Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) →Copyright concerns: reply |
→Copyright concerns: thanks and reply |
||
Line 174:
::Thank you, John. I have no desire whatsoever to block you. :) You've done a lot of good work for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is way better off if you keep doing it. We do need to figure out how extensive issues may be and patch up any older issues that may exist, as well as work towards avoiding future issues. Where the passages are small, it may be sufficient just to turn them into quotes, but longer passages have to be rewritten or removed. (I removed the one from Newsweek because it was too extensive to address by turning it into a quote.) I've got to run right now, but I'll put some thought into who might be able to assist here and how we can best do it to minimize fuss and just get the job done. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 23:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Thank you Moonriddengirl. I appreciate that you are willing to “minimize fuss and just get the job done” here. As a show of good faith, I have been copyediting some sections of my articles, starting with the GAs. Thank you for giving some thought as to who might be able to assist with this copyediting process, as I am certainly open to receiving advice and help from someone with more knowledge and expertise in this area than I. [[User:Johnfos|Johnfos]] ([[User talk:Johnfos#top|talk]]) 02:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 02:41, 9 April 2012
I'm semi-retired now so if you leave a message here it may take me a while to get back to you. If you're here about an article you know I'm editing, it's probably better to post on the article's talk page instead. Be nice, if at all possible...
design hampering clean-up
dear Johnfos. You might have seen : [1]. I think design failures in the past do have a great impact on the clean-up operations. Whenever these failures had not been made, the clean-up would have never been needed. what do we do ? 1947enkidu (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi 1947, I think you're right and would support you on this. Consider reverting, saying "design failures do have a great impact on the clean-up operations". Johnfos (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 12 March 2012
- Interview: Liaising with the Education Program
- Women and Wikipedia: Women's history, what we're missing, and why it matters
- Arbitration analysis: A look at new arbitrators
- Discussion report: Nothing changes as long discussions continue
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Women's History
- Featured content: Extinct humans, birds, and Birdman
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision in 'Article titles', only one open case
- Education report: Diverse approaches to Wikipedia in Education
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The article John Read (psychologist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Notability not established per WP:PROF
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Claims are sourced to his own website; please find third-party sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello
I'm trying to get people who are willing to help me out with a pet project I've begun but realised that it will be extremely hard for me to even make a small dent in. First of all, I got your name from the list of active members on the wikiproject for mining articles. Please disregard this, if you're not interested.
So, here's what I'm trying to do and what you could do to help me. I noticed that there were very few articles that list mines. I've tried (to the best of my abilities) to create a sub-page that lists all of the probable articles for lists of mines that I could think of, you can review this here.
Basically, I need help. Suggestions on different lists to add, I need lists created, if the lede I've been using should be changed, I'd like community consensus on the standard layout (I've been going with listing articles like List of gold mines by country and List of mines in the United States by output. If someone would like to make templates for these articles.
Please, don't feel obligated. I came to you, and others like you because of your implied interest in mining articles. List articles are not exactly in everyone's taste. If you are completely uninterested, but think you might know someone who might be, please let them know about it. I could use all the help I can get.
Oh, and if you happen to create any new articles on mines, please add them to any of my recently created lists. Sorry for this being so wordy, have a good day and happy editing! Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 19 March 2012
- News and notes: Chapters Council proposals take form as research applications invited for Wikipedia Academy and HighBeam accounts
- Discussion report: Article Rescue Squadron in need of rescue yet again
- WikiProject report: Lessons from another Wikipedia: Czech WikiProject Protected Areas
- Featured content: Featured content on the upswing!
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence 'review' opened, Article titles at voting
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 26 March 2012
- News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music
- Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed
- Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Wikipedia literature
- Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Chernobyl article
I realize that you backed off with respect to including mention of the Russian publication Chernobyl in the lead, however I believe you were correct. Took me a few days to enter the discussion, and I added my own comment. I put the mention of Chernobyl back in, only to have another editor remove it again, saying the consensus on "Talk" was unanimous. I do not believe that is true. Would you care to weigh in once again?Apostle12 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Return Welcome
Johnfos, Thank you for the welcome. I am clumsy online-contribution-wise, but hope to find some things to contribute to. BasicPerspective
Tribunals
Hi. There is some information about the two most significant events of anti-psychiatry movement: the Russell Tribunal on Human rights in Psychiatry, held in 1998 and described in the source available online Parker, Ian (2001). "Russell Tribunal on Human rights in Psychiatry & "Geist Gegen Genes", 30 June — 2 July 2001, Berlin". Psychology in Society. 27: 120–122. ISSN 1015-6046., and the Foucault Tribunal on the State of Psychiatry, held in 2001 and described in the source available per a library Leifer, Ron (2001). "A critique of medical coercive psychiatry, and an invitation to dialogue". Ethical Human Sciences and Services. 3 (3): 161–173. PMID 15278978. If you can find the these and other sources on the events, you can create the articles Russell Tribunal on Human rights in Psychiatry and Foucault Tribunal on the State of Psychiatry and add them to the template:Anti-psychiatry. --Psychiatrick (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The Signpost: 02 April 2012
- Interview: An introduction to movement roles
- Arbitration analysis: Case review: TimidGuy ban appeal
- News and notes: Berlin reforms to movement structures, Wikidata launches with fanfare, and Wikipedia's day of mischief
- WikiProject report: The Signpost scoops The Signpost
- Featured content: Snakes, misnamed chapels, and emptiness: featured content this week
- Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review in third week, one open case
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Possible move
Hi. Among all the people listed in the template:Anti-psychiatry, only David Cooper and R.D. Laing called themselves antipsychiatrists. Nobody else likes the label “antipsychiatrist,” and for this reason the template can be proposed for deletion as misleading. To avoid its deletion, you might move it to the template:Opposition and Alternatives to Psychiatry. What do you think of its possible move?--Psychiatrick (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. I certainly see what you are getting at, but notice that most of these people are in Category: Anti-psychiatry, which I think is why most ended up in the template. But certainly if there are 2 or 3 people that really don't belong there, please remove them, as the template is rather large isn't it, and probably could do with a light trim. BTW, have enjoyed your recent additions to some of the psych articles. Happy editing! Johnfos (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
- I just think of how to keep the template if someone will challenge it. For instance, psychologist John Read has never called himself and has never been called “antipsychiatist”, but he is in opposition to biological psychiatry. I know it because I’ve read all chapters written by him and published in the book Read, John; Mosher, Loren; Bentall, Richard (2004). Models of madness: psychological, social and biological approaches to schizophrenia. Brunner-Routledge. ISBN 1583919066. Psychiatrick (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Smile!
A smile for you
You’ve just received a random act of kindness! 66.87.2.110 (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
- A random act of kindness -- how wonderful! Certainly did brighten up my day. Many thanks and happy editing! Johnfos (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyright concerns
John, I am concerned with your handling of non-free content. I was dismayed after speaking to you about close paraphrasing issues here to find that you had added the following content to an article:
Vermont Yankee has reached the end of its projected lifetime operation, but the NRC favors extending its license, despite strong local opposition. On March 22, 2012, more than 1,000 people marched in protest to the plant, and about 130 engaging in civil disobedience were arrested, including the stalwart 93-year-old anti-nuclear activist Frances Crowe.
The source you used says:
Vermont Yankee has reached the end of its projected lifetime operation, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission favors extending its license, despite strong local opposition.... On March 22, more than 1,000 people marched in protest to the plant, and about 130 engaging in civil disobedience were arrested, including the stalwart 93-year-old activist Frances Crowe.
It's great that you cited your source, but this is not consistent with our policies on non-free content and copyright, and coming so close on my speaking to you it has prompted me to look at some of your older material.
I picked one article at random from your "good" list: Requiem for a Species. Comparing the first version to his sources, I see immediately this issue:
Hamilton makes his argument in three stages. First, he reviews the evidence about how serious the situation is already and how much worse it will get. Second, he examines the roots of our denial, both in terms of our resistance to the evidence and in relation to the actors and agencies motivated to deny climate change. Last, he looks at some future scenarios and reflects on what people should do.
Your source says:
Hamilton makes this argument in stages. First, he reviews the evidence to impress on us how bad the situation is already and how much worse it will get. Then he examines the roots of our denial, both in terms of our resistance to the evidence and in relation to the actors and agencies motivated to deny the truth. Last, he looks at some likely futures and reflects on what we can do about it all.
In this 2007 edit, I see that you added content sourced to this "all rights reserved" source, which includes the following text:
Energy efficiency (EE) and renewable energy (RE) are the “twin pillars” of sustainable energy policy. Both resources must be developed aggressively if we are to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions in our lifetimes. Efficiency is essential to slowing the energy demand growth so that rising clean energy supplies can make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. If energy use grows too fast, renewable energy development will chase a receding target. Likewise, unless clean energy supplies come online rapidly, slowing demand growth will only begin to reduce total emissions; reducing the carbon content of energy sources is also needed. Any serious vision of a sustainable energy economy thus requires major commitments to both efficiency and renewables.
Text you added said:
Renewable energy and energy efficiency are sometimes said to be the “twin pillars” of sustainable energy policy. Both resources must be developed in order to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Efficiency slows down energy demand growth so that rising clean energy supplies can make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. If energy use grows too fast, renewable energy development will chase a receding target. Likewise, unless clean energy supplies come online rapidly, slowing demand growth will only begin to reduce total emissions; reducing the carbon content of energy sources is also needed. Any serious vision of a sustainable energy economy thus requires commitments to both renewables and efficiency.
This a very close paraphrase.
In this edit, you used this source, which says:
Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said the government will spend at least 1 trillion yen ($13 billion) to clean up vast areas contaminated by radiation from the world's worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl....Japan faces the prospect of removing and disposing 29 million cubic meters of soil from a sprawling area in Fukushima, located 240 kilometers (150 miles) northeast of Tokyo, and four nearby prefectures.
You added:
In October 2011, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said the government will spend at least 1 trillion yen ($13 billion) to clean up vast areas contaminated by radiation from the Fukuahima nuclear disaster. Japan "faces the prospect of removing and disposing 29 million cubic meters of soil from a sprawling area in Fukushima, located 240 kilometers (150 miles) northeast of Tokyo, and four nearby prefectures".
For some reason, you only started added quotation marks with the word "faces" even though all but a few words of this are copied from your source.
The most recent issue I have found is in this edit from November 2011.
You added this:
In the United States, new-reactor construction has also suffered—not because of public opposition but because of economics and tougher, yet-to-be-determined, safety regulations. The bottom line is that in 2007, U.S. utilities applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 28 nuclear-power plants before 2020; now, if more than three come online before the end of the decade, it will be a major accomplishment.
Finally, there’s France—per capita, the world’s most nuclear-powered state. Frequently heralded as a nuclear commercial model for the world, today it’s locked in a national debate over a partial nuclear phaseout. President Nicolas Sarkozy, to be sure, is still backing nuclear power, but his Socialist opponent, François Hollande, now well ahead in the polls, has proposed cutting nuclear power’s contribution to the electrical grid by more than a third by 2025. Hollande is following a clear shift in French public opinion, from two thirds who backed nuclear power before Fukushima to 62 percent who are now favoring a progressive phaseout. In addition, the French courts just awarded Greenpeace €1.5 million against the French nuclear giant EDF for illegally spying on the group. Public support of this judgment and the French Socialist Party’s wooing of the French Greens makes the likelihood of Hollande backing off his pledge minuscule.
Your copyrighted source says this:
In the United States, new-reactor construction has also suffered—not because of public opposition but because of economics. Even before Fukushima, a superabundance of relatively clean-burning natural gas and a dearth of financing for projects whose construction costs were escalating out of control suggested the nuclear renaissance was imploding. Then Fukushima threatened to be the catalyst for tougher, yet-to-be-determined safety regulations. The bottom line is that in 2007, U.S. utilities applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build 28 nuclear-power plants before 2020; now, if more than three come online before the end of the decade, it will be a major accomplishment.
Finally, there’s France—per capita, the world’s most nuclear-powered state. Frequently heralded as a nuclear commercial model for the world, today it’s locked in a national debate over a partial nuclear phaseout. President Nicolas Sarkozy, to be sure, is still backing nuclear power, but his Socialist opponent, François Hollande, now well ahead in the polls, has proposed cutting nuclear power’s contribution to the electrical grid by more than a third by 2025. Hollande is following a clear shift in French public opinion, from two thirds who backed nuclear power before Fukushima to 62 percent who are now favoring a progressive phaseout. In addition, the French courts just awarded Greenpeace €1.5 million against the French nuclear giant EDF for illegally spying on the group. Public support of this judgment and the French Socialist Party’s wooing of the French Greens makes the likelihood of Hollande backing off his pledge minuscule.
This last example is particularly concerning to me as it is a substantial amount of unacknowledged, duplicated text that serves no apparent transformative use.
While I have not had time to look much further than this, It seems you may have a history of adding precisely duplicated or very closely paraphrased content. While much of this is very brief, the last example certainly is not, and our policies require that unless content is compatibly licensed or public domain, you may only copy brief, clearly marked quotations from your sources; all other material should be put in your own words.
I have brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Potential broad copyright issues, as I need to look further into this to see how extensive these issues may be. In the meantime, I'd like to ask you again to please be sure that you are either quoting directly in compliance with WP:NFC or using your own words, unless you can verify that your source is compatibly licensed or public domain. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can assure you that your messages on my Talk page are not being ignored, and really have tried to lift my game since you previously spoke to me. And I can assure you that I am working to improve WP as best I can, even if sometimes that is not good enough. I certainly am not a perfect editor and in the heat of adding a contribution, with pressures of limited time, mistakes sometimes do occur. I am happy to go back through some of my edits with a view to re-wording if you wish, perhaps starting with the GA articles. Perhaps there is someone who specialises in copyediting, and who knows more about these things than I do, who could also help? Or I will understand if you need to block me. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, John. I have no desire whatsoever to block you. :) You've done a lot of good work for Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is way better off if you keep doing it. We do need to figure out how extensive issues may be and patch up any older issues that may exist, as well as work towards avoiding future issues. Where the passages are small, it may be sufficient just to turn them into quotes, but longer passages have to be rewritten or removed. (I removed the one from Newsweek because it was too extensive to address by turning it into a quote.) I've got to run right now, but I'll put some thought into who might be able to assist here and how we can best do it to minimize fuss and just get the job done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Moonriddengirl. I appreciate that you are willing to “minimize fuss and just get the job done” here. As a show of good faith, I have been copyediting some sections of my articles, starting with the GAs. Thank you for giving some thought as to who might be able to assist with this copyediting process, as I am certainly open to receiving advice and help from someone with more knowledge and expertise in this area than I. Johnfos (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)