User:Valeren

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please tell me what sources you are talking about, and I'll comply. I'm a little confused though, I didn't think they'd be any violation as long as the sources were acknowledged, and I've done that in every case where I've posted information. What sources are acceptable? I've seen a lot of websites cited as sources at wikipedia.

Would it be alright to include the information as long as I remove those sources and found the same information from primary sources (such as Homer and Hesiod)? What sources do you (and other writers) use?

Until I get clarification I won't post any more information.

T@nn 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done some research and found public domain (primary) sources for the information I've been posting. I'll starting rewriting my articles. T@nn 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just glancing at your recent posts, entries like Proclia, and the sort, are very well done: with useful back references to the primary source for easy verification. But something like Agreus, which is essentially copied word for word, is not allowed. Simply replacing a few words or re-arranging a sentence is not usually sufficient to avoid it being defined as plagiarism. Wikipedia is, of course a high profile site, and is increasingly being held to a higher standard, so care on what material is used needs to be taken.

Consulting primary sources should at least create a need to summarize material in your own words and so avoid the problem. Although it should be remembered, that translations of Greek and Roman literature (even those available online) may be copyright under American law -- with which Wikipedia is held compliant. Only the original Greek and Latin texts are invariably public domain. All the same, keep up the good work with organising and cataloging the mythology articles. --Valeren 11:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)