User talk:Hypatea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Hypatea, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Katr67 15:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Project Chanology

It is proper to refer to things that occur in a video or film in the present tense. Cirt (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Safer to put in past tense along with the events, which need to be in past tense. Three issues: reported speech, dependent clauses and internet volatility (some videos were removed), and possibly noteworthiness/historicity. Hypatea (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:WTA, words like "reportedly", "allegedly", and "claimed" are generally to be avoided. I would appreciate it if you would adjust your edits accordingly, and restore the previous wording I had used. This will be most certainly brought up in any future review of this article's quality. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I changed it just for you, Cirt, because you were quite reasonable when this page started and I said the Regime was working for Scientology. I checked the footnoted sources and found no compelling reason to assume it was the g00ns involved in the threats against the couple in Stockton, CA, other than that WIRED thought so based on a telephone call from someone claiming to be from that group. WP:IAR etc. Hypatea (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio at L. Ron Hubbard bibliography

It appears you copy/pasted whole blocks of text from this Marburg Journal of Religion article into L. Ron Hubbard bibliography. Please go through and remove the copyvios of copy/pasted text, just because a source is present as a reference does not mean you can copy/paste large portions of text from it. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going through this further and it appears that virtually all of your additions of text to this article were blatant copyvio of large portions of text from this above source. Please do not do this again, it is quite a bit of work to remove the copyvio and clean it up. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is paraphrased to give the essential ideas but not copyvio. If copyvio, apologies. The page says it is not to be edited except by an administrator, so should I fix it up or leave it? Hypatea (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there were, and still are, whole sections of copy/pasted text from the source in question that are blatant copyvio. I tagged the article as such and hopefully someone else will take a look, I don't have time at the moment. Just leave it and let an administrator take a look please. Cirt (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I did better than that, sorry. I just called University of Marburg and they said it's fine to use their material as long as it's sourced to them. So what now? Add little ref numbers to each section pointing back to U of M? I dispute your characterization of short plot synopses as "whole sections" btw. Hypatea (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we need verification that this is confirmed that we can copy whole paragraphs out of an article from the University of Marburg - perhaps from WP:OTRS. Again, I think it best that an administrator look into this copyvio issue. Cirt (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, no PARAGRAPHS were copied, at least not by me. Short synopses of plots. I've invited the editor of the journal to leave a message on the talk page of the article in question either confirming or denying that attribution has taken place correctly. I would invite an administrator to look into it as well. The body of the article (literary career, legacy) was not copy/pasted, at least not by me. The short synopses in the list of works was adapted by me from the article, and not verbatim iirc. Citing and quoting from academic work is normal. If you prefer, we can put quoted citations in with footnotes for every single item. Hypatea (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but I disagree - there were whole paragraphs that were copied verbatim from the Marburg article. It is one thing to selectively quote from an academic work - provided that you denote what is actually quoted by putting those bits in quotes. It is quite another to copy and paste from that work, and claim it as your own, without using quotes to denote what was copied verbatim and what was not. I have since removed a few portions, and noted as such in the edit summaries. Cirt (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Example of copyvio

  • Here is an example from a prior version of the article before I removed the copy/pasted copyvio paragraph.

Version from the Wikipedia article [1]:

To the Stars Astounding Science Fiction 44, 6, Febr. 1950, pp. 5-45/45, 1, March 1950, pp. 78-123 (as the book Return to Tomorrow in 1954, ISBN 0-8240-1417-0, also Los Angeles 1995, republished in 2004 and issued as an audio-book). Melancholy tale about interplanetary travel and the effects of time dilation. The space voyagers are the outcasts of society, as they cannot form any normal relationships with those living on planets (hundreds of years have passed when they return through the time dilation effect), but they are also the only ones to guarantee man's survival as a species. ISBN 1-59212-175-6

Version from the Marburg article quoted here for illustrative purposes only:

- To the Stars, Astounding Science Fiction 44, 6, Febr. 1950, pp. 5-45/45, 1, March 1950, pp. 78-123 (as a book Los Angeles 1995). Melancholy tale about interplanetary travel and the effects of time dilation. The space voyagers are the outcasts of society, as they cannot form any normal relationships with those living on planets (hundreds of years have passed when they return through the time dilation effect), but they are also the only ones to guarantee man's survival as a species.

Please explain to me how this is not a blatant copy/paste and copyvio and verbatim text from the Marburg article? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The English in my version was somewhat better at some point. I probably did copy paste that and intended to work on it but logged out before getting around to it. Since it is an author describing another author's work, it's in the realm of generalities. Cirt, I'm not sure why you are policing scientology articles but I think that an admin should be doing that if there is some general watch on all scientology articles. Is this some kind of revenge for editing the Project Chanology article? iirc YOU were the one who wanted secondary sources in a BIBLIOGRAPHY, which seems sort of odd to me. It's just a list of books for crying out loud. I was just trying to make it as factual and complete as possible. I don't have any stake in it and never claimed the information originated with me, which would be the wiki sin of original research. Let's have an admin look into this, I call you biased, but in a friendly way. Hypatea (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor your above comment. Focusing on an individual contributor and making these sorts of personal attacks and conjecture is not appropriate. The fact remains that my above example shows blatant copyvio. Cirt (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

State your bias/interest in this and I'll consider doing so. No personal attack was made. Hypatea (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Please refactor or preferably remove your fourth, fifth and sixth sentences from your above paragraph, as they are highly inappropriate, provocative, and not conducive to improving Wikipedia or WP:AGF/WP:NPA. Cirt (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I assumed good faith on your part but your posting of wikipedia policies has started to be cumbersome, and I have been led to believe that it was intended as such. Secondary sources never belonged in a bibliography. I am asking for you to state your bias/interest in articles with scientology content. It is your right not to reveal that information. Hypatea (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without expressed permission from the copyright holder verified through WP:OTRS. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems.

Furthermore, while you never claimed that the text you entered was your own wording, all text entered is assumed to be the work of the posting editor. The copyright warnings in the edit window warn against posting copyrighted information. Wikipedia trusts its editors to abide by the policy set out to protect the project from legal issues. To help ensure this is not a problem in the future, rather than cutting and pasting paragraphs into the Wikipedia editing box with the intention of rewriting it, write it as you go. Ensuring that all entered text is your own work.

Lastly, please avoid commenting on editors and focus on the content. We're here to work in a collaborative environment, so it's always important to assume good faith with those you find yourself working with. Patrolling articles for copyright violations is not a task limited to adminstrators. All editors are encouraged to ensure that our articles comply with policy and law. It is with the best of intentions, and the quality of the project in mind, that Cirt has brought these concerns to your attention.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Regards, Lara❤Love 18:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)