User talk:Moneytrees

Moneytrees' Money Tree, day one

Floundering

Hello! Sorry to bother you, but I saw you were involved in a discussion with this editor recently and wasn't sure where else to turn. I started out with good intentions here but I'm a bit out of my depth now. They made a bad edit; instead of reverting outright I suggested some changes; they appear to have taken it personally and responded poorly (they've deleted some of their replies on their talk page). Any advice? Could I have done better? Would appreciate your input. Patternbuffered (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Patternbuffered I'm not totally sure of what is going on there, and it looks like it's been mostly resolved now by other editors stepping in, but if that editor is continuing to be problematic in the American Politics topic area, they can be topic banned from it via contentious topic restrictions. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, others have stepped in. Thanks for the info and the response, much appreciated. Patternbuffered (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Of possible interest for talk page watchers

I've started User:Moneytrees/Obscure Controversy Cleanup, in an attempt to cleanup/document a phenomena I've encountered; feel free to chip in. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

How to find the published date of a webpage?

Hi, @Moneytrees! First off, thank you for letting us use your dummy page. It's been really helpful! I sort of came to the copyright project by falling in through the air conditioning vent. All the rest of you came in through the door but I didn't know enough about Wikipedia to know where ANY of the doors were. I was crawling through the ductwork and found my way to the copyright problem-solvers. "Be bold!" I thought. MrLinkinPark333 and The4lines noticed me through the vent. I noticed them. The vent gave way and here I am!

How do I identify which was published first when a Wikipedia article and another website share content? Sometimes I can tell by looking in the source code, but only if they make it obvious. I've found advice about looking in HTTP headers, using Google search operators and javascript commands in the omnibox. The advice was either carelessly worded, incomplete or outdated. Do you have any advice? Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Oona Wikiwalker Thanks for your work in the area-- you're making CCI sound like a spy movie or Half Life game, haha! Unfortunately, it is often tricky to find the exact date of when a webpage first went online and if it copied Wikipedia or we copied them; along with the methods you mention, the Wayback Machine at Archive.org takes snapshots of what webpages looked like on different dates, which can also be used to determine if the source predates the Wiki article. Could you expand on what you mean by "The advice was either carelessly worded, incomplete or outdated."? Are you talking about one of my how-to-pages, or some other project page? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess I should explain myself. I came to edit Wikipedia knowing nothing about Wikipedia itself and knowing no one here. I registered and took the tutorial, but that didn't really teach much. Imagine Wikipedia as a large building with editors beavering away inside. I didn't know where the doors were or what they looked like. I sat in the foyer, editing my first articles, and then noticed an air conditioning duct. I groped my way through the ductwork, making friends with the cobwebs, dead bugs and dust bunnies. I added sources, corrected plot summaries, hunted down coordinates, corrected image file formats, etc. I found my way to the copyright problems area and began working from within the air duct. MrLinkinPark333 and The4Lines acknowledged my presence, and the vent broke. I tumbled in amongst you, but I know nothing, really. I only found the "advice for copyright clerks" page a few days ago (I don't pretend to be a clerk. I've been a vent mouse.) Sooooo... the advice I found that was carelessly worded was what I found from google searches and not at all from your guides. I don't even know where your guides are.

Sorry for the long explanation, but I thought someone must be wondering where the heck I came from. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

No problems, @Oona Wikiwalker. I have a guide at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide that's frequently cited around the area; it probably needs updating. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Moneytrees. I read your guide and thank you for writing that for us. But there's stuff I don't understand:

I don't know what the "url comparison" box is.

Isn't a CCI an investigation of an individual? Are the copyright admins and clerks okay with what I've been doing so far? Is it okay with them for me to start doing CCI?

(1) If someone has reported a specific text copied illegally into wikipedia, is it a wise use of time to check EVERY single source cited in the article? My thinking is that if we do this, violations publicly noted sit, sometimes for years. If we repair the noted violations and move on, the unnoticed ones might remain but the ones in public view are are removed from the public eye as quickly as possible.

(2) What is the "user comparison" box? Where do we mark the listing? How do we make sure violating content wasn't moved to another article?

(3) I don't understand much of number, other than that we're using Earwig.

(4) I've begun checking articles below 10%, but I often find the common text is names of institutions or cultural works connected to the article subject. Technical subjects also have specialized vocabulary, limiting the numbers of ways things can be expressed, so I tend to be lenient in those areas. And close paraphrasing can creep into even honest editors' writing. Getting too absorbed in sources can cause them to mimic another writer without even realizing it. I tend to be lenient with that too. But when I can see someone has cut and pasted someone else's text and then added bits here and there to camouflage the plagiarism, that gets cut. Is this all okay?

(5) Where would I do this? Is it okay? How do the other admins feel? I don't want to step on anyone's toes.

(6) I usually choose remove because there's such a backlog. My thinking: stolen stuff can't stay, and it's not my job to fill in someone else's neglect. That will come when the backlogs are a lot smaller.

"Presumptive removals:" the last four lines are the edit summary, the template and a Talk page message. But what's the last line talking about?

I don't really understand what The4Lines did in his presumptive removals example.

I know you have a lot to do, but I would be grateful to learn whatever you have time to teach. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Oona Wikiwalker, I'll be happy to answer the last two questions. Firstly, the last line on the "Presumptive removals" section would be what you place on the CCI case page once you check the page; ie, this. Pretty simple.

Secondly, basically it boils down to this. When dealing with CCIs where we know the editor has/had a long history of violating copyright, sometimes it's easier to just remove content which could be copyvio. The section where it says to use Earwig is mostly obsolete as now we can use tools like Who Wrote That? to figure that out, so you can ignore that part. Then, once you figure what content still remains from the editor, we remove it. Typically we don't remove what's called "basic prose", simple facts, simple lists, etc. If you want a more specific answer or you still have questions, feel free to ask me. The4lines |||| (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much, The4lines! I've installed WWT but I've never conducted a CCI because I haven't been given that authority. I haven't even looked closely at doing it because going after editors isn't something I'd want to try without some sort of training. It's one thing to go all Kali Ma on someone's article or to report them for suspected violation, but going after editors themselves without approval must be against the rules. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

No problem, Oona; anyone is free to contribute to CCI, the only thing "restricted" is the archiving and opening of cases. To answer;

The "URL comparison" box was renamed to "Copyvio compare" on Earwig. I've corrected that now, hopefully that answers some of your other questions. You don't need to necessarily check every source-- depending on the CCI, an editor might only copy from one or two sources and despite citing 7-8+. There are CCIs where editors copy from just about every source the cite, though; when first getting into a CCI, it might be useful to check everything they cite as you figure out their editing approach.

Your approach at (4) is ideal; often it depends on the context of the article, but indeed it's hard to avoid overlap with sources sometimes and that's OK; it's a problem when it's whole articles and paragraphs. On (5) you do it at the CCI listing; Wikipedia:Deputy automates this process. I agree with you on (6); usually rewording is better for otherwise easily fixable stuff. I hope that clears some things up : )Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

Sharing flowers with you on Bach's day of death, - I decorated my user pages in memory, with his music, and my story ends on "peace". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers Gerda :) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

"Perfection"

Thanks for taking an interest in the "Perfection" article.

It has been rated a vital article of high importance in philosophy.

The article incorporates, on a fair-use basis, information from only some 5% of Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz's six articles published in 1979-1981 in The Polish Philosophical Quarterly, as can be verified by inspecting his articles at [1].

It has been my intent that other editors will revise and add to the article. For my part, I have made clear in the lead that the subject covers other concepts used in a variety of fields, not just those addressed by Tatarkiewicz; and for context I would add chronological information regarding the philosophers and other writers addressed.

Restoring the body of the article, thus modified, would encourage other editors to revise and contribute to the article. Nihil novi (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Nihil novi Sorry, but if you're basing the 5% on the Earwig estimate, it's not accurate of the actual overlap with the article. See my comment on the talk page on why; I would guess the actual overlap is around 85-90%+, if Earwig could actually read the Tatarkiewicz document. The overlap here is too extensive to qualify for Fair Use. I have no issue with the article existing otherwise.

Since the article has been revision deleted for copyright violations, I'm not allowed to restore it, but I could email you a copy of the deleted version (you can also see it on Archive.org) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Moneytrees, thank you for showing me the blanked article.

I'm not sure how one gauges overlap.

If it's a measure of the proportion of the "Perfection" word count to the total Tatarkiewicz-papers word count (his papers are available for inspection at [2]), then it would be about five percent.

If it is a measure of the similarity of wording between passages in the respective texts, it could indeed have approached a higher figure.

In any case, I've taken your editing recommendations to heart and am working on a concise version that should be more attuned to encyclopedia standards.

Thanks again,

Nihil novi (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Moneytrees: I've revised the "Perfection" article.

I'd greatly appreciate it if you could give me your assessment of it.

It is at [3].

Best,

Nihil novi (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Unlisted copyright problems

Hi Moneytrees. I have a weird case in procedure and I'm not exactly what should be done. I'm working on making a report of copyright problems hidden via the {{copyvio}} template that aren't listed on the copyright problems page, but during testing I saw a blatant copyright violation and removed it, however the copyright problems page says that only administrators, copyright clerks, and VRT agents should remove {{copyvio}} tags. Do the {{copyvio}} tags need to be reinstated (without the copyvio material) and the page then listed on the copyright problems page? — Tenshi! (Talk page) 16:14, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Tenshi Hinanawi It should've been listed but it wasn't, so oh well. No need for bureaucracy fortunately, something like that can just be tagged for RD1. I'm revision deleted it now : ) Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)