User talk:Randomstaplers/Archive 5

Shoutout

Hi, I mentioned you here [1] in a way that was about you being like a positive example for me. But I still thought I should let you know, so I tried to ping you in the edit summary and later remembered that some folks turn off that type of notification. I don't need/expect any kind of reply and just wanted to make sure I'm not talking about folks behind their backs. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii (ii) Yeah, I heard your ping. Thanks⸺RandomStaplers 18:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments in section headers

Please do not add comments to lines containing section headers, MOS:SECTIONCOMMENT, as you did here in section EN 149, EN 14683 and EN 143. Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy attribution in articles with excerpted content

Thank you for your attention to the requirements of WP:CWW regarding attribution of copied material within Wikipedia; it is much appreciated. However, please do not add copy attribution for transcluded content that involves no actual copying of content. For example: the dummy edit in this edit at Mechanical filter (respirator) which credited two {{excerpt}}s added in this edit at Mechanical filter (respirator) were completely unnecessary, as no material was copied to the destination article, it was merely transcluded via template {{Excerpt}}. Transcluded content need not (must not) be credited, as no content actually changes hands. The same thing applies to recent edits of yours to Source control (respiratory disease), Respirator, N95 respirator, and COVID-19 pandemic in Uruguay. Unneeded copy attribution can be confusing to editors, and obscure the need for real copy attribution when it is required. It is not required, and should not be added, when you are not copying anything, as is the case with {{excerpt}}ed content.

If you need assistance on the use of dummy edits for attribution of copied content, please let me know, or check with the Wikipedia:Help desk. Maybe the template documentation for copied content is not adequate and should be upgraded; please lmk if you think that is the case. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This misunderstanding of the requirements of copy attribution appears to have extended to the documentation of template {{Excerpt}}, where you recently made some good-faith changes in these 4 edits to the template documentation. I have reverted your four edits to Template:Excerpt/doc; use of {{Excerpt}} should *not* be attributed as the copy of article content from one article to another is attributed, per WP:CWW, because no content has been copied.Please see WP:TRANSCLUSION for details. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot I think you may have missed something... I actually copied a table from one article to another, and then excerpted back on the old article that it was copied from. Thus, I believe a copying has taken place.

I believe you think that (I) think that an excerpt counts as a copy. I already know it does not.

This is why I used Template:copied in the talk page on just a few instances. You might want to take a look at Respirator. That page is full of excerpting, yet there are only two actual instances of copying, one happening just like in the scenario above, the other happening months ago when I rewrote the N95 respirator article.

As for the minor edits, I did them according to WP:Copying text from other sources, because I didn't do them properly initially.⸺RandomStaplers 18:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Randomstaplers, I'm sure you're right, I probably missed quite a few things because there were so many copy attribution statements around all these respirator-related articles, that I couldn't disentangle them all, although I did connect a couple of them with actual copies, leaving some others appearing to be copy orphans, so to speak, disconnected from any actual transfer of content from point A to point B. What I know for sure, is that you do not need to add copy attribution for use of an {{excerpt}} under any circumstances, and this even includes when the material you are excerpting has been copied to the excerpt source article from somewhere else.

The minor edits made just for the purpose of providing attribution are known as "dummy edits", and they are fine, if they represent missed attribution that should have been given previously, but had been forgotten. This is called "repairing insufficient attribution" and model wording is given at WP:RIA, which you pretty much followed, so that was all fine.

Use of the {{copied}} template may be useful to other editors, but is optional; the important thing to understand is that use of the {{copied}} template does not fulfill the attribution requirement for copied text, only the edit summary attribution message with the link to the source article does that, per the Wikimedia Terms of use sec. 7b. If you have the inclination to use the {{copied}} template, by all means do as an optional step. You seem to be pretty much on top of the attribution requirement; I was mostly trying to save you wasted effort when you don't really need to attribute (as in Excerpts). Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot Got it, thanks!⸺RandomStaplers 19:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry West

Hello, may we discuss your recent revert on the Jerry West page? Please forgive my ignorance, but the reason you provided was "citation needed", however as I understand it citations are not required in an article summary when supported by citations in the article text.

The edit was

", and is widely regarded as one of the greatest players of all time."

I had fixed the previous editor's writing but did not revert it because, as I stated in my edit summary, the article contains the following:

"West was named as one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History in 1996, and to the NBA 75th Anniversary Team in 2021." [2] [3]

"this basket was later called one of the greatest moments ever by the NBA." [4]

"ESPN voted West the third greatest shooting guard of all time." [5]

"'The Athletic' ranked their top 75 players of all time, and named West as the 14th greatest player in NBA history." [6]

Thank you for your consideration of this issue. - Jōkepedia (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jōkepedia Oh right, I forgot that some articles don't have citations in the lead. Thanks for letting me know.⸺RandomStaplers 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]