User talk:Sennecaster

I variate my signature every so often, mostly in color. These are the signatures that I have used and the rough dates for the time I started and stopped using them. Yell at me if my current one is inaccessible.

Sennecaster (talk) 8–31 March 2021 retsacennS (Talk) (Pain and Suffering) and Senne! (Yes?) (Pain and Suffering) 1 April 2021 Sennecaster (What now?) 2–4 April 2021 Sennecaster (What now?) 5 April–6 June 2021 Sennecaster (What now?) 7 June–26 August 2021 Sennecaster (Chat) 27 August–10 October 2021 Sennecaster (Chat) 10–11 October 2021 Sennecaster (Chat) 11 October 2021–26 November 2021 Sennecaster (Chat) 26 November 2021–2 January 2022 Sennecaster (Chat) 2 January 2022–14 February 2022 Sennecaster (Chat) 14 February 2022–21 July 2022 Sennecaster (Chat) 21 July 2022–13 September 2022 Sennecaster (Chat) 13 September 2022–29 October 2022 Sennecaster (Chat) 29 October 2022–11 June 2023 Sennecaster (Chat) 11 June 2023–20 March 2024 Sennecaster (Chat) 20 March 2024–

Short descriptions

Hello. Not to be pedantic, but WP:SDFORMAT states that any short description should start with a capital letter. QRep2020 (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh, must of misread. My bad! Usually ones over on Wikidata are lowercased so I got used to that. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Irish Newfoundlanders

I'm puzzled by your actions at Irish Newfoundlanders which is on my watchlist. Take the sentence "As early as 1536, the ship Mighel (Michael) of Kinsale is recorded returning to her home port in Co. Cork with consignments of Newfoundland fish and cod liver oil" which appears in the 24 April 2005‎ creation of the article and also in this archived site. In Brian McGinn's article Newfoundland: The Most Irish Place Outside of Ireland, the sentence has a reference with a lengthy comment. Surely this didn't come from the unreferenced Wikipedia article? In fact I see that Brian McGill's article is given as an external link. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this currently in the article? I looked for such text and haven't been able to find anything. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

(ping Cwmhiraeth) I don't usually look at historical copyright violations unless it is part of CCI due to the diff sorting. I think that was edited out between the creation and now, and a history purge is certainly not in order since the history exceeds 250 revisions. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

It was your edit summary that drew my attention, but the article does seem alright now, and I guess I will take it off my watchlist. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Ohhh I see. I restored the non-infringing content (the reason why it's +21k) and removed the copyvio in one go, so the edit looks different than a normal copyvio removal. :) Sennecaster (Chat) 21:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Pages worth patrolling

In case you didn't know this, pages on protests and military conflicts that get major mainstream media attention tend to get quite a bit of 1-2 sentence copyright violations, often slightly paraphrased, especially in 'timeline' and 'reactions' sections, and generally nobody makes the effort to label these as copyvios or ask for help from copyright clerks. Either other editors don't notice, despite the added text sounding "newsy" and written independently of the surrounding context, or they notice but don't have the time (my case) or knowledge for copyvio labelling; in many cases they edit the copyvio'd text so it becomes more natural. Even after media attention lowers, these are still high risk cases. It might be worth it to think of some sort of bot help for these. The copyviolating editors (usually, but not always, IP editors) usually give the source, without realising that they're violating copyright, so a bot that checks the new content in these sections against the sources might strike a fair balance between extra cpu load and handling copyvios quickly.

A few key strings for suspicious text for someone who might want to write a bot are "the ([adjective]|) city", "the ([adjective]|) nation", "the ([adjective]|) country", "the ([adjective]|) kingdom" - mainstream media newsy style seems to forbid repeating a country/city name in the same or successive sentences. Obviously, these strings would only be a Bayesian clue. Automated analysis would probably find several key style aspects of BBC/NYT/Guardian/CNN/AJE/Reuters that don't quite sound right in an encyclopedia. Human verification by a native English speaker would almost certainly be needed, at least at the beginning. Boud (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Large edits get screened through the TurnItIn API by User:EranBot and sent to the CopyPatrol interface, where there are more copyright editors, so that may cover the automated analyses. I'm afraid that what you describe is common across all types of articles, but especially popular BLPs :/.It's annoying to deal with, since a single sentence or two is not a problem. However, it's time consuming to correct if it is extensive. Thanks for bringing this up, Boud. I'll keep it in mind. :) Sennecaster (Chat) 23:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Brian Malarkey

I saw that you reverted again my edits. I already discuss it to undeletion review but they don't have any replies one of the admin says it was redirect as soft. They give more time for thorough discussions, its unfair. Please guide me through the correct process. Rice25kg (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was open for at a minimum 7 days, which, on Wikipedia terms, is long enough for a census to be discussed, @Rice25kg. This can be frustrating, I understand! However, if the undeletion review shows that uninvolved admins agree with the closure, then there is nothing you can do. We work by a consensus, and in this case, a consensus has been decided. The correct process from hereon out would be to create or improve other articles, and only revisit Brian Malarkey if something in the future shows up that would help demonstrate notability for him. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not majority decision though only one admin has commented to make the page a redirect to Top Chef: Miami and in my views and opinion its not what the wikipedia bureaucracy works. What you mean "The correct process from hereon out would be to create or improve other articles"?. Its clearly states that Brian Malarkey has a lots of articles online to support his notability isn't that enough? Rice25kg (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Vami_IV submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Sennecaster for Editor of the Week because of her outstanding, project-altering work in the field of copyright cleanup. She is a newer editor, but has already become a CCI clerk, inspected hundreds (if not thousands) of edits, certainly the same amount of articles, and has been the beaming heart and core of the renaissance at CCI. She has also contributed to this Project in other areas, such as at WP:3O, and being a spokesperson for the faction of editors engaging in cleaning up copyright violations. The4lines and theleekycauldron seconded this nomination

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)