6 August 2014
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
- Laser ignition ( history · last edit · rewrite) - the previous IP edit (now reverted). The first paragraph is a 1:1 copy from an abstract (e.g. here), the other parts are a direct copy of some other text as well (note the improperly formatted references) but google does not find the text - probably from the same publication. I'm not familiar with the version deletion policy here, is this a case of "Blatant copyright violations" from Wikipedia:REVDEL#Criteria_for_redaction? -- mfb ( talk) 15:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Large sections were copied verbatim from Ascentrust llc. User: Beagel moved the history and process section from coal gas in 2009, even though it was completely unreferenced. It remains unreferenced He also copy-pasted section Underground coal gasification]-- Wuerzele ( talk) 19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- That issue has been discussed and explained at the article's talk page. It is definitely backwardscopy and not vice versa. Beagel ( talk) 15:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The following is copied from User talk:Beagel, who kept the discussion there.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your notice, Wurzele. However, if you would look the edit summary of my first edit at that article (it says: "spin-off from the
coal article"), as also the template at the top of the
Coal gasification talk page (the template says: "Material included in the associated project or article page was split from
Coal on 14 June 2009. The page history of that page now serves as the attribution history for the contents of the associated project or article page."), you would see that I am not the author of that text. Therefore, using that kind of notice template at my talk page as you used is not justified. About content, it would be useful if you could explain at the article's talk page what text exactly and from which source is copyvio. Thank you very much.
Beagel (
talk)
08:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel it appears you didnt look at the
Coal gasification page before writing this. Please read it.--
Wuerzele (
talk)
00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- You marked that article with {{ Copyvio}}. To investigate potential copyright issues you have to compare the text with sources. That template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes). This was not done. There is also no explanation at the talk page. I checked the lead and find a number of websites containing the same text. However, all these websites were derivatives of wiki or sites mirroring this article and not vice versa. Without providing sources of copyvio I do not intend to spend more time with this issue. My second question was if this template applies to the whole article (as it does now) or any specific section. Right now there are 32 references and I don't think that all of them are violation of copyrights. Unfortunately you did not answered these questions.
- I also advice to spot the person who originally added that text which you think is copyvio (as I don't know what you think I can't do it myself) to Coal from which article it was split, and notify them. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 07:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel it appears you didnt look at the
Coal gasification page before writing this. Please read it.--
Wuerzele (
talk)
00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank to the post at the article's talk by other user page I find out what the problem is. Unfortunately this link was never mentioned at my talk page or originally at the article's page. I would help if this has been provided instead of newcomer's welcome messages. As of content, it would be better to be discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel ( talk) 15:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel, for someone who screwed up so big by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles that you appear to chief edit- these are enough accusations, "advice" and other negative comments. You also ignore the netiquette of addressing users by name (so it lands in their message box).
- the coal gasification page tag that contains all the info you needed to comprehend and work productively on the issue. You also didnt carefully read my remark on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_August_6
- the process of tagging for copyvio PRESCRIBES to put this template ("courtesy" message) on the user's page that one finds having introduced potential copyvio material to the article page.
- the link, where discussions should take place is not on your private talk page, but a special neutral space as indicated on the flag Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_August_6 (for good reasons protected from blanking whenever a user likes to).
- The accusation of not filling in as "the template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes)-it is at the proper page..." is incorrect, and you did realize it, since you posted on "the "proper" page (above)already but you didnt admit the error or apologize for your accusation.
- As far as "I do not intend to spend more time with this issue" (rather arrogant): you wont have a choice.
- As far as glossing-over-the-problem remark above "That issue has been discussed and explained" you will have to get down and humbly discuss the issues (plural, not singular)) I brought up. The issue of copyvio may have been MECHANICALLLY explained by Novickas as backward copy (thanks), whom you finally saw a chance to answer, but the issue of introducing completely unsourced material hasn't been discussed. You of all people (bringing pages to GA status?) should know and take the responsibility. you cant expect for someone to go back to Adam and Eve to find the original author of this. (I tried and I see you tried, but after the fact of advising me to find teh "proper author"). I'd appreciate if you stop your kneejerk accusations, fault finding, erroneous advice and instead apologize, admit your errors and be productive. I am especially troubled to have seen you judge others harshly, but use a double standard when it comes to yourself. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would kindly request to remove the text copied from my talk page as it does not discuss potential copyright issues related to that article and therefore does not belong here. These (incorrect) accusations against me will be answered on my talk page. Beagel ( talk) 07:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel, for someone who screwed up so big by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles that you appear to chief edit- these are enough accusations, "advice" and other negative comments. You also ignore the netiquette of addressing users by name (so it lands in their message box).
-
Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. Always good to look into these things, but fortunately this one is favorably resolved. Questions of sourcing are an entirely different matter which cannot be resolved here, as this board has a highly specific purpose. The article may, however, be a huge issue of
Wikipedia:Plagiarism, with content copied from government sites that is not attributed. I'll open a section about that at the talk page of the article. (ETA: I'm going to have to check to see if that's backwards also.) --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
11:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, that does not seem to have been backwards. I've attributed it and spoken to the contributor about how to do this. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
-
6 August 2014
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
- Laser ignition ( history · last edit · rewrite) - the previous IP edit (now reverted). The first paragraph is a 1:1 copy from an abstract (e.g. here), the other parts are a direct copy of some other text as well (note the improperly formatted references) but google does not find the text - probably from the same publication. I'm not familiar with the version deletion policy here, is this a case of "Blatant copyright violations" from Wikipedia:REVDEL#Criteria_for_redaction? -- mfb ( talk) 15:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Large sections were copied verbatim from Ascentrust llc. User: Beagel moved the history and process section from coal gas in 2009, even though it was completely unreferenced. It remains unreferenced He also copy-pasted section Underground coal gasification]-- Wuerzele ( talk) 19:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- That issue has been discussed and explained at the article's talk page. It is definitely backwardscopy and not vice versa. Beagel ( talk) 15:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The following is copied from User talk:Beagel, who kept the discussion there.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your notice, Wurzele. However, if you would look the edit summary of my first edit at that article (it says: "spin-off from the
coal article"), as also the template at the top of the
Coal gasification talk page (the template says: "Material included in the associated project or article page was split from
Coal on 14 June 2009. The page history of that page now serves as the attribution history for the contents of the associated project or article page."), you would see that I am not the author of that text. Therefore, using that kind of notice template at my talk page as you used is not justified. About content, it would be useful if you could explain at the article's talk page what text exactly and from which source is copyvio. Thank you very much.
Beagel (
talk)
08:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel it appears you didnt look at the
Coal gasification page before writing this. Please read it.--
Wuerzele (
talk)
00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- You marked that article with {{ Copyvio}}. To investigate potential copyright issues you have to compare the text with sources. That template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes). This was not done. There is also no explanation at the talk page. I checked the lead and find a number of websites containing the same text. However, all these websites were derivatives of wiki or sites mirroring this article and not vice versa. Without providing sources of copyvio I do not intend to spend more time with this issue. My second question was if this template applies to the whole article (as it does now) or any specific section. Right now there are 32 references and I don't think that all of them are violation of copyrights. Unfortunately you did not answered these questions.
- I also advice to spot the person who originally added that text which you think is copyvio (as I don't know what you think I can't do it myself) to Coal from which article it was split, and notify them. Thank you. Beagel ( talk) 07:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel it appears you didnt look at the
Coal gasification page before writing this. Please read it.--
Wuerzele (
talk)
00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thank to the post at the article's talk by other user page I find out what the problem is. Unfortunately this link was never mentioned at my talk page or originally at the article's page. I would help if this has been provided instead of newcomer's welcome messages. As of content, it would be better to be discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel ( talk) 15:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel, for someone who screwed up so big by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles that you appear to chief edit- these are enough accusations, "advice" and other negative comments. You also ignore the netiquette of addressing users by name (so it lands in their message box).
- the coal gasification page tag that contains all the info you needed to comprehend and work productively on the issue. You also didnt carefully read my remark on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_August_6
- the process of tagging for copyvio PRESCRIBES to put this template ("courtesy" message) on the user's page that one finds having introduced potential copyvio material to the article page.
- the link, where discussions should take place is not on your private talk page, but a special neutral space as indicated on the flag Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_August_6 (for good reasons protected from blanking whenever a user likes to).
- The accusation of not filling in as "the template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes)-it is at the proper page..." is incorrect, and you did realize it, since you posted on "the "proper" page (above)already but you didnt admit the error or apologize for your accusation.
- As far as "I do not intend to spend more time with this issue" (rather arrogant): you wont have a choice.
- As far as glossing-over-the-problem remark above "That issue has been discussed and explained" you will have to get down and humbly discuss the issues (plural, not singular)) I brought up. The issue of copyvio may have been MECHANICALLLY explained by Novickas as backward copy (thanks), whom you finally saw a chance to answer, but the issue of introducing completely unsourced material hasn't been discussed. You of all people (bringing pages to GA status?) should know and take the responsibility. you cant expect for someone to go back to Adam and Eve to find the original author of this. (I tried and I see you tried, but after the fact of advising me to find teh "proper author"). I'd appreciate if you stop your kneejerk accusations, fault finding, erroneous advice and instead apologize, admit your errors and be productive. I am especially troubled to have seen you judge others harshly, but use a double standard when it comes to yourself. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 18:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would kindly request to remove the text copied from my talk page as it does not discuss potential copyright issues related to that article and therefore does not belong here. These (incorrect) accusations against me will be answered on my talk page. Beagel ( talk) 07:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
-
Beagel, for someone who screwed up so big by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles that you appear to chief edit- these are enough accusations, "advice" and other negative comments. You also ignore the netiquette of addressing users by name (so it lands in their message box).
-
Backwardscopy. Tag and explanation placed at talk page. Always good to look into these things, but fortunately this one is favorably resolved. Questions of sourcing are an entirely different matter which cannot be resolved here, as this board has a highly specific purpose. The article may, however, be a huge issue of
Wikipedia:Plagiarism, with content copied from government sites that is not attributed. I'll open a section about that at the talk page of the article. (ETA: I'm going to have to check to see if that's backwards also.) --
Moonriddengirl
(talk)
11:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, that does not seem to have been backwards. I've attributed it and spoken to the contributor about how to do this. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
-