EdwardsBot (talk | contribs) →The Signpost: 09 April 2012: new section |
still focusing on Copyright concerns; any help would be appreciated |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:::Thank you for your note, Moonriddengirl. I am certainly very keen to keep the communication channels open and co-operate wherever I can. 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) |
:::Thank you for your note, Moonriddengirl. I am certainly very keen to keep the communication channels open and co-operate wherever I can. 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) |
||
== [[Outlook On Renewable Energy In America]] == |
|||
I removed the speedy tag becuase it does not seem to fit any of the usual categories of artciles speedy-deletable. You may send this to ProD or AfD, which will give the creators a fair chance (a week) to argue for its retention. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 00:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 09 April 2012 == |
|||
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-09}} |
|||
</div><!--Volume 8, Issue 15--> |
|||
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> |
|||
* '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] |
|||
* [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] |
|||
* [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 00:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
</div> |
|||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0255 --> |
Revision as of 20:30, 10 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...
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 for your note, Moonriddengirl. I am certainly very keen to keep the communication channels open and co-operate wherever I can. 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)