User talk:Moneytrees

This is Moneytrees's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Hello. I'm following along at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Beeblebrox_and_copyright_unblocks and saw you reference your essay, User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks. An unblock template I've frequently used with copyright blocks is User:Yunshui/decline copyvio (you point this out in your essay). Question 1: In your opinion, is Yunshui's unblock template generally a good approach when dealing with unblock requests for copyright violations? Question 2: What do you think is an ideal unblock template? I'm specifically thinking of users who, blocked for copyright violations, make an obviously low-quality unblock request and we want to challenge them, while giving them a real possibility of unblocking. --Yamla (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Sorry I took a bit to respond to this; I've been pre occupied with ARBPIA5 and some other stuff.

For question 1: I don't think the Yunshui template is a bad approach, it's more that I don't think it works best for every single editor that gets blocked for copyright reasons. I feel this way for a few different reasons; an editor can get the "correct" answers to the template, but that doesn't explicitly show they won't copy content into articles, which is what got them blocked in the first place. It's not a "one-size-fits-all" situation; like if someone is blocked for long term close paraphrasing issues, I don't know if asking them to explain their understanding of copyright is the best approach to an unblock. It's also that copyright can be a pretty complicated concept-- there's a reason so few volunteers are dedicated to the area-- and how much understanding someone may have of it might not actually have that much effect on their writing. Additionally, I think some of the questions are maybe a bit repetitive; like I'm not sure if "Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?" isn't covering what the other questions ask for, and "Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?" seems a bit overly difficult/technical in most cases.

To lead into question 2, I think that there doesn't need to be a series of new or complex templates; more that admins should swap out certain questions, based on the situation the editor is in. Like, for an ESL editor who really only knows how to contribute by copying content in, a more straightforward set of questions and rewrite might be better, and for a longer-term contributor, who is more accustomed to copying bits of text as part of their writing style, less questions and more focus on a rewrite might be better. I have some more thoughts and will maybe try and update my essay-- I haven't been as active in the copyright field during my Arbcom stint, and when I wrote that I don't think ChatGPT had gone public...

I hope this answers your questions well enough and provides some insight. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Happy new year 2025! We had, pictured on the Main page, on 14 January Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton, and today is Schubert's birthday. I added a pic to his article (and my story) and raised a question on the talk, regarding the lead image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You reverted my edit on TheSketchReal's wiki page because, apparently, SportsKeeda is "not a reliable source". But the catch is: They literally report verified sports news and other confirmed bulletins from around the world. Could you please explain how it is still not reliable? I would appreciate that so much. Thank you.

Jibblesnark86 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jibblesnark86, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sportskeeda; the Wikipedia community has determined that it's an unreliable source, similar to why Wikipedia itself isn't considered a reliable source; there isn't much editorial oversight, and content on the site is "user generated", meaning anyone can rather easily write whatever on it. Personally speaking, birthdates/fullnames aren't necessarily required for living persons, especially when it's someone who is "less public", such as Sketch. See also WP:DOB, which explains this further. I hope this explains things; let me know if you have further questions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, that makes 100% sense, I forgot that it's user generated like Wikipedia. Sorry about that. But thank you for explaining that, and thank you for reverting my edit. I'll do better next time. By the way, thank you for the tea and cookies!

Thanks again,

Jibblesnark86 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; as you can see, the source meta can get pretty complicated here… Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy!

Apologies if I'm goin' about this wrong, as I haven't really had to report an article issue out to someone else before, but it looks like there have possibly been a couple of copyright violations on William Herbert Rollins, startin' from here. The text under "Radiation protection" from "He suggested..." to "...ignored" and "Today,..." to "...Treasurer" 2 paragraphs after that are copied from this page on the American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology's website. That second paragraph got its wording changed here, but the first one didn't get fixed until I edited it just today.

I'm not truly sure whether or not that's enough copied text to warrant some kinda action, but I figured it's better to be safe than sorry and I sorta bungled the procedure described here to fix it by not placin' the template or puttin' the source in my edit summary when I fixed the wording.

Apologies again if this turns out to not be a big deal and I hassled you for nothin'. Either way, thanks for your time! ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 16:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last September, I posted a comment in a sockpuppet investigation raising a concern that the user Psychologist Guy, now known as Veg Historian, might be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of the banned user Anglo Pyramidologist. You gave me a three-month block for that comment, considering it a personal attack. I asked you in my user talk to explain the basis for the block, [1] but you never replied.

A few days ago, the user SublimeWik linked to an off-Wiki article that presented a much more detailed argument for the same sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry concern. In a discussion at AN, the arbitrator Liz told him, please bring any suspicions you have to SPI and let a checkuser confirm them or say that these associations are unproven. [2] But before he could follow that advice, he was indefinitely blocked by a different administrator. I find it confusing that SublimeWik was instructed by an arbitrator to do the exact thing that you blocked me for doing.

At RationalWiki several users have linked to the same off-Wiki article, and called the evidence presented there "credible and convincing", though they think it is a case of meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. In a current discussion at RationalWiki, Veg Historian is about to be given an interaction ban based partly on that suspicion. I'll only post links to those discussions if an administrator requests them, because I want to avoid doing what SublimeWik was blocked for. My reason for mentioning all this is not to argue whether the suspicion is correct or incorrect, but only to say it is not so obviously baseless that raising it should be considered disruptive in all circumstances. There must be some way to raise it in the correct manner, without having to be blocked as a result.

Could you please explain what is the correct place for raising this concern, and what I did wrong by trying to raise it at SPI? I also would like the opinion of Liz because she was who suggested SPI is the correct place. I want to understand this so I can know how to avoid similar blocks in the future. 2A02:FE1:7191:F500:1D68:AEEA:EBA5:D751 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve reblocked this range; I blocked you not because of that SPI— I haven’t paid attention to it (although now looking at it, it seems very dubious, like other SPIs/socking allegations made around this topic area)— but because you have made edits (such as your suppressed ones) that indicate an association with a harassment effort against other editors you consider ideological enemies. Until you clearly disavow this effort— and stop interacting with the editors that are the target of it— you will not be unblocked, sorry. (FYI @Liz: and @ScottishFinnishRadish:— as functionaries you both have access to further information on this) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]