation. The material is copyrighted, and we violate the copyright unless we comply with the provisions of the license, which is CC3.0. This is just as much a copyright violation as copying a page from a best seller or copying a New York Times article. For this license, the cure for the violation is the same as the cure for plagiarism, (i.e., attribute the source) but the problem is quite distinct. -Arch dude (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , There is attribution in the form of a normal citation. I'm not sure if you mean anything more is needed. To answer the other question, there is a need for a rewrite because it is in a first-person narrative form which is obviously inappropriate. I have added a copyedit tag for that. MB 02:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * the guys over at WP:PLAGIARISM cannot make up their minds about this. Many go all academic and conflate "failure to attribute" with the very much worse "claim as your own work", which is a very serious academic offence. My feeling is that a simple "this material was taken from" is sufficient, but that a citation is not. A citation implicitly means "this information came from" which IMO is not adequate. -Arch dude (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Offensive content in userpage that seems to be abandoned
The instruction says to use a user warning but the account obviously looks unused in years. I don't see instructions on how to proceed in this case. The objectionable contents are the last two sentences in the profile of Graywalls (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That page has now been deleted.--Shantavira|feed me 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is latest change visible only when logged in?
I can see this change (removal of "highly paid") reflected on the page text when logged in - but when not logged in the "highly paid" text is not visible. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spygate_%28conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump%29&type=revision&diff=895216580&oldid=895208070

Why does this occur?

Note - Mobile View does show the change with "highly paid" removed.

I have tried with multiple browsers (Chrome, Firefox, and Edge) with the same results.

Uncle uncle uncle 19:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Likely something to do with caching of the page. Try either clearing your browser cache or holding the Shift key while clicking on reload. † dismas †|(talk) 20:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I've tried clearing cache and holding shift - and trying different browsers that have never been to that page and see the same incorrect results.

When you go to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spygate_(conspiracy_theory_by_Donald_Trump) do you see the identical behavior when logged in and when not logged in in the first paragraph: "had implanted a highly paid spy very early"  where the highly paid text is either present or missing?

Draft in purgatory
Is there a way to have an editor review my draft? It seems to be in draft purgatory. The Draft:Lowndes County Freedom Organization is currently in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/6 weeks ago. I noticed that once a draft has passed the "20 days" point, the number of drafts waiting for review increases substantially compared to the drafts that have been in queue less time. Mitchumch (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very random how this works, as reviewers can do whatever drafts they want to, despite it being suggested to do the older ones first. I'll take a look at the draft in a bit. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you change your mind? Mitchumch (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - No, sorry I should have said, I was waiting for the redirect to be deleted. I have now accepted the article. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Louis Le Prince
I would appreciate it if you would change Thomas Edison as the inventor of motion pictures. It was actually Louis Le Prince he got patents for it in Britian and in France.
 * The article Louis_Le_Prince says he was an early inventor. Please discuss on the talk page of the article you are interested in changing.  RudolfRed (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Mesne lord
I have  accidently  wiped  a  chart  at eth  top  of the    page. please leave  on  my  recent  citation  but  put  the  chart  back  if  you  can. Sorry
 * ✅ Mesne lord. You can just undo your edit in the history section. Please sign your comments with four tildes (~) so we know who you are. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  23:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)