User talk:MrAnderson7

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MrAnderson7, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Osteoporosis#Xylitol_and_osteoporosis

Hi,

I removed your edit to osteoporosis, hope you understand my reasoning (see link above).

cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Schauberger

Hi, thanks for your work on the article. The state of the article has annoyed me for years, but it is already much better and the remarkable character as he was truly deserves this. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

HIV test

Hi. Could I ask you to stop by Talk:HIV test? I have several concerns about material which you are repeatedly inserting there. Let's discuss the best way to present the data on false positive results so as not to create an erroneous impression. MastCell ^Talk 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues

The edit you made in April to HIV test was reverted at the time, in part because it clearly added copyrighted material to Wikipedia taken from this website without confirmed permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot permit editors to add copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted.

I realize that this is "old news", and that the material you added did not comply with other policies, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that in general you may use reliable external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences, or even halves of sentences, or items for a long bulleted list, because Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators are routinely, even aggressively, blocked from editing.

Happy editing, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you for the informative post on copyright issues, of which I am already familiar with. It would be applicable if and only if I copied the contents of the said website. But as I didn't, I don't quite understand why you have used the 'Copyright' rule against me. Perhaps because you are similarly biased in your edits like the others who have removed the additions to the article. Surely you can come up with better reasons for removing my material? MrAnderson7 (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using any rule "against" you, but I bring this up because your addition was a blatant cut-and-paste (-and-alphabetize) copyright violation off that website. Consider:

• You title your section: "Factors known to cause False Positive HIV Antibody test results"
• The website subtitles its page: "Factors Known to Cause False Positive HIV Antibody Test Results"

--> The only difference here is capitalization.

• First item in your list: "Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections"
• Item from website's list: "Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections"

--> No differences here, not even in punctuation.

• Refs you name for first item in your list: papers by Weber, Schleupner, Profitt, Steckelberg, Pearlman, Cordes
• Refs the website names for this item: papers by Weber, Schleupner, Profitt, Steckelberg, Pearlman, Cordes

--> No differences here, not even in the order you listed them in.

• Second item in your list: "Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985"
• Item from the website's list: "Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985"

--> No differences here

• Ref you name for this item: paper by Bylund
• Ref the website names for this item: paper by Bylund

--> No differences here

Shall I go on? I can do this for every single item in the list if necessary, or we can agree now that the sole differences between your list and the list on this website are: (1) you alphabetized the list, and (2) you dropped one item. If you don't believe me, then have a look at this page and note how very neatly the original list and your list line up.

Actually, yes, let's do go on, with just one more example:

• You list: Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, ([188], [189])
• The website lists: Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)

--> Do you see the "9" here? It's a typo that you carelessly, but faithfully, copied over from the original. There are several of these. This typo is an interesting artifact because it enables us to find exact matches for this list on a number of websites, but also because of this: the probability of "accidentally" or "innocently" reproducing not only the same very long list (sixty-six items in the original list!), under the same heading, with exactly the same references as the original, which are listed in exactly the same order as the original, but also with exactly the same typos as the original, is so vanishingly small as to be zero.

So either you think I'm a such fool that can't see what's plainly in front of me, or you copied someone else's work. Note that whether you copied it directly from Virusmyth, or from someone else that copied it from Virusmyth, is unimportant. Wholesale copying of copyrighted material is not acceptable, even when done indirectly.

To be clear: I don't need an admission of guilt or an apology. I don't need an excuse about being carried away by understandable enthusiasm. I don't even need a reply. If you want to save face by pretending that you "just happened" to magically come up with exactly the same list in defiance of all probability, then as far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to indulge in self-delusion. What I need is this: I need you to not make the same kind of mistake again.

Am I perfectly clear? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)