Lean Six Sigma
Hi, if we have a letter from Steve (the gentleman who owns the content) granting us permission to use language from the book or website can my edits be added? If not, would he or I be able to create a separate page for himself? Thank you. LanaBannana (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- @LanaBannana - if someone wishes to donate copyrighted material for use on Wikipedia, they will have to follow the instructions here. Can I please ask, who is "us" in this context? firefly ( t · c ) 12:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Firefly Bot
Hello, Firefly,
I'm a little hesitant to complain about Firefly Bot as I am so grateful that you have it posting notices to draft creators about expiring drafts. Its activity has really improved the situation for draft creators and the list of expiring drafts is shorter now than in Fall 2020, now that editors are alerted and go work on their drafts to give them some recent editing activity. But I have found something that is puzzling, so consider this a query rather than a complaint.
I delete a lot of expiring drafts and I often go to draft creators' talk pages to see if they are active editors and to see if they need help or a welcome message. Infrequently, I'd say 1 time out of ~15, Firefly Bot hasn't posted a notice about an expiring draft and honestly, I can not figure out any pattern to its behavior. The latest incident was Draft:1626 influenza pandemic and you can go to the draft creator's talk page, User talk:DondeEstaElBurro?, and see that Firefly Bot has posted other notices to this editor. There didn't seem to be anything unusual about this particular draft.
The only thing I can think of is that the list of drafts that Firefly Bot works with is different than the list that SDZeroBot has put together which is the predominant list that admins & editors work with. This is not a huge problem since things work out excellently 93% of the time. I was just curious if you had any idea why it might skip some notices. Thanks again for setting this all up, it's really been invaluable. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, please do not worry that you're complaining - without bug reports things can't get fixed! :) That issue is indeed rather odd. You're right that FireflyBot uses a different list of drafts to SDZeroBot - I believe the SDZeroBot list didn't exist when I wrote the code for this task so had no choice but to 'roll my own'. The query the bot uses can be seen at quarry:query/52423. I can't see why it'd be skipping some drafts - I'll take a look at the "1626..." page you linked and see if I can track down whether it didn't get into the query (which would be extremely odd) or whether the bot skipped it for some other reason... firefly ( t · c ) 15:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that's a great attitude to have! I know there are different G13 lists that bots use because SDZeroBot's list of expiring drafts is different that the pages that appear in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. As I said, Firefly Bot skipping drafts is uncommon so if I encounter it again, I'll let you know. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, here's another. There should have been a Firefly bot notice on User talk:Shanthi Cheriyan for Draft:Om Karr but there wasn't. The editor hasn't edited in six months so I don't think it mattered. It's taken me this many days to come across another example! Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Found another one. User:Isonettv/sandbox/Speedboat Attack appeared in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions but had no Firefly bot notice on User talk:Isonettv and, oddly, the page didn't appear on the SDZeroBot list either. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, well that’s even more interesting. I wonder what’s causing these to be missed. Will try to have a look at this one tomorrow as it’s particularly odd! firefly ( t · c ) 20:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm seeing more drafts that the bot has skipped. Draft:Macedonian language between the two world wars is the latest I've come across. I can kind of understand that the bot might be confused by the User space drafts because it has to check to see if there is a AFC or Article Wizard tag but Draft space is more straight-forward so I don't know why it would miss aging drafts there. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, I've reworked the bot to use a different query (based on the one listed at Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions) so that it correctly picks up drafts in Userspace - this query also seems to pick up one or two more Draftspace drafts than my original one, for reasons I've not yet determined! Hopefully this will fix the issue, but please do let me know if you find any other drafts the bot seems to have missed. Thanks! :) firefly ( t · c ) 13:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
- I'm seeing more drafts that the bot has skipped. Draft:Macedonian language between the two world wars is the latest I've come across. I can kind of understand that the bot might be confused by the User space drafts because it has to check to see if there is a AFC or Article Wizard tag but Draft space is more straight-forward so I don't know why it would miss aging drafts there. Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- Liz, well that’s even more interesting. I wonder what’s causing these to be missed. Will try to have a look at this one tomorrow as it’s particularly odd! firefly ( t · c ) 20:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- I'm coming here because I've noticed more times FireflyBot hasn't posted a notice than, say, six months ago. I haven't noticed much of a pattern but in one case, I think the FireflyBot skips user talk pages where it has already posted a notice for that particular draft, does that make sense? Here's an example of something I'm seeing today (more than once):
- Draft:ABC has last been edited on September 23, 2020
- Editor:XYZ gets a notice from FireflyBot on February 23, 2021 about the draft
- Editor:XYZ doesn't respond and Draft:ABC gets deleted on March 23, 2021
- Editor:XYZ goes to WP:REFUND on March 25, 2021 and gets Draft:ABC restored
- Editor:XYZ doesn't edit Draft:ABC again and there is no notice from FireflyBot on August 25, 2021
- Draft:ABC gets deleted again on September 25, 2021
- So, maybe if there is already a notice from FireflyBot (from February 2021) about Draft:ABC, it won't post a new notice in August 2021? What's interesting is in the case I was just working on, there was not an August 2021 notice for Draft:ABC in August for Editor:XYZ BUT FireflyBot did post a notice for a different page, Draft:LMNOP, in August 2021 that was also due to expire in September. You would think that this is an unusual situation but I'd say about half of the drafts restored via WP:REFUND just get deleted again in six months. There is one case yesterday where the editor returned for a fourth time to get his draft restored.
- This doesn't account for all instances because, as I said above, the list we use for deletions, User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon, includes pages that are eligible for deletion but which don't show up in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. I asked User:SD0001 about this difference (a lot!) in October 2020 so maybe he could explain it, bot operator-to-bot operator.
- The reason I'm so adamant about this is because not every admin who deletes stale drafts sends a notice to the page creator when the page is deleted so sometimes, FireflyBot's notice is the only one they receive about a particular draft. But even if FireflyBot doesn't post to every editor, it does notify the vast majority and I'm very grateful for that! Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for the deluge, but here's an different but similar example, I just deleted Draft:Albin Myers. I went to the page creator's user talk page, User talk:Connorjosef, and there was no FireflyBot notice. But there was a previous G13 deletion notice on this talk page for Draft:Albin Myers when it was deleted in March. When I restored the draft to look at it, it wasn't in the AfC G13 eligible soon category but it was in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions which is the category drafts are moved to when they become eligible so that means it was in the AfC G13 eligible soon category before today. So, maybe, FireflyBot skips talk pages if it sees there is already a notice on them for a particular draft. A possibility? Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Liz - you’re right in that the bot skips people it’s already notified about a draft to prevent duplicate messages - however of course if said draft gets rescued and then lapses again another notification would be in order. I’ll add in a check that allows for duplicate notifications if a suitable length of time (~5 months) has passed since the last one. Thanks for noticing that! firefly ( t · c ) 19:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, here's another case (this is becoming like a detective story!).
- Draft:Mad Fucking Witches was tagged for deletion by SDZeroBot but the editor got no notice from FireflyBot and, in fact, they had no user talk page at all. The article is in Draftspace (obviously) but doesn't have an AfC tag (neither submitted nor unsubmitted) and it's only in the category Category:Drafts with short description.
- Draft:Kristen Griffith-VanderYacht, which is eligible at the same time according to SDZeroBot, was submitted to AfC and is placed in categories Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, Category:AfC submissions by date/21 March 2021, Category:AfC submissions declined as a non-notable biography and Category:Declined AfC submissions. That editor was notified by FireflyBot.
- I went back and checked Draft:Albin Myers, which didn't get a notice from FireflyBot, and it was submitted to AfC and was in categories Category:AfC submissions by date/09 July 2020, Category:AfC submissions by date/24 May 2020, Category:CS1 Romanian-language sources (ro), Category:AfC submissions declined as a non-notable musical topic Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions (which is the successor to Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions), Category:Declined AfC submissions, Category:AfC submissions declined as needing footnotes and Category:Drafts with short description but the editor had received a G13 notice back in March 2021 for the same draft when it was previously deleted.
- SO, maybe SDZeroBot picks up any page in Draftspace that hasn't been edited in 6 months while the bot/tool/whatever that places pages in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions only includes Draft and User pages that have an AFC tag, submitted or unsubmitted, and FireflyBot works off that tagging system. And then FireflyBot doesn't notify editors if they have ever been notified, in any way, for that particular Draft page in the past. Does this explanation make sense? The only thing I still don't know is what bot/tool/whatever is responsible for placing Drafts and User pages in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions in the first place. If I knew that, I could bug them instead of you! Maybe that is an element of the AfC tag/template? I don't know. Thanks for indulging my speculation...I think this is the end of my questions for you if you think this explanation resolves what I initially saw as inconsistencies. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Damn, I found another exception. Draft:Froshking is on the SDZeroBot list, is in NO categories at all (not in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions), has NO AfC tag and yet, its page creator got a notice from FireflyBot at the 5 month mark. So, I don't have it all figured out. But I'll give it a rest so I don't overwhelm your talk page. Bummer. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry for the deluge, but here's an different but similar example, I just deleted Draft:Albin Myers. I went to the page creator's user talk page, User talk:Connorjosef, and there was no FireflyBot notice. But there was a previous G13 deletion notice on this talk page for Draft:Albin Myers when it was deleted in March. When I restored the draft to look at it, it wasn't in the AfC G13 eligible soon category but it was in Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions which is the category drafts are moved to when they become eligible so that means it was in the AfC G13 eligible soon category before today. So, maybe, FireflyBot skips talk pages if it sees there is already a notice on them for a particular draft. A possibility? Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Found another one. User:Isonettv/sandbox/Speedboat Attack appeared in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions but had no Firefly bot notice on User talk:Isonettv and, oddly, the page didn't appear on the SDZeroBot list either. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Firefly: Can you also ignore bot edits while evaluating the ages of drafts? Per WP:G13, bot edits don't matter and some folks have been tagging for deletion the drafts eligible as such, even though the creators aren't getting their 5-month notices. quarry:query/55413 can be used for this (after changing 6 to 5; it's a union of two queries since for some reason the combined query is lot slower). I've been thinking about using it in the sdzerobot pages but I think it would be better if FireflyBot starts using it first. – SD0001 (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Extension of FireflyBot notification to also post to draft talk pages
Hi. Currently, the bot posts stale-draft notifications only to the user talk page of the creator, which results in missed opportunities in cases where the creator has stopped editing, as other editors have no chance of being notified. If the bot also posted the notice to the draft talk page, this would allow more chance of rescue by interested editors who may be watching the draft or tracking WikiProject-tagged talk pages. The issue was raised at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 81#G13 delay (again), and extending the bot's function was suggested as a solution (see Schwede66's comments). Would this be doable? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Paul 012 - it would, and would be easy enough to implement. It’d need another BRFA but that’s not really an issue. I’ll see what I can put together. firefly ( t · c ) 20:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Lotte Lehmann Page
Dear Firefly,
I am writing on behalf of my associate Gary Hickling (user 2603:800C:743:3100:ADB1:51A7:B31D:1125), regarding recent reverted changes he made on the Lotte Lehmann Wikipedia page which you administer. Gary has asked me to assist him in contacting you regarding these changes. I am new to WP, so please bear with my lack of knowledge on how it works.
Mr. Hickling is considered an expert historian on Lotte Lehmann. He has devoted much of his life to chronicling every aspect or her personal and professional life, including a biographical book collection, a CD collection, and a website (https://lottelehmannleague.org/). He is referenced on the WP Lehmann page in Notes 1, 4, and 12 as well as “Further Reading” and “External Links.”
Changes he made on October 1 are no longer visible on the page. As best I can make out, it appears that you did not approve the additions of sections on Lehmann’s “Firsts” and “Honors” because they are “an indiscriminate collection of information.” Would a shorter list of Firsts and Honors be acceptable, or are you opposed to the Firsts and Honors information altogether?
You also cited changes for Copyright violations, but we are unable to determine what those are. Are you able to provide more specific information so that he can provide sources?
Mr. Hickling made changes and additions which he genuinely believes were oversights, and would be valuable additions to the page. He hopes you will reconsider your decision on some or all of these things; he can provide sources where needed.
- Specify her complete given names: Charlotte “Lotte” Pauline Sophie
- Reflect that she became an American citizen: was a German-born American soprano
- Mention her status as a singing actress: An exceptionable singing actress, especially in the roles as the Marschallin in Der Rosenkavalier by Richard Strauss and Sieglinde in Die Walküre by Wagner,
- Mention that she was equally famous for her lieder recitals: Lehmann was equally appreciated for her lieder recitals.
- She didn’t make over 500 recordings: She made almost 500 recordings in both genres
- Her third career as a teacher should be mentioned in the top section: After retiring from the stage, she taught master classes internationally.
- Her status should be included: Lehmann is considered one of the greatest sopranos of the 20th century.
- In “Early Life” give the whole address of her birthplace: Perleberg, Province of Brandenburg, Prussia, Germany.
- It should be noted that Lehmann had two unsuccessful early studies: She studied, unsuccessfully, at two music schools in Berlin, where her family had moved.
- The background of her teacher that was successful should be noted: She finally worked with Mathilde Mallinger, Wagner’s first Eva in Die Meistersinger, who used more natural methods to allow Lehmann’s voice to blossom.
- Provide the actual dates of Lehmann’s start at the Hamburg Opera: After a year and a half with Mallinger, Lehmann won a beginners’ contract with the Hamburg Opera in 1910, where she began in the roles of pages and other minor roles. [her first performance there was NOT as a page in Lohengrin]
- Add reference to starring roles and finally of Elsa: The absence of the soprano scheduled to sing Elsa in Lohengrin allowed Lehmann her first acknowledged success. She’d been coached in the role by the young assistant composer at the Hamburg Opera, Otto Klemperer.
- Clarify how she moved from Hamburg to Vienna: In 1913, Hans Gregor, the director of the Vienna Court Opera, came to Hamburg to hear a tenor, but noticed Lehmann and offered her a contract.
- Clarify how Lehmann began her Vienna career: Lehmann began her Vienna career with a trial opera appearance in 1914. Her full seasons at the Vienna State Opera began in 1916.
- Remove the mention of the Trapp Family Singers as it has has little or nothing to do with Lehmann’s career.
- Add her first appearance at the Met.
- Add a list of some of her important students, such as Grace Bumbry.
- In the paragraph “prolific author” add the exact date of publication of her first book; and the names of some of the books mentioned: She also published More than Singing (1945), on the interpretation of song and My Many Lives (1948) on the interpretation of opera roles.
I hope this was the appropriate way to contact you and to learn what to do. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Where do we go from here?
--SP-lava (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher)@SP-lava:Wow, there's a lot to unpack here. For the most part, these changes should be brought up on the article's discussion page, which can be found at: Talk:Lotte Lehmann
- Also, the changes should generally be supported by a reliable source, there is more information on this topic here: Wikipedia:Reliable Sources.
- If you have questions on what is / is not a reliable source, There's a good place to ask questions here: Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
- You may find it helpful to familiarize yourself with our terms of service, particularly WP:PAID.
- You should likely familiarize yourself with our policies regarding conflicts of interest, which can be seen here: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
- Firefly does not 'administer' that page. No one 'owns' any specific page.
- I hope some of this helps. SQLQuery Me! 06:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @SP-lava - Hello! All of what SQL said is entirely correct (thanks!). In addition, the main reason I reverted the edit was that it was, in large part, a copyright violation of this web page. As the message I left here says, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text. Simple statements of fact are probably not copyrightable on their own, but a whole list verbatim definitely would be. Even if the submitter owns the copyright to the text, we cannot accept it unless it has been released under a compatible license. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thanks, firefly ( t · c ) 06:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
@SQL: @Firefly: Thank you Firefly and SQL. I will move part of this discussion to the article's discussion page. Gary can provide references for all the items on the list. To Firefly: The copyright violation you refer to is actually Gary's own content that he wrote for his Lotte Lehmann website. I looked at the link you provided (thank you) but it was hard to interpret what we are supposed to do in a situation when it is the person's own work. Is Gary supposed to make content on his website public domain?
Again, thank you to both of you for your patience while I learn the ropes here. ("A lot to unpack..." LOL.) Also -- how am I supposed to properly respond to your replies? I clicked on "edit source" and used ping with your usernames, but is there an easier way? SP-lava (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- @SP-lava the key issue here is the copyright concern. I understand that the editor in question may well own the copyright, but in order to be used in Wikipedia, content must be released under a compatible free license. If they wish to donate the material to Wikipedia, they can follow the process outlined here.
- What you did to reply was absolutely fine, no problem there. However, you may find it easier to enable the reply tool, under your preferences > beta features. firefly ( t · c ) 09:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Firefly: Thank you Firefly. I will give the information to Gary and he can decide how he wants to proceed regarding allowing free use of information on his Lotte Lehmann website. As for the above list of additions he would like to make, I added them to the Talk:Lotte Lehmann page, but no one has commented. How long does he wait before he can go ahead and add them? Can je just go ahead and start making additions, providing citations for any change he makes? The other question he has for you is this: Can he use his own website as a citation source? The website is already used in Notes #4 and #12. Thanks again --SP-lava (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- @SP-lava I would recommend against just adding them, wait and see if anyone comments. A few days is not an unreasonable length of time - such things can take a fair bit longer. As for using self-published sources, see our guideline on the topic. Specifically,
[s]elf-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
(emphasis as in original). firefly ( t · c ) 12:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@SQL: Hello SQL - I looked at the links you provided, thank you. Mr. Hickling (Gary) is my neighbor and longtime friend. Technology does not come easy for him. For example, there is no way on earth he could navigate this part of WP (the talk pages). He did not understand the message he got from Firefly, and needed clarification. So although I am a WP novice, I am better than Gary technically, and I am helping him navigate. I did not add content to the Lotte Lehmann page for him, but he could not get his lists to format properly, so I did that for him. So we don't see a conflict of interest, and I am not being paid to add content on Lotte Lehmann. I am the go between helping Gary communicate. We are not trying to hide anything; Gary truly just wants the Lotte Lehmann article to reflect his 50 years of research. Does it sound to you that we are in violation, or that we need to disclose something? I hope that doesn't sound sarcastic - Asked in earnest, please let me know. --SP-lava (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework Partnership edits
Hi Firefly, It's Sam SCQF here. Thanks for getting in touch. You didn't approve the edits I made to the relevant entry on the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework yesterday. I'm not sure why to be honest - I work for the Scottish Credit & Qualifications Framework Partnership & am authorised to make these changes on the company's behalf. If you want to verify my identity please see the About Us page on the SCQF website at https://scqf.org.uk/the-scqf-partnership/meet-the-team/. I'm the Comms & Marketing Officer for the SCQFP.
Some of the information contained in this entry is out of date, including the logo - this version has been replaced by another logo. So, if I am unable to upload the current logo, can you please advise how I can at the very least delete the out of date one on Wikipedia as this creates brand confusion? We, as an organisation, own the copyright for the new logo, so how do I upload it without any issues?
Logo aside, can you confirm if I am able to amend the text relating to the SCQF on this page? It's a bit misleading, so needs updated.
Thanks in advance, Sam SCQF Sam SCQF (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Sam SCQF Hello! Firstly, and I realise this may seem bureaucratic, but given that you have a professional relationship with the subject of the article in question, you must disclose that. You can do so by the instructions here. This is a requirement of the WMF Terms of Use (see here for more info).
- Secondly, the edit in question was reverted because it was in large part a copyright violation of the webpage linked in the edit summary - even if your organisation owns the copyright to this content, Wikipedia cannot accept it. See the links in the message I left for you for more details.
- You can edit the page and upload a new logo (the logo upload will need to comply with our non-free content criteria), but be mindful of your conflict of interest, and make sure to follow the rules outlined at WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY (linked above) - particularly around noting on the Talk page that you have been paid for your contributions.
- I realise this can seem like a wall of text and a lot of procedures to follow, so please do ask any other questions you may have. Thanks, firefly ( t · c ) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar | |
Thank you for reviewing my User page DeLilGwashoper. Kindly leave a cup of coffee with advice or tips or a reference to a standard User page I can have and any other rules I should follow to avoid breaking community guidelines =^.^=
Sorry I ate the trout I was supposed to use for an emergency (ref your User page stub) DeLilGwashoper (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC) |
October 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:TheresNoTime, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. [FBDB] Elli (talk | contribs) 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Elli, please look more carefully at that page's history, and you may also want to read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Firefly was clearly trying to accomplish a productive task, and self-reverted within one minute. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: I was joking, hence the [FBDB] template. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli: Eh, [FBDB] doesn't actually stop you getting blocked, as I'll now demonstrate /j ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Humor does not always come across well in a pure-text environment. It's best to be more obvious about it. The FBDB explanation says that the two editors should have an existing relationship that is easy to find; I was unable to find it, so I assumed that you, as a relatively new editor (you registered a while ago but have only been moderately active for less than a year), had templated in error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Elli: Eh, [FBDB] doesn't actually stop you getting blocked, as I'll now demonstrate /j ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: I was joking, hence the [FBDB] template. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)