Jump to content

User talk:JohnCD

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SirJamesHunt (talk | contribs) at 20:07, 23 March 2015 (→‎Soft robotics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a message.

If you have come here about a page I deleted, you will probably find the explanation here; if that does not answer your question, click the link just above to leave me a message. Please mention the name of the page, and sign your post with four "tilde" characters ~~~~ so that I know who you are.

If I have left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I am watching it.

If you leave a message here I will usually reply here, but if my reply contains advice I hope you will find useful, I may place it on your talk page. (Talk page stalkers: you are welcome; if you see no reply here, there is probably one on the other talk page; I have decided to stop making a note here when I reply there).

You may E-mail me via the "E-mail this user" link under "Toolbox" in the left-hand sidebar, but you will get a faster response here; I suggest you do not use e-mail unless you need privacy. I will normally reply on your talk page, not by e-mail.

Help needed at CFD

It would be nice if you could help deal with the backlog at WP:Categories for Discussion - it goes back to December. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look next time I have clear time to learn something new - it's not an area I am familiar with, so I will probably be back to you with questions. JohnCD (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for blocking this one. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soft robotics

Hey John. If some other people than infringers devoted time to this draft then to that extent it's a shame their time would be wasted upon deletion but I think it should be because it's just too tainted. I've just removed numerous additional copyvios from diverse sources and I'm not at all sure the material left is clean (I also think it would be not just cleaner but much easier for this to be built from a fresh start; working from a disjointed mess is too hard). Having a history that is so riddled with removed copyvios is also problematic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: maybe you're right, but:
That still leaves the other problems (and I haven't looked at the images yet). It seems a pity to lose all the work that has been done on compiling references. It rather depends how much work SirJamesHunt wants to put into it. If he's prepared to do a major rewrite, I would be inclined to keep the draft for him to use as a basis. Otherwise, I agree it should be deleted. Perhaps the list of references could be preserved somewhere against the day someone tries again - it's certainly a notable subject. JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're right Nyanglish is some sort of English phrase search engine but most of what I removed was not from there. The CC-BY content was still a copyvio since it was being used without any attribution, much less in the manner specified by the licensors. I don't want to jump any guns if anyone is willing to take this on. Let's see what it looks like in a month.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I thought of putting back the paragraphs copied from the CC-BY paper, but although a general {{CC-notice}} template would make it legal, i.e. not a copyright violation, there is still the separate issue of WP:Plagiarism: the authors should be credited for their words where they are used, and I'm not sure how best to do that. JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear (and pedantic, sorry), a general CC-notice template would not be sufficient. CC licenses require specific attribution credit if supplied, and the authors do specify at the bottom of the external article. Click on "appropriate credit" at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fuhghettaboutit (talk) and JohnCD (talk) - Thank you so much for all your effort. The article has been written by a whole range of people working in this field. We made a call on our newsletter to involve as many people as possible to get an excellent article that is not just based on the opinion of one researcher, but rather by the community. Unfortunately, it seems quite some people have used simply bits and piece from their publications. Which of course is not OK. I would really appreciate if you could keep the draft, so that we could work on it. I will try to make sure that people know that they are not allowed to copy and paste. Regarding the FrontierSin article I know the authors and I can ask them to upload the right copyright statement, if you could give me a pointer where and how to do it.

Thank you again for your help here. I think we can make a really strong article, when we get rid of all the copyright issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 16:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SirJamesHunt: that sounds very promising. The framework of the article is still there at Draft:Soft robotics, and I left all the references in place to make reconstruction easier. The way to make a copyright release is described at WP:Donating copyright materials. The actual copyright owner has to make the release, and needs to understand that Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license allows readers to copy, modify and re-use material for any purpose including commercial, so that restrictions like "Wikipedia only", "Education only" or "No derivatives" are not acceptable.
The Frontiersin paper is already released under a compatible license, but requires a {{Cc-notice}} template to provide attribution. I had supposed that one such notice at the end of the article was sufficient, but Fuhghettaboutit says above that that is not enough. We need a variant saying "This paragraph incorporates text from this source", which would also cover the issues described in WP:Plagiarism. I will ask advice about how to do that. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you JohnCD (talk). I wait then for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirJamesHunt (talk • contribs) 19:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, what I was talking about is the specific attribution requirements under the licenses. CC licenses need to provide "appropriate credit", which, as stated at the license I just linked, would require us the mind this language:

"If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material."

The cc template provides no facility to credit "the name of the creator". Meanwhile, the external site says "this is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice."

So, to be concrete, what I was saying was that to comply with copyright, just the CC-notice template would not be sufficient. The credit would need to say something, at the least, like:

 This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 1.0 license. and is authored by Cecilia Laschi and Matteo Cianchetti. (Emphasis added in underline.)

That, in my opinion, is required to comply with the plain and express terms of the CC license's appropriate credit requirement I quote above.

Now, as to citing each paragraph, that is also required, but is a matter of avoiding plagiarism, and I don't think we need any CC template for each paragraph, but rather to just follow Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Free and copyrighted sources and its following section of examples. They require that any word-for-word copied text – whether under a free license or from 1,000 BCE and in the public domain – be given in-text attribution, be in quotation marks, and have an inline citation.

Of course, this would also fulfill the stated requirement listed at the external cite of providing "that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice".

Sorry to delve into such layers of complication, but I believe the authors go beyond the bounds of the CC license they have released their material under, by purporting to require this additional form of credit as to the copyright (if they could require this, then my model example above for a vaid CC notice would still not be enough). However, it is a happy confluence of events, that to comply with our existing plagiarism avoidance requirements, we would also be satisfying this "overreach" by them. I hope this is clear; we all know how complicated this stuff can be, and as a lawyer (though not one that specializes in intellectual property law), I am used to parsing complicated statutes and the like.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JohnCD (talk) and Fuhghettaboutit (talk) for your detailed help. This is very much appreciated. Sorry to ask again, I just wanted to make sure that I understood it correctly. We have to add the line

 This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 1.0 license. and is authored by Cecilia Laschi and Matteo Cianchetti

if we use exact copies of the text from this publication and, in addition, we have to highlight in every paragraph were we used the same text clearly highlighted as citations (italic for example and in quotation marks). Since, as it seems that complete full paragraphs have been copied, I think it might be better to rewrite these paragraphs in our own words. However, I read on Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Free and copyrighted sources that a summary is potentially problem as well. How should we address that? Is it enough to cite the paper or do we have to use the

 This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 1.0 license. and is authored by Cecilia Laschi and Matteo Cianchetti

at the end of the article or is it even still required to have a notice at every single paragraph? My understanding would be that an inline citation at these paragraphs would be sufficient when we use our own words. Is that correct?

Altaf Malik.Azad kashmir

Sir u deleted the page Altaf Malik.Azad kashmir and i request u to plz restore it as it is about real person. I will be thankful to u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.83.85.20 (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not enough to be a real person. In order to have a Wikipedia article, a person needs to have Wikipedia:Notability, which is not a matter of saying so but has to be demonstrated by references showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." See WP:Notability (summary). The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought him significant enough to write substantial comment about?
An article should not be about what he says about himself, but about what he has done, and what other people say about him. Read WP:Your first article for advice, find independent references, and then use the WP:Article wizard to help you make an article. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete The Crawling Book Series?

I said on the talk page that I would update it with more information, but Today I go and I find it deleted. What was missing?? AahdTahar (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)AahdTahar

@AahdTahar: your article The Crawling (Book) was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crawling (Book). If you think that discussion was wrongly decided, or you have new information, you should approach the administrator who closed the discussion, user MelanieN (talk). Then, if you are not satisfied, you may apply at WP:Deletion review.
But you will be wasting your time, because Wikipedia is quite choosy about subjects for articles. The notability requirements for a book to have an article are explained at WP:Notability (books), particularly the section WP:BKTS. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about their own books, even notable ones, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU. You may get some ideas at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for places where you could write about your book. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Nakulmehra (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Suraj Gowda

I had go through all your suggested links and I had understand your notability requirements. I feel the subject meets your requirements because I had mentioned all the verifiable evidence and also it's outside of Wikipedia as per notability guidelines. And he is a celebrity so also it's not a permastub. Our references are from good news sources and net blogs as mentioned in Wiki guideleines. So plz re-consider it. Thankyou.

No. Sorry, but four different reviewers have now declined this, and after the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Suraj Gowda I think it would be a waste of your time, as well as ours, to keep submitting it. If you want, you may appeal at WP:Deletion review, but my advice is to give up on this one and find something else to edit. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you delete Adventures In Funny, and how can it be restored?

I kindly ask you to please restore the article. It meets the guidelines and frankly, I am insulted by your removing it. I can and will gladly go through the steps necessary to bring it up to par if there was something wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulouslymaddy (talk • contribs) 23:37, 18 March 2015‎

Sorry, no. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not a social-networking site for people to write about themselves and their friends and their Youtube videos. The test for inclusion is called Wikipedia:Notability and is not a matter of opinion but has to be demonstrated by showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant means more than just listing-type mentions; reliable excludes Myspace, Facebook, blogs, places where anyone can post anything; independent excludes the subject's own website, affiliated ones and anything based on press releases. The test is, have people not connected with the subject thought it significant enough to write substantial comment about? JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Retrieving a deleted page

Hi

I would like to retrieve a deleted page. NikitaSanthosh/SreejithTR. I will be editing this againand submitting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikitaSanthosh (talk • contribs) 12:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@NikitaSanthosh:  Done - I have restored User:NikitaSanthosh/Sreejith TR for you to work on. Read WP:Your first article, WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (summary) for advice. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JohnCD&oldid=653204603"