User talk:Yerlo

	; Archives ;
	No archives yet.
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Welcome!

Hi Yerlo! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. I appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism – if you'd like to get more involved, you may want to check out the some anti-vandalism tools or enroll in the Counter-Vandalism Unit's training academy.

Thanks for sweeping up after vandals!

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

randomdude121 14:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yerlo (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio tags

I see that you added several copyvio tags to articles, but when I reviewed this, there was no significant copyright violation in any of those articles (except possibly one). In at least one case (Back to the Future:The Musical), there is overlap between our article and a source, but it appears that the source copied text from our article, not the other way around. Please stop using this template for at least a few months until you understand better how to identify copyright violations. A copyright violation involves copying "signifcant" text from a copyrighted article to Wikipedia, not simply a situation where a fact is stated using the same short phrase in a WP article as, coincidentally, it is also stated in some source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers Please review the ithenticate reports for the these articles. These look like copying "significant" text from a copyrighted article

Greenwood, Mississippi:[1]

See below, but note that the stuff that you *did* delete was not the copyvio material and is apparently an attempt to summarize the article per WP:LEAD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Larrazábal:[2]

Definitely no copyright issue here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acorns Children's Hospice:[3]

This is another mistake on your part, because the one edit that added copyrighted material had been reverted before you slapped the template on the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the revdel template be added though? The edits were reverted for being promotional and not a copyright violation. The docs of the template state This template is intended to request Revision deletion of portions of any page due to apparent copyright violations tainting the page history... Yerlo (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It was already remedied. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How? The edits are not revdeled yet. Even though the account was likely associated with the hospice there was no evidence of permission to use the content. Yerlo (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which text in the article do you still think is a copyvio? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None. I believe the text that remains in the history is a copyvio and that is why I templated the article. ~~(Edit: I am running a copyvio check now)~~ I found no copyvio. Yerlo (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I do not believe the template is appropriate. I question whether the template instructions that you quoted are correct or necessary. If you wish to get a third opinion, you could go to the article's Talk page and make a proposal, giving your reasoning. I will disagree with it, giving my reasoning (and invite the most frequent contributors to the article to weigh in), and then we can see if someone else wants to weigh in. If they do not, then you do not have WP:CONSENSUS to template the article. Templating things should be a last resort, not something to do when there is no longer a problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment at the bottom of this page. Yerlo (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see consensus for Wikipedia to violate the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence, and even then local consensus on an article talk page cannot override policy. Tenshi! (Talk page) 01:03, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the report for Back to the Future: The Musical [4] is not very significant and should be declined. Pinging @Nthep as they accepted four of my reports ~10 hours ago. Yerlo (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not that it's "not very significant", it's that you have mistaken the nature of the copying. The site copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. You may have a point about this one, but you could easily rewrite the overlapping text to avoid the copyright issue, instead of putting a copyvio tag on the whole article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My run of WikiBlame [5] on Acorns Children's Hospice didn't find the copied text before the article was published. Yerlo (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what WikiBlame is, but new editors are better off beginning with copy edits, researching content, and other tasks to get familiar with our policies and guidelines. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talkling about, but note that template instructions are a dangerous thing, as templates can be written by anyone and are often out of date, not helpful, or, indeed, wrong. If you're going to template articles, it would be better to first discuss your proposal on the talk page, or with experienced editors in the field to see if you are planning to use the templates in the way the community feels is appropriate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the advice, but I'd still like to see where the site copied from Wikipedia. Yerlo (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell that the site copied from Wikipedia, because the plot synopsis uses our distinct style of placing the song titles in the text and is written the way our plot summaries for musical theatre articles are supposed to be written in our usual style used in the WP:MUSICALS articles. I edit frequently in that area, and I am confident about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the copyright policy itself states If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed with the source URL in the edit summary if possible. Revision deletion should then be requested by placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on the article page... Yerlo (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what "strong reason" means. Again, I think this is a dangerous area for a new editor to worry about. Better to hone your own editing skills at first than to deal with involved templates. Just my opinion, and I've been editing WP for 18 years. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop arguing about it here? If you want to discuss further, please go to the articles' individual talk pages and be specific about the particular problem you think exists at that article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K. I'll go the the talk page and then will work on something else for a month or two. Yerlo (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers do not remove copyvio-revdel templates from articles. They are supposed to be added after copyrighted material is removed to request revision deletion from an admin. I'm not impressed with your treatment of this editor when they are clearly more competent in the area of copyright cleanup than you are. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 00:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yerlo, you and Mouse taught me something new yesterday. I have reverted thousands of instances of copyright violations over the years, and no one ever used this template in any of those instances. My watchlist is more than 5,000 articles, and I never saw this template before. It strikes me as a make-work project, but I understand why the Wikimedia Foundation would like it, because it could, theoretically, protect them from liability (or at least legal threats) in rare cases. I apologize for giving you a hard time about it. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your apology. I'd also like to apologize for being pushy when you pointed out my mistakes. Happy editing to you as well. Yerlo (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have nothing to apologize for. It turns out that you were largely correct, and I was largely wrong, and you did, in fact, know more about this than I did, and I was arrogant in assuming that these were rookie mistakes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you learned something today, and I suppose I'll get back into copyvio detection. (though perhaps taking it a bit slower) Yerlo (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. At the risk of sticking my neck out again, please do beware of backward copying from Wikipedia to other sites, and, separately, where material is added that is a copyvio, please consider trying to WP:PRESERVE, rewrite/reframe any appropriate content that might improve the article, as I hope I did here yesterday. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for the advice :) Yerlo (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]