CZ Talk:Approval Announcements

Isn't this page along the lines of what David Still was trying to set up? Is he still around? Chris Day (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

His account is still active: User:David_Still, although he has not contributed in a month. Stephen Ewen 01:40, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Aikido

The first Sports article nominated for approval had been nominated to be Approved April 1, and was overlooked. The time date was changed to the future and the nomination was listed here. However, the article was deleted before the new approval date.

Why?

Copyright violation spotted by Stephen Ewen. As he has suggested, a plagerism test with available web tools is optimally incorporated into the approvals process.

Articles from copyrighted websites are not to be used for many reasons, (1) CZ aims to provide original contributions rather than mirrored articles. (2) Even if a CZ author wrote the content of a copyrighted website, unlike the situation when a CZ author authored a Wikipedia article, a copyright violation still applies unless permission is granted by the website owner or the copyright is clearly stated to be owned by the CZ author in the website. (3) Even if the latter is true, then (1) still applies. Unless this content is incorporated into a larger contribution, such that the whole article is original, it is better cited as an external link. (4) If the content is of a commercial nature, such that goods or services are promoted, then the author risks violating one of our fundamental policies. CZ is not to be used for marketing. Nancy Sculerati 03:00, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

In this case, the other fundamental policy this article not only risked violating but did is CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion. Stephen Ewen 04:13, 25 April 2007 (CDT)

Follow-up on Aikido: (This post has been copied from the Editor's talk page by the Poster of the message) Gary, as you know, Aikido was up for approval- as per your nomination. The Assistant Chief Constable ran a "web check" and found that it was nearly identical to prose on a private website. He deleted the article, and I backed the action. That's all documented as it happened on the Approvals talk page. [1]. Meanwhile he contacted the author, and has obtained verification that the author owns the copyright to that text, and has generously allowed its use on CZ. He has (or is in the process) restored the article. Would you like the approval template back on? Please let me know on my talk page, If you would like me to help in any way with putting up the template. If you let me know when you would like to see the article approved (date) I will feature it on the Approvals page.[2]. I apologize for all the grief this has caused everybody, but I am glad that everybody cares so much. That's so much better than the alternative. Meanwhile- I am going to put a copy of this message on the Approvals talk page, so the continuing story is evident. Trying my best, as we all are- Nancy Sculerati 13:21, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Conventional?

Nancy, the main page says "A conventional means of indicating important facts (such as nominating editor- date approved) is also needed". What is the definition of conventional in this sense? Chris Day (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I guess a convention that is part of the approval process - convention in the sense of a step that is incorporated every time. For example- the approval template, and the nominating templates, as we have it now, either has right on it or is linked to such information as:Date the nomination was made, name of nominating editor(s), Workgroup of nominating editors, date that the article will be approved. It's good to have that information. If we change the template or the whole system, that information still needs to be incorporated. It could be incorporated in headers, in text on the actual page, on a template- lots of ways (that you know better than I). But the form must impose the user to fill in that the information so it is always incorporated - that's what I meant. Nancy Sculerati 14:15, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this exactly what we need. A consistent protocol. For some reason i was thinking this might mean not using templates, conventional, as in, let's just discuss it. I think the constables need to figure out what they want from the ToApprove template. Matt has started a discussion on the talk page of the {{ToApprove}} template. Chris Day (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I think, as an ex-constable, I know. Of course, that discussion can go on, uninterrupted, but we don't have to wait for it to continue- what they want is: clarity. What they hate is: ambiguity. If I may explain- as it stands only one editor is needed to approve an article if that editor is in the appropriate workgroup and did not act as author, in other words, is not nominating his or her own work for approval, but others. In Biology, as you recall, we had every single Biology editor who was active at that time already having been an author. So we said- (or Larry did) ok, then if 3 Editors (who have all been authors) agree to approve, the article can be nominated. Since then, we have had individual cases of confusion. That's one reason I invented this job for myself, Rottweiler as shepherd. Like look at the talk page of Tux, it was unclear to everybody that since the authors were not editors that only ONE Computers Editor was needed (Rob Tito). Now- my reading of that talk page you refer to for the To Approve Template is a template is being made that HAS SPACE for 4 Editors. That's confusing, Matt is pointing out, because the constable can be misled that 4 Editors are NEEDED, when in fact we have never had a case yet that has required more than 3, and - as in Tux, One can be enough. Savvy? Nancy Sculerati 14:58, 27 April 2007 (CDT)