User talk:Whywhenwhohow: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:49, 8 January 2020

National Youth Wind Ensemble of Great Britain

Thank you for your work on this article. It is close to my heart, and it is very good to see someone else taking up to mantle as it were! Philip.t.day (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

work vs publisher

Seems to me that edit was mostly backwards; please review the doc page, ok? Template:Cite news/doc. Anyway, I'm off so rv if you wish; and I'll revisit tomorrow. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

saw your edit summary, which makes sense. Sorry for the bump. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One size does not fit all, it may be beneficial to check if an item is a specific program or publication vs. a network or news agency. Hence, why various fields are provided by the various citation templates. KimChee (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSN is not identified as the publisher of MSNBC here, but msnbc.com is fine. However, in that case a work field is still not applicable as the title should not be italicized (msnbc.com is not a work as the Journal of Medicine is). Also note that msnbc.com is somewhat unique and media websites are generally considered online extensions of the publication. Remember, general users are going the see the end formatted result. KimChee (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the reference formatting, can you identify an edit conflict that should be fixed? Your account looks relatively new and Jack Merridew has been here a very long time with a focus on reference formatting. I trust his judgement. KimChee (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you use italics to unitalicized the work field, bots come and change it. Websites should not be italicized, lol. —Mike Allen 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack is very friendly about edit conflicts, but I would stick with the guidelines presented in the {{cite news}} template -- make sure you distinguish between a publication such as The New York Times vs. an organization such as The McClatchy Company vs. an agency such as Associated Press. KimChee (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to commend your motivation because it appeared to be in good faith. Cheers. KimChee (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing this edit of Boeing 737 MAX, I came here to question your interpretation of "publisher" versus "work" or "website". It seems I am not the first. The guidelines say not to use the publisher parameter for the name of a work/website/publication, and to omit it when the name of the publisher is substantially the same as the name of the work. That doesn't seem to be what you're doing. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Modest Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent contributions! 129.49.72.78 (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks

For your work on the syphilis article. Wish to get it up to WP:GA over the next bit. The History / Society and Culture section will be a bit difficult though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know different people have different opinions on this but I find it easier to edit when refs are over a single line rather than over multiple lines. Thanks and keep up the goo work.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links

The NYTs is not an appropriate external link for health care pages per WP:ELNO Otherwise keep up the good work. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Tucson shooting

This user helped promote 2011 Tucson shooting to good article status.

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Monica Lewinsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily News (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited List of shipwrecks in 1971, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. When you recently edited Dick Clark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stamford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Clark

Hello! I noticed your notation that "Google AP links should not be used in Wikipedia". I was unaware of this (and selected that source because the layout was cleaner than others).
What's the reason behind this? Is it documented somewhere? (If not, it should be.) Thanks! —David Levy 03:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt from Template:Cite_news

Do not post urls of Google or Yahoo! hosted AP content: that content is transient. Use MSNBC or another provider that keeps AP archives.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This really should be mentioned in the Wikipedia namespace (e.g. at Wikipedia:Citing sources). That's where I expected to find an explanation. —David Levy 03:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing double spacing after periods

Question – why are your script edits changing two spaces after periods to one? Double spacing after periods has a long history of use, makes no different in output (see MOS:PUNCTSPACE), and is used by some editors to make it easier to spot sentence starts when in edit mode. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your interest in health research topics. I saw what you did to better formate the Sipuleucel-T article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment

You made some very nice copy edits at The Avengers (2012 film), fixing details to make the article more readable. The nonbreaking spaces in titles with numbers, changing curly quotes, which some browsers can't read well, to straight quotes, changing all-caps to upper/lowercase ... all necessary and all-to-often missed. Bravo! With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help With Drug Coupon Page

Hi - I found a blog post from a top drug coupon website that offers information needed for a citation needed tag but I think I configured the citation wrong. If you take a look?

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mel Gibson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Foster edit help request

I don't know how you're having edits accepted to this article but thought I'd put in another plug for an External link I proposed here, (deep down in the section). I think it'd be a good addition at least as an external link. (I'd maybe do more with it at some point.) Thanks for your attention. Swliv (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton

Please meet me at Talk:Bill_Clinton#WP:OVERLINK_.3F.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to work through individual links. I left a list a few days ago. You have yet to respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have ingored my discussion request. Sometime soon, I will revert your changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 30 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Pitch Perfect page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review on Death of Osama bin Laden

A peer review is being held at WP:Peer review/Death of Osama bin Laden/archive1 to enhance this article to FA status.Forbidden User (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brian Halligan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inc.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Whywhenwhohow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Whywhenwhohow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR violation on Donald Trump

Please read the edit notice carefully, please do not challenge edits made via reversion, instead discuss this on the talk page. Thanks. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Website and publisher parameters in references

Hey there! Just noticed this edit of yours on Apple Inc. Wanted to send a short message just letting you know that there is no reason, and perhaps even negative effects, to remove the publisher fields that follow the website parameters in references. It's useful to know what companies own which media publications. I haven't reverted cause it wasn't possible and it would take so long to do it over, but hopefully this message can alert you to keeping them in the future. Have a good day! :) LocalNet (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James:

Excerpt from https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/AboutThisWebsite/WebsitePolicies/default.htm

Unless otherwise noted, the contents of the FDA website (www.fda.gov)—both text and graphics—are not copyrighted. They are in the public domain and may be republished, reprinted and otherwise used freely by anyone without the need to obtain permission from FDA. Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the source is appreciated but not required.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content not by the FDA per [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I stand corrected :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Whywhenwhohow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book titles

Please do not write book titles in sentence case. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names for guidance. DrKay (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Whywhenwhohow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Express, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CVS Health, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for all your work on Essential Medicines :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allopregnanolone

In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}} after your citation. I have done so for the above article. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Massachusetts Turnpike, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WGBH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Priority review, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Measles

Check your last edit. I'm not sure what portal you are trying to add (I'm not very familiar with adding them). You wrote {{portal bar|harmacy and pharmacology|Medicine|Viruses}} (pharmacy is missing the p), but even when I preview a version with pharmacy spelled correctly, I don't see a change that shows in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Please consult with @Doc James:, and acquaint yourself with WP:Plagiarism and general academic expectations on this subject. Even if content is in the public domain, it is not acceptable to cut and paste it into another work, with text unaltered (quoting it), without indication that it is being quoted (i.e., with the text being transmitted without alteration from the original). This is true, even if the markup is added to the citation to indicate such use, and it is true even if each sentence is followed by an inline citation. The text must me made your own; the text of others cannot be used, verbatim, without quotation marks. Hence, I am reverting the bulk of your edit at Baloxavir marboxil, until the material can be used correctly, through paraphrasing or blockquoting, as you choose. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excerpt from WP:Plagiarism

A public domain source may be summarized and cited in the same manner as for copyrighted material, but the source's text can also be copied verbatim into a Wikipedia article. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It must be summarised. It cannot have text lifted, via cut and paste, and used verbatim. To use the direct text, without alteration, is plagiarism. See the examples that are given at that Plagiarism guidelines article! And please do not edit war. Engage in the discussion at @Doc James: Talk page, until he moves it to the article Talk. Note, I am a former Professor, and I know the ins and outs of this matter. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Plagiarism states public domain source may be summarized and the source text can also be copied verbatim

Here is an excerpt from the FDA website

Unless otherwise noted, the contents of the FDA website (www.fda.gov) — both text and graphics — are not copyrighted. They are in the public domain and may be republished, reprinted and otherwise used freely by anyone without the need to obtain permission from FDA. Credit to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the source is appreciated but not required.

Whywhenwhohow (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The matter remains the same—at Wikipedia, and in general, the use of material, with representation of it as your own composition—that is, cut and paste, and verbatim use of text—is considered plagiarism. See the second prohibited example at WP:Plagiarism, in the subsection, "Avoiding plagiarism", which presents as prohibited the exact thing that you did. The fact that permission is given at the FDA site to reproduce the material is not the same as you mis-representing the material as original editorial content of this encyclopedia. If the material is reproduced, it must appear in quotes. In all academic and writing contexts, it is a matter of intellectual honesty, that if the content composed by another is used verbatim, it must be quoted. Alternatively, the content can be retained via paraphrase—look to see what I did with your introductory sentence on the two studies. Note, all of this is hiding the fact that I think your contribution was in an excellent direction. The article needed clear content on the clinical trials. It simply needs to be in your words, and not the words of FDA Staff (or, if in their words, that it be presented as a quote). Cheers. Thanks for engaging. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full credit to the source was provided by the citations and the PD-notice template added further clarification. You are mistaken about the use of public domain text in Wikipedia. Whywhenwhohow (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a faculty member that taught, wrote, published, and edited for many years, I can tell you, though practices other than what I describe may be widespread here, any use of a text, verbatim, that does not acknowledge that the contributing, posting, or submitting author is not the author that composed the text is considered, generally, and widely, to be plagiarism, regardless of the source being placed or by virtue of time appearing in the public domain. Otherwise, entire books past a certain age could be copy and pasted, in toto, into Wikipedia, without use of blockquotes or paraphrases. And while I agree that you did better than many here in placing a citation at the end of each sentence, as noted by Example 2 in the WP:Plagiarism article, it is the failure to restate the source content, instead relying on the original author's words, that make this the plagiarism that it is. Bottom line, even though it is widely done at WP (see the many cut and pastes, without even citation, from the old Britannica version), it violates its own rules and normative academic standards—because it does not matter how old a source is, or how charitable we perceive it to be, it is never proper to cut and paste text from sources without paraphrasing or quoting. 2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 256: / Line 256: @@
 ::::The matter remains the same—at Wikipedia, and in general, the use of material, with representation of it ''as your own composition''—that is, cut and paste, and verbatim use of text—is considered plagiarism. '''See the second prohibited example at [[WP:Plagiarism]], in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Plagiarism&action=edit&section=5 subsection, "Avoiding plagiarism"], which presents as prohibited the exact thing that you did.''' ''The fact that permission is given at the FDA site to reproduce the material is not the same as you mis-representing the material as original editorial content of this encyclopedia.'' '''If the material is reproduced, it must appear in quotes.''' In all academic and writing contexts, it is a matter of [https://www.amazon.com/Doing-Honest-Work-College-Plagiarism/dp/0226484777 intellectual honesty], that if the content composed by another is used verbatim, it must be quoted. Alternatively, the content can be retained via paraphrase—look to see what I did with your introductory sentence on  the two studies. Note, all of this is hiding the fact that I think your contribution was in an excellent direction. The article needed clear content on the clinical trials. It simply needs to be in your words, and not the words of FDA Staff (or, if in their words, that it be presented as a quote). Cheers. Thanks for engaging. [[Special:Contributions/2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C|2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C]] ([[User talk:2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C|talk]]) 17:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 :Full credit to the source was provided by the citations and the PD-notice template added further clarification. You are mistaken about the use of public domain text in Wikipedia. [[User:Whywhenwhohow|Whywhenwhohow]] ([[User talk:Whywhenwhohow#top|talk]]) 18:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
+::As a faculty member that taught, wrote, published, and edited for many years, I can tell you, though practices other than what I describe may be widespread here, any use of a text, verbatim, that does not acknowledge that the contributing, posting, or submitting author is not the author that composed the text is considered, generally, and widely, to be plagiarism, regardless of the source being placed or by virtue of time appearing in the public domain. Otherwise, entire books past a certain age could be copy and pasted, in toto, into Wikipedia, without use of blockquotes or paraphrases. And while I agree that you did better than many here in placing a citation at the end of each sentence, as noted by Example 2 in the [[WP:Plagiarism]] article, it is the ''failure to'' '''''restate''''' ''the source content'', instead relying on the original author's words, that make this the plagiarism that it is. Bottom line, even though it is widely done at WP (see the many cut and pastes, without even citation, from the old ''Britannica'' version), it violates its own rules and normative academic standards—because it does not matter how old a source is, or how charitable we perceive it to be, it is never proper to cut and paste text from sources without paraphrasing or quoting. [[Special:Contributions/2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C|2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C]] ([[User talk:2601:246:C700:19D:A893:D336:57FE:E91C|talk]]) 20:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)