User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Women in Red March 2024[edit]

Women in Red | March 2024, Volume 10, Issue 3, Numbers 293, 294, 299, 300, 301


Online events:

Announcements

Tip of the month:

  • When creating a new article, check various spellings, including birth name, married names
    and pseudonyms, to be sure an article doesn't already exist.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red April 2024[edit]

Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304


Online events:

Announcements

  • The second round of "One biography a week" begins in April as part of #1day1woman.

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Women in Red May 2024[edit]

Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307


Online events:

Announcements from other communities

Tip of the month:

  • Use open-access references wherever possible, but a paywalled reliable source
    is better than none, particularly for biographies of living people.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter/X

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

UlfRSamuelsson[edit]

I made two changes to the page for the Second Battle of Fallujah. Only the second (a single sentence) was a minor edit.
Yet you deleted both.
The first, which definitely changes the meaning of the article, was not marked minor edit.
It included a source that shows that the whole chapter is hogwash, and the name of the applicable treaty, as well as a quote of the applicable treaty which again shows that the whole chapter is hogwash.
By removing that, complaining of ”minor edit”, is vandalizing.
The second change was made, marked minor edit, and I apologize for that.
So right now, the wiki page is in error and needs correcting.
Please revert the change of the first addition. UlfRSamuelsson (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UlfRSamuelsson I didn't revert the edits because one of them was improperly marked as minor- I reverted them because Wikipedia is not the place for original research or righting great wrongs. If you want to add material into a Wikipedia page, it has to be based upon reliable sources, written from a neutral point of view, and, if you do want to quote something, you have to mark it within quotes, even if the material is in the public domain. When you don't clearly mark material in quotes or a blockquote, it becomes a question of plagiarism because it makes it seem as if the work is your own. If you have any further questions, the volunteers over at the teahouse will be happy to assist you. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The treaty governing the use of Incendiary Weapons is the authoritative source on the use of Smoke Shells.
So the whole chapter is wrong, and the authoritative source confirms that.
What is the preferred way to correct this?
To me, removing the whole chapter seems to be the best way, but I did not want to do this myself. UlfRSamuelsson (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to discuss the content of an article, you can open a discussion on that article's talk page. Alternately, you go to the talkpage, see what Wikiprojects the article falls under, and start a discussion there. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanka[edit]

Hi! I wanted to ask you about a edit you made on the Tanka article! You said, "I can find no evidence that the material from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19342039.2016.1120610?scroll=top&needAccess=true was compatibility licensed, so I am removing the material." I didn't want to undo your edit without making sure. Here's a link to the journal's terms and conditions for their open access materials: https://www.tandfonline.com/terms-and-conditions#link4:~:text=has%20been%20accepted.-,Taylor%20%26%20Francis%20and%20Routledge%20Open%20articles%20are%20normally%20published%20under%20a,Creative%20Commons%20Attribution%20License%20https%3A//creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.,-It%20is%20essential. Let me know if the information I've added still doesn't meet those standards :) Braithwc (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Braithwc Hi, and thank you for double checking. Unfortunately, in that link, it also states that "However, authors may opt to publish under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License". Wikipedia publishes everything under a CC-BY-SA 4.0 license, which isn't compatible with the CC-BY-NC licenses. (You can read more on what licenses are ok here) Can you find evidence that this individual article was published under the CC-BY 3 license and not a CC-BY-NC? If you do, you can revert my edit, and I'll be happy to show you how to attribute the text to make sure it doesn't get removed again, and we don't accidentally plagiarise. However, if we can't find evidence of a compatible license, you're still free to re-insert the information back into the article- just not the text! I've never heard of Tanka poetry before, and it would be lovely if the article was more in depth than it is now. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thank you for getting back to me! I'll definitely look into that later! Follow up question, did you mean to undo the other things I did? Like the image I added and the person to the list of poets. If that wasn't intentional, could you put it back? Thank you! Braithwc (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Braithwc Sorry about that. No, those things should be fine. Apologies- I was moving a little quickly yesterday, and I didn't see the image or the entry. I've gone ahead and added them back in for you. Let me know if that looks okay! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchsia glazoviana description Copyvivo[edit]

How do you want me to rewrite these facts so it is not an copyvivo? It is from here [1] which got the description from here

here is my attempt to rewrite it again:

Fuchsia glazioviana is a shrub that can grow 0.5 - 4 meters tall, often climbing trees or bushes. Its branches can spread up to 6 meters long, densely packed, and may have a purplish color with detachable small hairs. The leaves are usually in pairs or groups of three, oval to narrow oval, 15 - 40 mm long and 8 - 15 mm wide, dark green and smooth on top, paler and mostly smooth below, with small glandular teeth on the edges, and 4 - 6 with secondary veins on each side. Leaf stems are short, 3 - 6 mm, purplish with sparse hairs, and spaced 3 - 12 mm apart. Stipules are broadly triangular, 0.6 - 1.2 mm long and wide, purplish, and easily fall off. Flowers are usually solitary in upper leaf axils, with thin, sparsely hairy stems, 12 - 26 mm long. The ovary is oblong, 4 - 5 mm long and 2.5 mm wide. The flower tube is cylindrical, 5 - 7 mm long and 2.5 - 4 mm wide, with few hairs outside and smooth inside. Sepals are 17 - 22 mm long, lance-shaped, joined at the base for 4 - 5 mm, with free lobes 3 - 4 mm wide. Petals are purple, oval, 9 - 12 mm long and 6 to 9 mm wide. Filaments are red-purple, 22 - 32 mm and 16 to 28 mm long. Anthers are oblong, 2.5 - 3.5 mm long and 1.1 - 1.6 mm wide. Style is red, smooth or somewhat hairy, with a club-shaped stigma 2 to 3 mm long and 1 to 1.4 mm wide, extending out 5 - 20 mm beyond the anthers. The fruit is a shiny dark purple berry, narrow cylinder, 10 - 16 mm long and 5 - 8 mm wide. Seeds are oblong, 2 - 4 mm long and 1 - 1.5 mm wide.

Is it ok or if not what parts should be changed? --Cs california (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cs california
Well, for starters- what are the most important details about the plant? Things like height, colour, and flower shape. We're an encyclopedia, we don't need every detail. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean we include it- and we especially don't include it if it would mean our article is just going to regurgitate the source. Even in the word of species taxonomy, if your description is only superficially different from a previous description, you just refer the reader to the older description and make note of what you found that was different. I think you'll notice that even the Smithsonian page isn't a closely-paraphrased version of the Berry article.
If I was going to write a description for the plant based on that source, here is what I would write:
The Fuchsia glazioviana has purple, cylindrical, flowers that produce dark purple berries. The plant itself has dense branches, sometimes tinged purple along with the leaf stems. It has dark green leaves, and has been known to climb small trees or shrubs. In their description of the plant, AUTHOR NAME(S) HERE reported that specimens were usually between one-half and four metres tall, with branches up to 6 metres long. [citation here]
Yes, there's a lot less. Some editors might make it a little longer, and some might just settle for the fact it's a plant with purple flowers. Ideally, both of those editors will *also* be taking from more than one source. But, well- that's normal? Nobody's out there paraphrasing the entirety of a Ken Burns documentary into a history article.
And that's it. If you have any more questions- go to the teahouse or the help desks or experienced editors in the plant-article-sphere or whoever you want, really. You told me that if I cared about the links so much, I could add them- so I'm going to go back and continue doing that. I'm going to leave you with one question though- but there's no pressure to respond.
Why, when I and several other editors over the years asked you to start adding the attribution links, didn't you? And then, when you realized you forgot so much, and where even told where, did you not go back and fix them yourself? Why do I have to do it? Why is your writing, and your contributions, so important that I have to spend over a hundred hours combing through your edits, fixing them one-by-one, while you sit back and can't even bring yourself to say "I'm sorry I made I mistake. Thank you for helping me fix it?"
GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry for making a mistake thanks for the fixes. But I did thank you several times on the edit when you added the info on several pages did you not see that? I am just asking you as a courtesy so there is less work for the both of us. That is really sufficient because purple berries are in the whole section Quelusia has the similar features, and the whole genus has cylindrical flowers so that is why I try to add everything so it can be compared. There is not much other content that can be added on some of these pages. Feature pages like zebra put more measurements in. The measurements are free data we can use. I just think adding more information distinguishes it from Simple english wikpedia otherwise it would be a pretty empty page. But If you think less information will prevent copyvivo issues. I am ok with adding less as long as the page is past the point of being a stub. I just don't want to spend lots of time rewriting stuff and then have it blanked. The reason I tell users they can add links and edits if they want is because there are instances when people disagree with my changes and I want them to make it themselves instead of having me do it and then telling me I did it wrong. But if you are interpreting that the wrong way I am sorry I got you worked up. --Cs california (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Women in Red[edit]

Hi there, GreenLipstickLesbian. I see you have been following the activities of Women in Red for some time and am pleased to see you have finally registered officially. Thanks for all your biographies of Spanish wome. I hope there will be many more. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For persistence and diligence in tracking down copyvios, especially those of Dmitry Dzhagarov. Nthep (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep thank you! <3 And thank you so much for handling all the RD1 requests I've been throwing you way for the past year, and being patient as I've learnt the nuances of when or when not to file them. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GreenLipstickLesbian&oldid=1224852511"