::: And thanks to you too, {{Mention|Cullen328}} What you say is quite enlightening … and frightening! If anything might win out over outrage in my situation, it's apathy perhaps. Another reaction I'm experiencing is shock, to some degree. I can't help thinking that I might have added to some sort of Beatles ''zeitgeist''. The ''very uncomfortable'' feeling I have from skimming through Thomson's text is that he hasn't just based much of his discussion on the content of the Wikipedia articles, but that he's in some way responded to their content. To me, this is particularly obvious in what his interviewees offer on the relevant subjects – I can't help wondering if the questions he put to these interviewees might have been influenced by discussion in the articles. Sounds ridiculous, I know – and believe me, I don't want to believe it might be true ... (If I could bring myself to read the book from start to finish – a while away right now – I'd be able to either dispel or confirm such suspicions.) PS. If you happened to want to vote on that Amazon review, that would be very welcome!
::: And thanks to you too, {{Mention|Cullen328}} What you say is quite enlightening … and frightening! If anything might win out over outrage in my situation, it's apathy perhaps. Another reaction I'm experiencing is shock, to some degree. I can't help thinking that I might have added to some sort of Beatles ''zeitgeist''. The ''very uncomfortable'' feeling I have from skimming through Thomson's text is that he hasn't just based much of his discussion on the content of the Wikipedia articles, but that he's in some way responded to their content. To me, this is particularly obvious in what his interviewees offer on the relevant subjects – I can't help wondering if the questions he put to these interviewees might have been influenced by discussion in the articles. Sounds ridiculous, I know – and believe me, I don't want to believe it might be true ... (If I could bring myself to read the book from start to finish – a while away right now – I'd be able to either dispel or confirm such suspicions.) PS. If you happened to want to vote on that Amazon review, that would be very welcome!
::: My best to you both. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 11:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
::: My best to you both. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 11:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
== Gilabrand ==
Hi Malik: What would you say about this situation, please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gilabrand]]. Thank you, [[User:IZAK|IZAK]] ([[User talk:IZAK|talk]]) 22:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Why did you take down my edit? I sited sources for everything that was said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.163.52 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you wrote was barely comprehensible, and what I could understand was a diatribe. See WP:SOAPBOX. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 02:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diatribe? Did you even read my sources? Is there anyone else I can speak with on this matter?
How do I erase my cookies from this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.163.52 (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the sources. Some of them were good and some not so good. Did you read what I wrote? "What you wrote was barely comprehensible". How is somebody supposed to make sense out of this:
Many of interracial pornographic films still include racial stereotypes & as a concept alone, it economically marginalizes Black performers as a bottom-rate "extreme" fetish act in the same context as Anal, DPs, Blowbangs, & Gangbangs etc.[1][2][3] Thus giving White Female performers freedom to use convoluted excuses for not appearing in them & privilege to request for higher wages when they do.[4][5][6] Interracial porn for the most part is only defined as Black Male/White Female pairings which ironically prevents Black Female workers from receiving equal or higher salaries when performing with White or Non-Black Male co-stars. Because of this, if a Black Female performer refuses to work with a White Male or Non-Black Male performer for any reason, she could potentially be "Blackballed" or "Lowballed" from the entire industry.[7][8] Whereas their White & Non-Black female counterparts can use personal preference, sexual attraction, fear, religion, physical health & talking points from agents like "I don't do Interracial, nothing personal though", "I don't like the way the scenes are depicted" & "I'm pacing myself to extend my career" as industry-insider excuses on the issue & take attention away from debates about racism in Interracial as a genre & its effect on both Black workers & consumers of the business.[9][10][11][12][13][14]
Hello, Malik Shabazz. You have new messages at Oducksfan's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
you deleted my contribution on Social Security (United States). left you a message on my talk page as you directed. thanks. hope I did this talk back correctly as you wanted.Oducksfan (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Malik Shabazz, I hope you're well. Got a strange one here, which I thought I'd share with you too ... It concerns a new George Harrison biography written by Graeme Thomson, which noticeably reflects a lot of content that I've put into Wikipedia's Harrison album and song articles since January 2012. I first brought the matter up with user:Quadell over on his talk page a week or so back – (since archived). A few others weighed in there and on my talk page (and the conversations then spilled over onto other users' talk pages). My objections to Thomson's book are stated in an Amazon review for the bio (as user HariG), which is the link I gave on Quadell's page and elsewhere.
Amazon doesn't offer much of a preview for the book, certainly not sufficient to compare the areas of overlap I'd mentioned. What makes it so obvious to me that this author has used Wikipedia content as a foundation for his text is his use of sources that I brought to the articles and have never seen in any of the (many) existing books and publications discussing George Harrison. In some cases, the actual structure of the author's discussion about a particular event or album mirrors the order of points given in the articles. From what I've seen, at times he's loosely paraphrased text – but it's still close enough for me to recognise the overlap with the articles (admittedly, in part because I wrote them, and the antennas are up, so to speak).
Users Yeepsi and SilkTork have suggested adding Backwardscopy templates to relevant articles, and I intend to write to the publisher with a list of the areas where Thomson's text obviously mirrors the articles on Wikipedia. (With the latter measure, I confess it's just too depressing to even look at the book right now, so it's not something I've exactly jumped on with any urgency. Same with the Backwardscopy option, actually.) I'm confident that there are many more instances of the author's text reflecting Wikipedia's – again, through the give-away of those previously unused sources – than I've detailed in my Amazon review.
As a short-term measure, to at least alert Amazon's customers, I'm hoping that the review remains visible on the page there. It seems that's the only voice we have in the outside world. If you felt inclined to do so, and I'm so grateful that others have, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote "helpful" next to my Amazon review. That's the only way to ensure that the review continues to be featured (helpful equalling "popular", of course). Knowing the book publishing industry as I do, I can't help thinking that some with a professional interest have hit "unhelpful" next to the review, and "helpful" next to others, in an effort to have it demoted and pushed out of sight. That could be slightly paranoid of me – maybe customers just don't find it at all helpful(!). On the other hand, publishers and authors do do this, just as those with a vested interest write "reviews" for movies available on AppleTV, iTunes and elsewhere. Sorry to go on – any advice you've got would be very welcome, of course. Best, JG66 (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JG66. Sorry this has happened. I know how much effort you put into those articles and it's got to be upsetting to see your work "stolen" like this.
A couple of years ago, I learned that publishers were compiling Wikipedia articles into books, but this is the first time I've heard that somebody was trying to pass it off as his own. You should add the Backwardscopy templates, because sooner or later a Wikipedia editor will unknowingly say our article is a copyright violation of the book. I've endorsed your Amazon review, and I hope that helps. Good luck, — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 04:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very first article I wrote for Wikipedia was Dirk van Erp. A couple of years later, I saw a display of his work at a major California art museum, and noticed that about 2/3 of their wall display biography was taken almost word for word from my donation to Wikipedia, and was unacknowledged. I felt a unique combination of pride and outrage at that moment, but didn't pursue it. Pride trumped outrage, perhaps. In this case, a published author seems to be plagiarizing for profit, and that's especially sleazy if true. In that case, I encourage you to pursue the matter. Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MS, thank you so much for that. I always talk about initiating myself in the fine art of awarding Barnstars, but get so tied up in article content I never investigate how to go about it; your page would be among the first I'd drop by at, armed with the requisite knowledge (as and when)!
Yep: "apply Backwardscopy templates" does seem to be the mantra I'm hearing these days.
And thanks to you too, @Cullen328: What you say is quite enlightening … and frightening! If anything might win out over outrage in my situation, it's apathy perhaps. Another reaction I'm experiencing is shock, to some degree. I can't help thinking that I might have added to some sort of Beatles zeitgeist. The very uncomfortable feeling I have from skimming through Thomson's text is that he hasn't just based much of his discussion on the content of the Wikipedia articles, but that he's in some way responded to their content. To me, this is particularly obvious in what his interviewees offer on the relevant subjects – I can't help wondering if the questions he put to these interviewees might have been influenced by discussion in the articles. Sounds ridiculous, I know – and believe me, I don't want to believe it might be true ... (If I could bring myself to read the book from start to finish – a while away right now – I'd be able to either dispel or confirm such suspicions.) PS. If you happened to want to vote on that Amazon review, that would be very welcome!
My best to you both. JG66 (talk) 11:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
