The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 02:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by Elias Ziade ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC).
in Antiquity, based on the years of reign of the Sidonian kings. And this is the source used for the hook! For a user claiming 14 years of experience in Wikipedia, this is difficult to understand. You cannot start with copyrighted material, modify it, and then claim that the new version has changed sufficiently that it is no longer a copyright violation.The particular copy/paste for the hook shows, once again, the reason why plagiarism is a bad idea: dropping the comma from the source makes the phrase ambiguous - without the comma, it's unclear if this is claimed to be the first event of dated coins in "Antiquity", or the first coins whose dates were based on the reigns of Sidonian kings. And why say "Antiquity"? If there were no earlier known dated coins, why not just make the simpler (stronger) claim that they were the first known coins to be dated? Is this a reference to ancient Western civilisations only? Do we know which of the three Wikipedia Antiquity#Eras definitions are being referred to?
@
Elias Ziade: Since you are an experienced user, I'll leave it to you to ask for the article to be deleted and to recreate it as a fresh article. I didn't check if the 390-word section remained after edits, but it's part of the edit history, so it and any other copyright violations, such as in antiquity based on the years of reign of the Sidonian kings
, have to be deleted from the edit history unless the article is deleted in full and recreated fresh, it seems to me. Deletion and creation of a fresh article would reduce the amount of work required by copyvio volunteers ("clerks").
Boud (
talk) 02:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk) 02:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Created by Elias Ziade ( talk). Self-nominated at 11:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC).
in Antiquity, based on the years of reign of the Sidonian kings. And this is the source used for the hook! For a user claiming 14 years of experience in Wikipedia, this is difficult to understand. You cannot start with copyrighted material, modify it, and then claim that the new version has changed sufficiently that it is no longer a copyright violation.The particular copy/paste for the hook shows, once again, the reason why plagiarism is a bad idea: dropping the comma from the source makes the phrase ambiguous - without the comma, it's unclear if this is claimed to be the first event of dated coins in "Antiquity", or the first coins whose dates were based on the reigns of Sidonian kings. And why say "Antiquity"? If there were no earlier known dated coins, why not just make the simpler (stronger) claim that they were the first known coins to be dated? Is this a reference to ancient Western civilisations only? Do we know which of the three Wikipedia Antiquity#Eras definitions are being referred to?
@
Elias Ziade: Since you are an experienced user, I'll leave it to you to ask for the article to be deleted and to recreate it as a fresh article. I didn't check if the 390-word section remained after edits, but it's part of the edit history, so it and any other copyright violations, such as in antiquity based on the years of reign of the Sidonian kings
, have to be deleted from the edit history unless the article is deleted in full and recreated fresh, it seems to me. Deletion and creation of a fresh article would reduce the amount of work required by copyvio volunteers ("clerks").
Boud (
talk) 02:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)