User talk:John Cummings
This Month in GLAM: October 2023 edit
| ||||||
Women in Red December 2023 edit
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2023 edit
| ||||||
Recent edit reversion edit
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.
I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.
I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 14:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Sphilbrick thanks very much for the message. I understand why this has happened, but the text is available under an open license. In the sources section I added an open license credit for the source, which I helped FAO upload to Commons and they've done an VRT/OTRS ticket for the publication. I know this is very easy to miss, I've been working with FAO to help them openly license their content and unfortunately its got a bit confusing since its being dual licensed. Hopefully in the near future they will also chose to openly license more content and also change the license on their website. Obviously you've removed that edit from public view so I can't check if I've made a mistake and not put a sources section in properly by accident (I've been doing quite a few edits today with text from this publication), very sorry if I messed that up. Thanks ahain for your message. John Cummings (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry John. When I did the reversion there was a faint note in the back of my head saying "are you sure?". I now recall that the FAO has this annoying habit of creating longform reports with full copyright and more or less simultaneously releasing sure reversion/abstracts with acceptable CC licenses. The problem arises because our copy patrol tool looks at the edit, looks for matching text, and provides to me a link to a site with the exact text which is identified as fully under copyright. I know this is come up before so I should have caught myself, but I convinced myself that the issue I was remembering related to UNESCO. I don't know for certain where the UNESCO does the same thing but I really should've remembered that it was the FAO.
- Due to the nature of the tool this is likely to happen again. If I'm the one who happens to look into it I hope I'll remember, But I'll point out that I'm handling about a thousand cases a month, and I certainly don't recall the specific circumstances of each and every case. (Writing this will help me :) I also can't be sure what will happen if a different volunteer handles the report.
- I'll suggest an easy solution. I see you are using edit summaries — would be too much to ask that your edit summary specifically note that the FAO ref is CC licensed? I can't speak for all volunteers but I virtually always look at the edit summary before taking action and even that short note will be a reminder to look further before reverting. S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)