User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian

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

Message from Me![edit]

Talk page here. Feel free to tell me when I mess up editing, I like to know how I can improve myself! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - November 2023[edit]

Women in Red November 2023, Vol 9, Iss 11, Nos 251, 252, 287, 288, 289


Online events:

See also

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Trans actresses[edit]

Thanks for your continuing work on Spanish trans actresses. It's appreciated.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Ahh, thank you- but I'm really just translating a bunch of articles. The real credit goes to whoever is gathering up all the sources and doing the heavy lifting over at the Spanish Wiki. I'm just excited that I can final put my high school Spanish through some much-needed practice! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red December 2023[edit]

Women in Red December 2023, Vol 9, Iss 12, Nos 251, 252, 290, 291, 292


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for fixing the attribution I think most of it has been covered. So the reason why all the edits are cactus is because I went through and organized all the names so they comply with the modern classification, added pics on all the genus pages so people can see them making it easier to id them. It is now more consistent. --Cs california (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red January 2024[edit]

Women in Red | January 2024, Volume 10, Issue 1, Numbers 291, 293, 294, 295, 296


Online events:

Announcement

  • In 2024 Women in Red also has a one biography a week challenge as part
    of the #1day1woman initiative!

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Paasaje Begoña[edit]

I came to your user page from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Miller. I then read your current draft User:GreenLipstickLesbian/Pasaje Begoña. I had never heard of the incident which certainly deserves more attention. I look forward to reading it again when your work is done. Cbl62 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
Thank you for your diligent work at CCI! DanCherek (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RD1 template syntax[edit]

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian, thanks for your work at CCI. A minor note about template syntax; the "start" and "end" parameters in the template requesting RD1 revdel are more useful if you paste in the revision ID of the relevant versions, rather than their complete url. It allows the reviewing admin to go to the history with revisions pre-selected, which isn't possible otherwise. Thanks again and happy editing, Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Apologies! I must have misread the instructions. Thank you for letting me know, and I will make sure to do that in future. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies required, but thank you! Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About Casa Consistorial de Tarazona - copyvio?[edit]

Hi GreenLipstickLesbian,

I do note that it was started by (blocked in 2017) Vvven and heavily edited by (blocked in 2018) ILoveCaracas. Might WP:G5 possibly apply here?

Also: perhaps it is best not to ask this sort of question. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the page was created before the accounts were blocked, I don't think it qualifies for a G5, unfortunately- unless you know something I don't? But thank you for the advice! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 09:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree that G5 does not apply. GLL, I've listed this one too at WP:CP, as you've seen. In general I think this is probably the better way of dealing with these older articles – speedy works well for recent creations and obvious cases, less well when a mass of research is needed to determine whether it is applicable (in this particular case I failed to track down the government of Aragon source, which just conceivably might be PD). Anyway, many thanks for working on the CCI! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Justlettersandnumbers! Yes, I saw you moved it to the copyright problems page, and thank you for doing that. I'm definitely still learning about the exact nuances of when to rewrite something & ask for a revdel or G12. (I'd like to think I'm learning quickly though!) I did managae to find the government of Aragon source, however, if you're interested. (And yes, it seems to be public domain! Thank you, Spanish copyright law!) Unfortunately, only one line in our current article remains from that source. I think Vvven may have taken an paragraph or so for the original article, but mistranslated it so poorly that somebody took it out. If somebody wants to re-write the article, actually, this source is probably the best place to start. All it needs is translating & modifying. Is it okay if I put that as a reply on it's WP:CP entry, or would that be more appropriate for a talk-page entry on the actual article?
Also, while I have you- I was recently fixing the Old Spanish Pointer article. I just rewrote it, because the machine translation (and subsequent well meaning copyedits) had rendered the article a lovely mix of partial copyright violations and incorrect statements/assumptions. Also, somebody fixed the citation of a quote- but I found a copy of the original book online, and I couldn't find the quote anywhere. I didn't request a revdel for it, though, because I was having a really hard time figuring out exactly where the copyright violations ended and original prose began. Also, if a quote is purported to be from a public domain source, but doesn't seem to appear in that source, does the quote gain copyright protections? Would it be okay if you looked it over, or I asked you for your opinion on a few revisions? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! You're free to comment in the WP:CP listing if you like. You're also free to stub the page – remove all running text, save, write a sentence or two from the sources, and request revdel. In this case you've identified the source of the copying, but you can do that even if you haven't managed to find it – any and all text by the user under investigation can (should?) just be presumptively removed unless it can be clearly shown to be copyvio-free. You can also presumptively blank and list articles with few or no contributions from other editors at WP:CP, just giving the CCI as your reason – some people have listed in batches of ten a day. It gives people a chance to rewrite, and provides a reason for deletion if no-one does so.
I'll look at the Spanish Pointer page tomorrow – that's a page I've already edited a good deal. I'll restore the quote from Alonso Martínez de Espinar (an article I wrote), it's here (took a bit of finding, even though I think I probably checked it in 2020). Foreign-language quotes are tricky: there can be two copyrights, one for the quote itself (definitely OK in this case) and another for the translation; here I would guess we're OK, the translation is probably by the Wikipedia editor himself. As for questions, yes, ask away! – I'll try to answer if and as best I can. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red February 2024[edit]

Women in Red | February 2024, Volume 10, Issue 2, Numbers 293, 294, 297, 298


Online events:

Announcement

  • Please let other wikiprojects know about our February Black women event.

Tip of the month:

  • AllAfrica can now be searched on the ProQuest tab at the WP Library.

Other ways to participate:

Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GreenLipstickLesbian&oldid=1222990084"