I would be happy to take a stab at making changes (in my user space) to the [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]] page to make it a bit more user friendly for us newbies. Thanks! Hope you're enjoying your time at the mountain cabin!--[[User:CaroleHenson|CaroleHenson]] ([[User talk:CaroleHenson|talk]]) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I would be happy to take a stab at making changes (in my user space) to the [[Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing]] page to make it a bit more user friendly for us newbies. Thanks! Hope you're enjoying your time at the mountain cabin!--[[User:CaroleHenson|CaroleHenson]] ([[User talk:CaroleHenson|talk]]) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
:Hi. :) Your Rule of Thumb looks like a good basic approach, but it's missing one of the most major points of recommendation that I use for working on Wikipedia: use multiple sources. Usually, scholarly advice for paraphrasing is based on the assumption that you are using one source, perhaps as a review article. Whenever possible, I use multiple sources, take notes of the facts from them and combine the facts from them into a new work.
:As to the Close paraphrasing, please do. :) We'd like to make it as clear as possible to people.
:Mountain cabin is beautiful and so quiet! At least when the family is not yet awake. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time and 21:00 Coordinated Universal Time, on weekdays. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 04:11, 14 November 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
I'm a person of note...
Firstly, barnstars for your work.
It's hard to understand a lot of it,
and you seem to be very involved...
Secondly, I'm a standup comedian,
and people are asking why I'm not
listed on wikipedia whatsoever.
Just curious if you know how to
add me to your online encyclopedia.
(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not a social media site like facebook or myspace and we strongly discourage people writing autobiographical articles for several reasons. I suggest telling your fans they can write an article about you if they want. There is a possibility you do not pass our notability bar though, which generally requires coverage in independent reliable sources (which would be newspapers, magazines and some internet sites for your line of work). In all honesty, if you are just looking to improve your internet presence I suggest making a facebook page and waiting until somebody else creates a page about you here. Yoenit (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Yoenit. :) And thank you Mr. Powers. (By the way, I've removed your e-mail address. You do not want the spam that you can get from listing it on Wikipedia. :/) Yoenit's suggestion of allowing your fans to write it is a good idea. A few other things I would suggest: if you put a bio on your facebook page (or your website) that you think would meet our neutrality policy and verifiability (more about that in a minute), put a license statement on the page releasing the text under a copyleft license that can be imported to Wikipedia. This would allow anyone interested in creating a biography about you to use at least some of the language as building blocks. This would be a usable license:
In terms of verifiability, there are a few things that Wikipedia could use in a biography just because you say so--things like your date and place of birth are not likely to be disputed. Unless your career depends on your looking young. :) But Wikipedia's articles need to largely depend on reliable second hand sources, particularly if it's something related to what makes you notable. People don't usually put footnotes in their own biographies, but you might well want to include a list at your website of accessible online sources that talk about you and your career. Generally, newspaper or magazine articles are preferred here, as well as book references or notable industry websites that don't have an interest in promoting you. (For example, a venue advertising your appearance would not count as second hand, because they have an interest in people wanting to come see you.)
A good idea before doing any of this is having a read through Wikipedia:Notability (people). The more clearly you fit within those inclusion guidelines (and can prove it, with sources), the more likely your article is to successfully make it on Wikipedia. Most articles on people that are deleted on Wikipedia either did not meet that guideline (or didn't prove they did) or presented their subjects in a very biased manner (sometimes promotional; sometimes libelous).
If you do clearly meet those guidelines, you might also consider adding your name to this list. It's a forum for requesting articles. If you can at the same time link to an external biography such as described above, all the better. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He only has one image left, and it's at PUF courtesy of User:Dpmuk. I spot checked his text contribs, and there doesn't seem to be a problem. If you think that Markshen has created a new account to avoid scrutiny or is operating two accounts, maybe list him at WP:SPI? --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you tell me where the editable boilerplate messages are in the OTRS wiki? There seems to be no overview or index page for the bloody thing. Thanks in advance, Sandstein 19:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. :) In fact, I tend to tuck stuff on my user page there that I may need to find later in fear that I never will again. (Currently only two, and "Category:Boilerplate messages in English" is one of them. You edit the template, change the status in the template to "modified", and they are usually implemented very quickly. I suppose they'd talk to you if they were unsure about your changes, but I haven't ever run into that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may not see the same ones as dubious, but I can certainly help with the ones that are obviously an issue. No payment required. :D I've contributed there as well. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know that you were one of the people who flagged down the "Ross Hauser" article about a year ago. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I really wanted to write an article. I decided to try to take over the Ross Hauser article and try to get it cleaned up to unflag it. I tried my best, but it is still flagged. I completely understand if you don't want to do this, but I was wondering if you would work with me to help get it cleaned up. Or, even explain to me what to do from here, because I'm afraid I don't understand. Again, I understand if you are busy and don't want to.--Savethelastbook (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I didn't actually flag "Ross Hauser"; I just addressed some copyright concerns with it, but I'm happy to talk to you about how the flags work and what to do about them. I'm afraid I don't have time to help work on the article at the moment. Lots going on. :)
A few general tips, first. I see that you are using the medical title "Dr" throughout the article. Wikipedia doesn't do this; we simply refer to subjects by their last names. (See WP:CREDENTIAL).
I also see that you're running into some trouble with citations, with markup like this:
That's not a working markup on Wikipedia. What you need is something more like this (with the fields filled in):
{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=25 June 2011}}
When placed right after the material it is sourcing, this will automatically populate the reference list below.
You will need to consider the reliability of sources. I see that you are using another Wikipedia article as a reference. I'm afraid that you can't do this, as we don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source. (No slur on ourselves; we don't consider any Wiki a reliable source, except to provide information about itself. :)) Reliable sources include things like newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and reliable industry websites that are not in any way affiliated with the subject. http://www.caringmedical.com/index.asp, http://www.bonemarrowprolotherapy.com/, and http://getprolo.com/hauser_illinois_prolotherapy.htm, for example, are affiliated with the subject, so they are not reliable sources for most claims about him. They are considered "primary sources". Most information in articles should be sourced to things that disinterested sources have said about the subject. When most of the information in the Ross Hauser article refers to reliable sources that are not affiliated with Hauser or his practice, the "primary sources" tag can be removed. (If you are in doubt about the quality of a source, the place to ask is WP:RSN. Most of the sources I see in the article that are not clearly primary sources are websites of medical commercial services related to the field—and these are not reliable sources either, I'm afraid; they are "self-published sources". See WP:SOURCES and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
In terms of the notability tag, the thing to look at here is Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability. Resolving the last concern (sourcing) may help resolve this one; basically, if there are enough disinterested reliable sources taking about Hauser, then Hauser very likely meets notability guidelines. I would usually recommend starting with a search of Google news and Google scholar. The more people talking about Hauser and his work, the better. :)
The final tag has to do with "conflict of interest" and is based on the fact that the person who placed the biography here evidently had a close association with Hauser and it is unknown whether the article is properly balanced. I've touched on one of the core content policies above--information must be verifiable to reliable sources--but there are two others that come into play here. Information must be neutral (properly balanced to reflect what those reliable sources say) and it cannot include original research. We are a tertiary source, so Wikipedia is not the place to present unpublished theories, facts or opinions. :) People who are close to a subject may have biases that they don't even recognize and may even inadvertently use articles to advance their own "inside" knowledge.
In theory, that tag can be removed by any editor who has no affiliation with the subject who has thoroughly reviewed it to make sure that coverage is balanced and sourced. In practice, I really recommend against it if you are a newer contributor, as my observation suggests that others are likely to be suspicious that you may be the "COI" editor returning under a new name. In that case, I would recommend that after you get the sourcing issues addressed (replacing the unreliable sources with reliable ones) and carefully evaluate it for neutrality you take it to the conflict of interest noticeboard and tell them you are a new contributor who has revised this article and want to know if the tag can be removed.
Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. I may not have time to work on the article, but I am happy to offer you what advice I can. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two accounts doing major and numerous changes on Hungarian script related articles, and creating new ones. I'd like an independent check on this article which I think is copyvio from http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n4006.pdf
Also, looking at the imgages uploaded by one of them to Commons, I've run into Rovas Atlas which seems to have copyvio from [1].
I haven't decided if an SPI is needed. Raised their edits at ANI but no one has responded. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I clarify that you think the articles are not copyvio from the pdfs? At least one of the accounts may be the author as he signed himself Gabor. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something here?
File:Seriy.jpg - claims a CCA licence, says it is from [2] - I can't read Russian but the copyright symbol is on that page and the page with the photo: [3] - it's in an article I've taken to AfD because the subject seems non-notable (I'm being offered umpteen sites where the subject has posted or where his ebook can be downloaded, but clearly nothing notable). Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
on a separate note, this work was originally written by two russians over 100 years ago, the original Russian version is out of copyright, but this specific file was transalted very recently in 1992 in the The Australian National University, it is considered copyrighted right?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) It is not at all a copyvio to take content from a public domain source, and that one most certainly is. The best thing to do is probably to annotate the list--put a note under it saying, "Content copied from 1895 book [link]." Make sure that the article uses a proper attribution template, to comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. {{PD-old-text}} is a good, general purpose one for content like this.
As to your second question, yes, a new translation of a public domain work is likely to be copyrighted (unless, say, it's ineligible because of who the translator is or unless the translator releases it). We'd have to use the original and create a translation of our own or use a translation that is also copyright expired. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a problem to me. :/ I've tagged it as a close paraphrase, which should automatically list it at CP. If it isn't revised adequately within a week, I may alter it myself if nobody else does. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, there were a couple more that I kicked up to the copyvio board as in addition to the copyvio from this particular CCI, there've been multiple other copyvio editions over a really long period of time. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff15:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for a second set of eyes
Hi Moonriddengirl - could you please have a look at the spotchecks I posted here. The page has been refactored since and gotten a bit muddled, but I'm concerned because I found close paraphrasing on each article I looked at, and I only checked a single section of each article. This is a situation I fell into by happenstance, but now am being accused of incivility. So, I'd like to punt it to you, if you don't mind. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing about the original request (where the link points) that was in any way uncivil, taking time to pull the examples were much appreciated and helpful to try to work on the issue. Nor, were the comments about civility in later history of my talk page meant for TK. I've punted this to the VA project talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deflecting to the VA project wont help, though you selective talk page blanking a refacturing of comments you didnt like might. Ceoil23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict
I sometimes have delay reaction - I just realized that you're working on copyright issues. If I could have a little of your time on a couple of questions that will help me directionally it would be very much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you now have that level of self awarness, mind pulling the accusations of agression and civility. This is [5] just unacceptable. Ceoil23:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) MRG, I am on this case. There are, indubitably, issues. Those issues comprise two parts:
certainly some close paraphrasing, as identified by Truthkeeper88 and accepted by CaroleHenson. The latter is struggling a little to understand the policies/guidelines but, if past experience is anything to go by, is prepared to learn.
an accusation of incivility which TK appears to think is directed at her but in fact, from the chronology, was aimed at Ceoil and his comments about me.
In other words, CaroleHenson was stepping in effectively as a bystander to a perceived incivility expressed on her own talk page by someone else and about someone else.
I really couldn't care less what Ceoil thinks of me. He is entitled to hold that opinion. It is, however, a slightly unfortunate opinion to express in these specific circumstances. TK has quite rightly raised some issues and I have been trying to adopt the more "user friendly" approach of providing examples rather than just referring to policy. What Ceoil has to do with this, and also some of the possibly blunt exchanges between CH and TK, is related to a certain history between the users. But the immediate point of contention relates to Ceoil. These people are never likely to get on. Stuff happens.
I favour trying to resolve this in a collaborative manner and by helping CH to understand the issues by example. As I say in the discussion, which I agree is somewhat messed up due to the unfortunate refactoring, there is an opportunity to educate here and myself & TK are singing off the same hymn sheet when it comes to the optimum method for doing things. As I also say, TK and myself are in a very small minority. Copyvios are common, plagiarism is frequent and close paraphrasing is rife. I am 100% certain that I have closely paraphrased in my own contributions. Sometimes it is extremely difficult not to do so. This does not excuse Ceoil's intervention and, while TK is correct, it would perhaps have been more helpful to provide some practical assistance. Initially, TK did not even provide examples and only did so after I prompted for them. The implication that "if I find the diffs then I will have to open a CCI" (paraphrase of TK comment) was not helpful.
We are dealing here with a user (CH) who has a track record of taking on board advice when it is presented in a manner which makes some sense to her, and who has also shown a long-term willingness to collaborate. Many, if not all, of the niggles which have existed between her, Ceoil and (to a lesser extent) TK relate to a specific situation regarding a proposed FA candidate. In my opinion, that discussion was equally flawed because it did have the appearance of bullying and a failure to explain. I am sure that neither TK nor Ceoil intended this, but they are vastly experienced editors and sometimes perhaps cannot see the wood for the trees when it comes to relatively new contributors. At the very least, there is a possibility that the project may lose someone with much potential (CH) due to some unfortunate situations regarding policy etc that have neither been explained well nor, in some cases, were even correct. For example, you and I both know that there are several "official" ways to provide a citation but the major spat between CH/Ceoil?TK was a direct consequence of the latter seeming to insist that in fact their way was the only way. I weighed in to point out that there were in fact other ways. Not saying that their way was wrong, but just that their language suggested it was "this or nothing" when in fact it is not.
Messy, very messy. But the issue is really regarding history, not close paraphrasing. I am tempted to suggest that TK and Ceoil stay away from CH's talk page unless they have a genuine policy issue to raise. In this instance, TK did but Ceoil just stuck a boot in there. It was silly, all the more so because to the best of my knowledge I have never edited a page to which Ceoil has contributed.
Hi. :) Thanks, everybody, for such a complete background here. I've had a look at the thread. My thoughts here are that if Carole is willing to work on correcting paraphrase issues herself, that would be far preferable to starting a CCI. If Sitush is willing to help her work on it, we could certainly do a spotcheck later without the need for the formal process (unless, of course, there are remaining issues then). CCI is not meant to be any kind of disciplinary interaction, of course; the reason I would prefer to avoid it if possible is because there are sooo many of them pending and they are languishing forever. We have CCIs over a year old. :P
Dealing with these issues can be quite difficult. I appreciate your willingness to help out, Sitush.
Oh, Sitush, if you wouldn't mind - and that's ok directionally, that would be wonderful! I just felt bad for you getting slammed for trying to help out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer that Moonriddengirl look. She is uninvolved. And I would suggest that Sitush, with whom I've barely interacted, but who has interacted extensively with Carole Henson, is ascribing motive where none exists. All I've read above is that I didn't provide examples - was unable to because either my internet slowed down or the wiki servers where I live. I've rectified that situation, and I'm more than happy to find more examples. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can be worked on at CCI space, too, but, again, those can languish quite some time. The CCI I'm working on has been listed for over a year, and I hardly ever have any time to edit it. :/ But if you list it at CCI, probably User:MER-C will evaluate it. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the person who has requested to review the case has been disparaging me, I think it needs to be looked at by an uninvolved reviewer. I don't care how it's done, or who does it, but I do know that every page I've looked at has shown close paraphrasing problems. This is not my fault, and if I were really smart I'd drop it, which I guess make me not smart. As it happens, it's an issue I feel strongly about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict, too: Where does this leave us? Sitush is offering to work with me - and ensure that the approaches are in synch with TK. But it sounds as if it's preferred this go to CCI. Is that what I'm hearing?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush has no credibality on this. You have tried every trick under the book, from talk blanking, to refactoring, to appealoing to higher authorities while smearing us, note Sitush also dis this, that you might as well give up, and let a cold eye judge. 23:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok if we're left with CCI, which sounds like my next step is to back out of this topic until/unless anyone contacts me. Thanks for trying to help Sitush!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x 2. For the record, regarding the unsigned, slightly incoherent msg from Ceoil which I conflicted with. I have not refactored or blanked anything on CH's talk page, now or ever before. Nor, to my knowledge, have I referred Ceoil to a "higher authority" ever before, nor smeared etc. This is getting silly. Back off. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CH, the offer of help stands. You will gain something from it. I am not perfect. Neither are TK or Ceoil. The CCI will happen in due course if it is proposed, but things should be sorted by then. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am no more involved than you. While we wait for CCI to do their stuff (which they are welcome to do) this thing can be done and dusted. Would you rather that the issues you have raised persist here for a year or so (and perhaps further issues are created in that interval due to a lack of appreciation of the subtleties of close paraphrasing) ... or sorted now and reviwed by CCI later? This is pathetic. Your attitude shows the extent to which you and Ceoil have a problem with the personality rather than the content. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict
Ok, maybe we can start with the non-Van Gogh articles since that's were there's no contention - It was thoughtful of TK to get plenty of examples there, too. I made edits to Owl Woman. And, it may be the period when I tried to fix the refactoring (which I still don't understand what it means) and asked for 5-10 minutes to sort it out that there may have been some talk blanking (although I don't quite understand that term, either, but have a guess). If I did so, I apologize.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an easily done and dusted matter Sitush, which you are failing to grasp. Insulting me does not adress the substance, that I didn't sign a post does not remove copyvio so please get real. Ceoil00:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we all need a break and come back to this tomorrow. What I'm proposing is that Sitush and I work on the non-Van Gogh examples, which then should give TK's desired effect of holding off for the CCI for the Van Gogh articles. And, if you all decide you'd like us to work on Van Gogh, then we can tackle it then. Actually, I might be forearmed enough to jump in once I'm better informed, if you'd like.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a start on Owl Woman. It doesn't matter where we start, we need to go through the lot & this is as good a place as any at which to begin. It may not be an easy ride but we will see. At least something is being done and it is constructive. Apologies, MRG, for the interruption ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
outdent - Moonriddengirl, I apologize greatly for bringing this drama to your page. After looking at perhaps 20 pages with positive results, in fact I've decided not to make a CCI report. After the experiences with ItsLassieTime, scrubbing their pages, being harrassed, etc,., and now this drama, I think I'll just fade away quietly and allow this kind of thing to continue. If I'm to be made the scapegoat whenever I say something, it's very much not worth it in my opinion. Thanks, again, and sorry again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not engaging in talk conversation right now for obvious, historical and it seems ongoing reasons. I did send you a personal email, though, TK - and I'm sure no one thinks you need to be made a scapegoat, you were right to bring up the issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Nice Cup of Tea...
Being in a lovely and very crowded cabin in the mountains at the moment (which, blessedly, offers wireless), I have not been able to review all of this at the various points of discussion. I'm sorry. :) But if I can just make a "statement of philosophy" here, it is very important to point out copyright issues. It is important for Wikipedia, for our reusers, for copyright holders (Why I think so.) Sometimes pointing out issues makes us unpopular. I've been subjected to plenty of personal attacks for it. (Frequently, I think, those who I've approached about problems feel "attacked" by my approach themselves.) Sometimes, after the initial dust settles, people can step back and recognize what's happened without the emotional baggage in the way. The person who gave me the most vile personal attack I've ever received over copyright cleanup later offered an olive branch. Another (nowhere near that bad) later gave me a barnstar, which I treasure. (It means we successfully moved past the issue and he ultimately found it productive.)
I'm sorry if there have been personal attacks associated with this. I hope that bad feelings don't linger. Personally, Truthseeker, I appreciate people who are wiling to make themselves unpopular by making sure this kind of thing is addressed. I also appreciate it when people who have inadvertently created problems in this area are willing to help clean them up by themselves and when others are willing to help them. We can't ask them to do so without assistance at all, because sometimes the issue relates to uncertainty the level of rewrite needed, but if we approach it as a fixable problem, I hope that we'll come out of this with good contributors intact and no lingering ill will. Cups of tea offered all around. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful post, for the tea, and most importantly for taking the time during a mountain vacation. It's very much appreciated. I'm sending an email to you that has nothing to do with this specific incident, but instead with my motivation for being a wikipedia editor, and necessarily will include personal detail I'd rather not have made public. Otherwise I'd post in full here. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please help with a speedy deleted page
Hi
I'm trying to userfy or get an emailed copy of my Michael D. Subrizi page that was deleted. You didn't delete it, but I like your name, so I chose you. Please help me if you can as I spent an hour on it and want to place the information on a personal webpage since it was rejected here. Thank you.
Hi. :) Your Rule of Thumb looks like a good basic approach, but it's missing one of the most major points of recommendation that I use for working on Wikipedia: use multiple sources. Usually, scholarly advice for paraphrasing is based on the assumption that you are using one source, perhaps as a review article. Whenever possible, I use multiple sources, take notes of the facts from them and combine the facts from them into a new work.
As to the Close paraphrasing, please do. :) We'd like to make it as clear as possible to people.
