User talk:Wuerzele/ archive box 2017

March 2017

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Dead zone (ecology). You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diannaa.On Dead zone (ecology) I added content and 2 specific refs that are not in the public domain.

please write me specifically, what public domain content and ref you are concerned about, instead of dropping this template message insinuating plagiarism.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was picked up by a bot as being copied and examined by myself. The content is identical to material found in http://www.midwestagriculturallawguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Des-Moines-Board-of-Water-Works-Trustees-Complaint.pdf, which is a US district court case and therefore in the public domain. If you found it in other sources, perhaps those sources copied from the court case. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2016 Cure Award

In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Tar Creek Superfund site

Your addition to the above article was very close to http://www.deq.state.ok.us/lpdnew/SF/Superfund%20Project/SF%20Site%20Summaries/TarCreek.html, a copyright web page. This was detected by automatic plagiarism detection software and assessed by me. Here is a link to the bot report. Click on the iThenticate link to view the overlap. I have paraphrased the material to remove the copyright violation and added a citation. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this. I appreciate it. The itehnticate report is very helpful. I obviously cannot run this report on your version, but formally it looks more similar to the original! and there are several mistakes in the rewording - i will fix them.

DEQ:Various attempts to deal with the surface water contamination were made in the 80s and 90s. In 2000, Governor Frank Keating commissioned a study to develop a comprehensive remediation plan for the area. In 2002, DEQ studied metals concentrations in fish from waters impacted by the Tri-State Mining District, including Tar Creek. Fish consumption advisories were issued as a result. In 2005, the State of Oklahoma, under the Oklahoma Plan, began cleaning up some contaminated areas and restored 329 acres of land to beneficial use. In 2006, the State of Oklahoma passed legislation that allowed for the voluntary buyout of citizens with children in the area. In 2010, EPA began the implementation of the Operable Unit 4 Record of Decision work that involves remediating properties to allow for beneficial reuse and voluntary buyout of citizens of the Relocation Assistance Zone.

My version:

In the 80s and 90s various attempts to deal with the surface water contamination were made
In 2000, Governor Frank Keating commissioned a study to develop a clean up plan for the area.
In 2002, DEQ studied fish from waters in the Tri-State Mining District. Tar Creek issued a Fish consumption advisory.
In 2005, the State of Oklahoma, under the "Oklahoma Plan", began cleaning up some areas, restored 329 acres of land.
In 2006, Oklahoma passed a law allowing citizens with children in the area a voluntary buyout
In 2010, EPA began to implement the plan of remediating properties and voluntary buyout in the "Relocation Assistance Zone".

your version: Some of the surface water contamination was dealt with in the 1980s and 1990s, and in 2000, Governor Frank Keating commissioned development of a cleanup plan, later known as the "Oklahoma Plan". In 2002, DEQ studied fish from waters in the Tri-State Mining District. Tar Creek issued a Fish consumption advisory. The State of Oklahoma restored 329 acres of contaminated land in 2005, and the following year offer a voluntary buyout to affected families with children. The EPA got involved in 2010, offering additional voluntary buyouts and doing additional cleanup.

display authors

Hey Wuerzele this edit caused the article to move into a CS1 error category Use of the |display-authors= parameter, is recommended instead of writing "et al." in an author parameter. Regards CV9933 (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt know, thanks CV9933 for the info. But will using |display-authors decrease the memory needed to store 35 author first and last names? --Wuerzele (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually include all authors and set the display author parameter to six. I assume the additional overhead is nothing in the big picture. Cheers. CV9933 (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my question. i can tell you, that it isnt so, but tons and tons of unnecessary bytes on some pages. Cheers back.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

I've noticed some of your edits a few times in the last few days on pesticide articles I watchlist. Just a reminder that this is a violation of your topic ban. I'm just assuming you forgot and am reminding you instead of bringing it to AE. Responding to this further in reply or edit summary would likely violate your topic ban as well, so feel free to just blank this talk section once you've seen it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Violating the ban to post here. You have been told numerous times not to post on my talk page, and you know it. Yet you violate it to intimidate fair users on WP.

In addition your repulsive tactic of blaming users immediately when they edit completely okay, but in a way that you do not like, also continues. You reverted my edit, labelling it as "edit warring". You as someone who patrols users and does not really work on articles as I have proven on Arbcom, are apparently "unfamiliar" that editing while Anomiebot interferes with an edit, is a supercommon experience for those of us, who really work on articles.

If you have a beef with "...some of your edits a few times in the last few days on pesticide articles" you go to WP:AE. There at least, you´ll need to be specific, cant be wishy-washy, and have to let univolved people take the lead.--Wuerzele (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AE notification

A case involving you has been opened at WP:AE. It is recommended for you to respond quickly. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaches of your topic ban on the page Fipronil, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

You will need consensus

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James you are no longer welcome on this page. (If you hastily write and cause edit conflicts ( not the first time) especially. hence my revert to show what rude messages you leave.) post anything on respective talkpages with a ping.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]