User talk:Sam Sailor

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

This week's article for improvement (week 24, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, Sam Sailor. The article for improvement of the week is:

Classificatory disputes about art

Please be bold and help improve it!


Previous selections: Remote sensing • Garden


Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 25, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, Sam Sailor. The article for improvement of the week is:

Modern Pagan views on LGBT people

Please be bold and help improve it!


Previous selections: Classificatory disputes about art • Remote sensing


Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Your common.js

[edit]

Hi Sam. Can you edit your common.js and remove the double brackets around Copyvio-revdel in line 359. Even though it's in a comment section the software is pulling it up as a link to {{Copyvio-revdel}} and is adding your common.js to Category:Requested RD1 redactions. Bizarre I know and I had it happen to me previously. Nthep (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for telling me, Nthep. Embarrassingly, I have made this mistake before, and I know that at least some templates mentioned in js file comments should not include curly brackets as that will make the js file end up in a maintenance category. My apologies for sleeping on the watch and missing this instance. Best, Sam Sailor 12:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

[edit]

Regarding your post on User talk:2A02:C7C:5113:D200:CD36:10CE:CA63:CEDE; please be aware that malformed edits that were intended (however mistakenly) to be a positive contribution are not vandalism and should not be described as such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Andy, thanks for reminding me. Warning has been redacted and a notice appended. Best, Sam Sailor 13:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor, very old backwards copy. What do I do?

[edit]

Eyereland wrote an article containing this section in 2006. Frank Sharp cut and incorporated it into this page in 2010. There, he claims a copyright to the page, even though it contains Eyreland's uncredited work. I've read Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:Standard CC BY-SA violation letter and I'm confused. Eyreland is he copyright owner but hasn't been active here in four and a half years. But the article's been tagged for copyvio. I'd be grateful for advice. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker: If you are certain, then follow WP:BACKWARDSCOPY: add a {{backwards copy}} to Talk:A-MAC, then remove {{Copypaste|date=October 2021}} from the article.
I notice that the editor who added {{copypaste}} to the article in this diff did so manually, and had to correct a typo in the next diff. They did not include a |url=, which in my opinion makes the tag less useful – are other editors supposed to guess from where some of the text supposedly was copied? (I'm surprised to see that |url= is optional, see the template documentation.) The editor left no comment on Talk:A-MAC.
I also notice that in this diff two minutes earlier, they manually tagged with {{Unsourced|date=October 2021}}. {{Unsourced}} is a redirect to {{unreferenced}}. That is an incorrect tag, as the article contained a general reference listed in the ==External links== section, but some editors are unaware of the explicit restriction listed in the template documentation:

Watch out for lists of general references that someone has incorrectly listed under ==External links==. If the link leads to a reliable source that supports some article content, then that website is a reference, not just an external link.

But that would have required opening the link and confirming that the source is reliable and supports some content, and ideally converting the URL to a {{cite web}}, moving it inline, changing the ==External links== section to a ==References== section, and adding a {{reflist}}. Then the correct maintenance template would have been {{one source}}.
I have sourced the article with three additional book sources in this diff. Sam Sailor 08:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your careful attention and advice. It's certain that Eyreland posted the content in question and that Mr. Sharp posted his five years later, but I do not know for certain where Mr. Sharp got it. He says on his blog that he makes himself difficult to contact and, indeed, I don't find an email address for him, even searching through the page source. What is the best thing to do for Wikipedia? Is this small enough and old enough that I should just tag the talk page with {{ backwards copy}} and let things go at that? Should I pursue the Non-compliance process? I realize our interaction doesn't qualify me to expect legal advice from you or absolve me of responsibility for my actions; I'm just asking you what you would do in my position. I really have no idea. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2007 image used in A-MAC
You're most welcome, I'm happy if I can help.
Let's look at the findings:
1. A-MAC looked like this in October 2006. Over the next four years there were only about 15 revisions to the article. Between June 2010 and March 2012, no edits were made to the article, ergo this June 2010 revision is what Frank Sharp was looking at when he wrote his Blogspot page in 2010–2011.
2. If we compare the June 2010 revision with the Blogspot page using Earvig's Copyvio Detector, this is the result.
I think that most people will agree with you that this is a case of bacwards copy. That seems a much more plausible explanation than thinking Eyereland and Frank Sharp coincidentally copied, verbatim, the exact same four lines from some obscure source that today is no longer indexed by Google.
I will add a third finding:
3. Compare the 2007 file Multiplexed Analogue Components transmission (simulation).jpg (thumb on the right) with this Frank Sharp image file. They look suspeciously identical, don't they? Better still, if we compare the original upload on Commons with Frank Sharp's file, we find that the
  • file on Commons is 950 × 576 pixels and 159 KB, and
  • Frank Sharp's file is 952 × 578 pixels and 157 KB.
Compare the white noise in the left part of the images with each other. There is no chance that the distribution of white and black/grey pixels would form identical patterns like they do here, unless Frank had "borrowed" the image on Commons.
It is apparent that Frank added a 1 px blue frame to the image, hence the pixel increase.
My guess is that before that he ran a sepia filter, and added the brown "https://obsoletetellyemuseum.blogspot.com/ ©2010 Frank Sharp." overlay on top to match the sepia. Then he exported the resulting image with compression, hence the smaller byte size and the artifacts, and finally posted the image as his own.
I'm adding this to say that maybe Frank Sharp, an unusual family name for a German and maybe a wordplay on the German family name Scharf and the Japanese electronics company Sharp, is perhaps neither as sharp as a photoshopper as he think he is, nor as frank in his attributions and claims of copyright as he should have been.
I think we have evidenced that this case is a backwards copy case, and I will remove the {{copypaste}} from the article and add a {{backwards copy}} to the talk page with a backlink to this discussion in the edit summaries.
Is further action needed? First of all, we have no way of contacting Frank Sharp, you say, so further action is not possible. Even if we could contact him, the transgressions are 14–15 years old and amount to four lines of text and one image. Would it be worth the time and effort to follow the non-compliance process if we could contact him? I have no idea what practice is in this area. Diannaa is likely to know the answer. Best, Sam Sailor 19:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Typically it's up to the person who wrote the content to initiate a non-compliance complaint. I suggest adding the backwardscopy template and removing the copypaste tag. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Diannaa. Oona Wikiwalker, I've added the backwards copy template to the talk page and removed the copypaste template from the article. Best, Sam Sailor 20:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your good advice and handling of this! Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monasteries

[edit]

SS, where are you finding sources that cap "Shoreti Monastery" and the others? Dicklyon (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 26, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, Sam Sailor. The article for improvement of the week is:

Urarina language

Please be bold and help improve it!


Previous selections: Modern Pagan views on LGBT people • Classificatory disputes about art


Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 23 June 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

[edit]

Happy First Edit Day!

[edit]

Thanks

[edit]

for catching the mistake in my edit in Croatia. I normally do look at the preview but for whatever reason was confident that was in the caption and so wasn't as diligent. Skynxnex (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Skynxnex. Best, Sam Sailor 17:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This week's article for improvement (week 27, 2025)

[edit]
Hello, Sam Sailor. The article for improvement of the week is:

Magnesium

Please be bold and help improve it!


Previous selections: Urarina language • Modern Pagan views on LGBT people


Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations


Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Women in Red July 2025

[edit]
Women in Red | July 2025, Vol 11, Issue 7, Nos. 326, 327, 341, 342, 343


Online events:

Announcements:

Progress ("moving the needle"):

  • Statistics available via Humaniki tool. Thank you if you contributed one or more of the 1,514 articles during this period!
  • 19 May 2025: 20.114% of EN-WP biographies are about women (2,066,280 bios; 415,618 women)
  • 23 Jun 2025: 20.130% (2,072,236 bios; 417,132 women)

Tip of the month:

  • A nuanced article is more useful than a shiny pedestal. Readers can find hope in your subject's survival or achievements,
    but they can also learn from your subject's mistakes and limitations.

Other ways to participate:

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 69

[edit]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]