Template:Did you know nominations/Ramsar sites of Poland
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Montanabw(talk) 04:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ramsar sites of Poland
[edit]- ... that the 13 Ramsar sites of Poland help with the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands?
Created by Ajh1492 (talk). Self nominated at 15:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC).
Article has only 531 characters of prose, or 35.4% of the minimum length. Please remember that text in lists doesn't count toward the minimum character limit. However, please also note that the article can be featured if you expand the prose to 1500+ characters. You have several days to expand it before someone will close the nomination as unsuccessful. Finally, please notify me at my talk page if you have any questions, or if you expand it and want me to re-review it. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- You were reviewing at the same time that I was putting the final section in place. Please take a look again. Ajh1492 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's quite obviously long enough now, but I don't have time to check it right now. I'll do a full review after I get off work. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Your additions were full of close paraphrasing, which is a copyright infringement and illegal; I have removed them. If you wish to have this article featured, you will need to write content in your own words. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I had summarized and re-phrased, but some key facts were footnoted and referenced. Since it wasn't viewed as enough, I've re-summarized and re-written the article with an additional book reference (from the library, but I cite the google books link), but some key facts and claims need to remain, but again the ref quite is tightly coupled to the fact/claim. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
- Please resolve the problem in question, which is completely unrelated to sourcing — there's nothing wrong with the sourcing, and I'm not trying to get you to change anything there. The problem is that you're engaging in close paraphrasing, which is a copyright infringement. You need to write everything completely in your own words; what you added was the text of the source website with little bits changed here and there. Please re-expand it with your own words. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
- I reviewed the first two paragraphs, and sadly I have to agree with User:Nyttend that the article still violates Wikipedia:Copypaste. User:Ajh1492, you could try to contact them and ask them for a free license for the text they are using; see Wikipedia:Requests for permission. I am not seeing an email (easily), but they do have a Facebook and Twitter, you could try to engage them through that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The two paragraphs of the Lede are lifted from the Ramsar Convention article, so if that's the issue, the concerns affect that article also. As for the rest of the article, I have re-written it with the exception of a few directly cited sentences where I put the comment "According to the Ramsar Convention ..." at the beginning. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
- I just discovered this, and I'm about off to bed and unable to do anything. If I don't review it by midnight tomorrow (i.e. 0500, 12 November 2013 on the server time), leave a note at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 06:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Re-re-removed the nonfree quotations again: the page still included large chunks of text used in a way that wasn't transformative, and since nonfree text may only be included under fair use, we can't include long quotes when they're in there simply as body text. If I remember rightly, quotes like this have to be included in quotation marks or in a special box to demonstrate that they're the exact wording (I can't find this in any policy pages, so I could easily be wrong here), but my point is that we mustn't include such long quotes as substitutes for body text. Basically, the statements on which you quote the Convention publication are all simple statements of conditions at various sites: anyone could have made these statements. In contrast, the only time we really should use significant quotes is if the statements are short and if they themselves are important, either because they offer a telling perspective (see the boxed quote at screened porch, for example) or because they're from sources whose opinions matter. Nyttend (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why are you deleting whole passages of completely new material generated from multiple sources? The only close quotes are directly cited as I mentioned. If those are a problem, I'll take them out, but I don't appreciate wholesale deletion of editor generated and properly sourced material.Ajh1492 (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Since it's clear there's no consensus, I'd like to ask User:Nyttend to show some remaining examples of copyvio in text, so that we can discuss them. I did see some examples before, but the text has went through some revisions. If there are still problems, let's discuss them here. I hope this will not have to end up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
This is precisely what I was requesting. No further problems. Ajh, let me remind you not to prolong discussions like this in the future, and definitely don't revert the removal of copyright infringements. So doing is grounds for blocking or for page protection (I would have done one or the other if you'd restored the content once more without repairing it), and when you even fail to demonstrate what is quoted and what isn't, wholescale removal is safer than permitting things to remain, especially when I don't have time to check the source in detail. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
