Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:46, 8 August 2011

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4

No More Reverts

See WP:3RR. Users are not allowed to do more than 3 reverts in 24 hours in an article. You have now done 3 already so further ones may be reported and lead to a temporary ban.

You've done several reverts to the psychopathy article. If you do any more in 24 hour period you will be reported. Witch Hazzel (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

He hasn't done more than three reverts to the psychopathy article and they were not the same edits that he reverted and is therefore outside of 3RR. That Ole Cheesy Dude 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you're a sock puppet. You've supported everything miradre has done in very short order which isn't common at Misplaced Pages. This may warrant further investigation and a heads up to the administrators. Witch Hazzel (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not. I just have the page on my Watchlist. WP:AGF. That Ole Cheesy Dude 00:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, actually no, I got that wrong, I don't have this page on my Watchlist, I saw the edit on Huggle and came to investigate your claim. But no, frankly basing that type of accusation on one edit is preposterous. That Ole Cheesy Dude 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think that you so quickly responded is suspect. Misplaced Pages seems to move a bit slower than that, in my experience. Witch Hazzel (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Misplaced Pages. That Ole Cheesy Dude 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not wikipedia.....you're miradre!!! Witch Hazzel (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you truly believe me to be a sockpuppet, then you can take it to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. But I doubt you'll get much joy. That Ole Cheesy Dude 00:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COIN#Academia

FYI. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Handling previously published text

Hi. :) As you're aware, Mathsci pointed out some potential misunderstanding of how Misplaced Pages handles previously published at my talk page; I just wanted to stop by and clarify how things are handled on Misplaced Pages and why. There is a basic overview of approaches at Misplaced Pages:Copy-paste that you might find helpful, but it does not go into that much detail.

As a general rule of thumb (in accordance with copyright policy) if the source you are using is under copyright (or might be) and it is not obviously licensed so that we can copy it, you have to put the information you get from it completely into your own words. This frequently means using both different language and structure. Doing otherwise can result in a close paraphrase, which may be an issue of plagiarism, a matter of copyright infringement or both. Since one of Misplaced Pages's goals is to produce content that can be freely reused by anyone anywhere (and since the only way to know for sure if closely following content is infringement is to take the matter to court), the Misplaced Pages prefers either a thorough rewrite or a limited quotation, which must be marked clearly as a quotation and must be used for good reason - what in copyright law is referred to as transformative use. (There are some example reasons set out at WP:NFC; that list isn't exhaustive, by any means, but it's a pretty good overview. The real danger enters in when we use the words just because the original source put it well and we want to use their language to describe something ourselves. In that case, we are most likely to be "superseding" the original work, which can fail fair use.)

Certainly, quotes are welcome on Misplaced Pages. As a scholarly source, we'd not do too well without them. :) Misplaced Pages:Quotations sets out some thoughts with regards to these, including a bit on copyright aspects. But in general, we should try to keep the amount of material we quote to a minimum and make sure that the reason for any quotes we do use is obvious in the text, to help support transformative use. And what's described as "intext attribution" should always be used for direct quotes.

This issue is taken pretty seriously on Misplaced Pages. It would usually be better to err on the side of caution here, particularly in making sure that material you do not quote directly is completely rewritten. I've been working copyright issues heavily on Misplaced Pages for a few years now, and I've seen a number of good faith contributors who really struggled with these issues and who ran into some serious trouble because of it. :/

Although I'm afraid I don't have as much time for volunteering on Misplaced Pages at the moment as I used to (and will again, when my current job contract expires), I am always happy to talk about rewrites, and I have a number of "talk page stalkers" who are generally very knowledgeable and helpful. If you ever have any concerns about whether content is properly rewritten or just want to talk about copyright stuff, you are welcome to come by my page. --Moonriddengirl 19:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative post. I certainly agree that citing sources correctly and avoiding copyright problems is very important. I may have done some mistakes regarding this in that past and I will try to improve. Regading Mathsci, I and others have already commented regarding his continued harrassment of me.Miradre (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent merge

Hi Miradre,

I appreciate your effort to seek consensus through a merge proposal before merging Motivation for rape to Causes of sexual violence, but as you are no doubt aware, no one participated in the discussion, meaning that while there was no articulated consensus against it, there was also no consensus for it. May I recommend undoing the merge for now, re-opening the discussion, and seeking wider input at the relatively large number of WikiProjects that handle those articles? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I notice that Mathsci has approached you on this issue. Mathsci has a history of following me around Misplaced Pages and opposing me on topics he never has been interested in before as well as trying to report me or articles I edit for various claimed problems. If there are any concrete points regarding the article in question, please raise them on the talk page of the article. The correct merge procedure was followed and I waited 10 days for any objections. Miradre (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus for the merge. Please undo it on both pages and request opinions from the wikiprojects listed on Talk:Motivation for rape. If your edits appear not to follow wikipedia guidelines, other users will monitor them. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, the correct merge procedure was followed. State any objections regarding the articles on the talk page. Stop following me around Misplaced Pages to topics you have never been interested in simply to oppose whatever I do.Miradre (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The best way forward for you is to do as Roscelese advises: revert your merge and seek more input at the pages of the wikiprojects. If you think that this suggestion is against policy, feel free to raise the question on WP:ANI. Mathsci (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The correct merge procedure was followed. Again, raise any objections on the relevant talk page. Stop stalking me.Miradre (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I followed all the instructions in WP:MERGE. Furthermore, no one has raised any concrete objections to the merge. Either during the ten day wait or now. Also, my talk page is not the correct place to discuss content issues. Do not discuss the issue here. I will remove further replies. Continue any objections on the talk page of the articles.Miradre (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Miradre. I personally haven't looked over the "before" and "after" of the merge, so I don't express an opinion on whether it was good or bad, and I'm unaware of the problems between you and Mathsci, so if there's harassment going on I'm sorry to have been a proxy to it, but I still maintain that in the absence of any talkpage discussion, seeking input at WikiProjects would have been a good idea, from a process point of view. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I followed WP:MERGE and contacting any Wikiprojekt is not mentioned. No one has had any concrete objections. Either during the ten day wait or now. Please raise any further issues on the talk page of the articles.Miradre (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)