AMD news in the ARM architecture article
Hi, I just reverted your addition of AMD/APU information to the ARM architecture article. AMD, with their x86 processors, have nothing to do with ARM (formerly 'Advanced RISC Machines') and their low-powered RISC processor cores, often found in mobile devices. I hope this was just an honest mistake. --Imroy (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
ZDNet and copyright violations
I am going to undo the several additions you just made to a number of articles based on links to ZDNet. The first, biggest problem is that the additions you made are almost exact copies of the first line of the references themselves; this is definitely plagiarism and may well also be a copyright violation. Furthermore, those sentences didn't read like neutral encyclopedic contents, but were rather typical of journalism designed to interest the reader with a splashy phrase. When you add material to Wikipedia, you have to use your own words, not the words of your references. If you look to the Amazon Kindle article, you can see how I rewrote one of your additions. Additionally, I'm not actually certain that those articles meet our reliable sources guidelines; they're stored in the "News and Blogs" section of ZDNet, and blogs generally don't qualify as RS. I'm going to undo all of them, and then if you think the sources are reliable, you can re-add them in non-plagiarizing style; however, if any article editors think it's not a reliable source, you'll have to work that out on the article talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just took a look at an earlier contribution of yours (this edit to Battery charger), and found the same problem as above. I'm now concerned that any significant addition you made may have the same type of problem with close paraphrasing. This is a very difficult issue for many new contributors to Wikipedia, so please don't be upset, but I want to help you improve this issue. First, the fact that you're including sources to verify the information you add is great--it's absolutely necessary that we know where information came from. The problem comes when you figure out how to get the information in those sources into a Wikipedia article. See, when we add to an article from a source, we need to make sure that we don't alter what the source means, but we absolutely have to alter how we explain what it means. Usually, this is done by summarizing the contents of our source--taking a 1 page news article and transforming it into a few sentences in a Wikipedia article. When we do that, we have to be careful not to use the same sentence structures, distinctive writing styles, or other aspects of the source in our article. If you look at how I rewrote that section of Battery charger (see this edit) I hope it becomes a little more clear the types of changing we have to do. As a side note, when we are incapable of changing something, or when our source uses unique wording that really captures the information in the best possible way, then the correct solution is to quote the source and attribute that quotation.
- So, I could now go back and look through your contributions and "correct" the close paraphrasing problem in any of your past edits, but I think it would be helpful if you could try to do some of that yourself. Do you think that you could try doing this? At any time, if you have any questions, you're welcome to ask me (I'm watching this page, so I'll see it if you leave comments here). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Qwyrxian for your comments and insight. I took a look at the the edit to Battery charger and see how you altered the content to come across much more neutral. Over the next few days, I am going to be re-editing my edits with what you proposed. I will post comments here if I run into issues or have questions about how to re-phrase some stuff that may be too reliant on the journalist’s tones. Thanks for helping me through this.Smmgeek (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian, I tried to reword some of my edits to be more neutral - please see this edit to Intel. I wonder if I'm on the right track so that I could continue rephrasing my previous edits. Thanks. Smmgeek (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies for not seeing this earlier. That change was a great improvement; it definitely looks like your own words, rather than a copy of the cited article. Thanks! Let me know if you want me to review more or if you have other questions. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Aleksd for your advice. Will try to rewrite better. Smmgeek (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
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) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Broadcom (disambiguation) AfD?
Greetings! I noticed that you've contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technology, and/or the new merged entity Broadcom Limited in the past. I'm pinging you to see if you wanted to add an opinion to a deletion debate on a disambiguation page (Broadcom (disambiguation)). If so, the debate is here. Thanks! Talk to SageGreenRider 23:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)