User talk:Piotrus/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Władysław Odonic

Hi Piotrus, I just finished the translation of Duke Władysław Odonic from Polish to English. Please check it out and let me know your opinion. Thanks!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

hey Piotr

I fixed the line u told me to fix. I dont understand how and where all of my information went. None of my sources are cited anymore and i think thats why i got that copyright complaint.

Thanks John EAster (Jeaster89 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

DYK nomination of Puławy Legion

Hello! Your submission of Puławy Legion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MuZemike 03:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional problems

Sociology of health and illness has problems as well. I've only tagged the section I know to be problematic, but there may be other problems. I will definitely not have time to do full text review of this myself, as it can take quite a while. :/ I've notified at User talk:T.starr.green. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First World has problems, too. :( Again, I've only tagged the one section, but there may be more. Some of the text was added here. Some was added here. I've left notice at User talk:JFA7. I'm afraid that I really don't have time to do an in-depth search of the text here to be sure that there aren't additional problems. I hope that MLauba will be able to help with that, but I'm already pushing it by editing now. :) I'm out of here in about an hour, and I'm not done packing. Bad timing. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I wish I could but I just can't do it in the time I have left. :( It's a bit time-consuming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad you've found some additional issues. I'll be happy to help review for more, but it will probably be Sunday before I'm able to do so, as I won't be back to my computer until then. I don't expect to be able to get online often or for long while traveling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Polukrbat

Lithuanians contribute a platoon to the battalion, thats why they were included in the infobox. Ceriy (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the e-mail

Checked my archives as well, and they just aren't there. Shall we begin again? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Redlinks

If you are going to restore redlinks to a list,[1] please also include a source? Just saying that they have an article on a different language Wikipedia is not sufficient. Thanks, --Elonka 02:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Puławy Legion

On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puławy Legion, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Im so confused

I don't know what happend. the only thing i tried to do was to fix the copywrite problems. And the next thing i know our article is missing alot of stuff. and i thought someone else did that. I just need to know how to refix it. (Jeaster89 (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

Yes. I did see the link. and I believe i went in and fixed what i needed to. And also There was a line from my section that was directly taken from my soucre. but i thought if it is cited with a reference you were allowed to do that. i did not know you couldn't. Everything else was fine. (Jeaster89 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC))

The actions taken between the 24th and 25th just removed about half of the article wholesale. I reverted that, in particular since it actually left the copyright violation in place. I also added the copyright problem template to the second section. The part on Swine Flu was a minor problem, I rephrased the first part of the paragraph, then quoted Dr. Henry Miller's own words the way it's supposed to be done.

To clarify, what is acceptable is a short quotation of copyrighted text if it serves to illustrate a particular point of view. When that is done, it needs to be clearly identified as a quote (the way I did it is one among several, but it really sets the quoted text apart from the rest).

The reason we do that is to avoid that another contributor later on comes along, misses the fact that it's a piece of text copyrighted to somebody else and starts to rewrite it.

So it is not enough to just paste a sentence and then put a reference at the end, you need to clearly mark it as a quote from someone else.

You can read up more on MOS:QUOTE, the part of the Manual of Style that deals with quotations.

Now to the other issue, Africa. The lead sentence is still a verbatim copy / paste of the source.

The paragraph talking about life expectancy would be fine in its present state, except for one major problem: it has been written by paraphrasing previously copy / pasted material from FREDERICKSON, creating an unauthorized derivative work.

If nothing else, I hope this example will explain by itself why we insist the text be rewritten entirely from scratch in the temporary subpage. As this demonstrates, the biggest problem we face when copyrighted text is introduced in an article at some point in time is that it "taints" the work of all revisions coming after it.

I do not want to discourage you here but this does require rethinking the African section over again. What I'd like to suggest is to do the following: read the sources you have, and only the sources, carefully. Once you're done, open an edit window on the African or South American section. Delete everything but the <ref> {{cite...}} </ref> text, it's a pain in the arse to rewrite those.Now picture yourself in the situation: you're in a classroom, and your professor asks you, out of the blue, to briefly explain to the class what the sources are talking about. You have no preparation time, you just stand up and explain what you took away from these sources.

Write that in the African and South American sections. Most importantly, behave as if the copy / paste function had never been invented in the first place. And you'll end up with useable text that is entirely your own. I'm looking forward to read that. Best, MLauba (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

extra credit blogposts

Hello, I only have one point in my extra credit blogposts while I have done two -

http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/11/polygamy.html

http://da1globsoc09.blogspot.com/2009/10/origins-of-word-revolution.html

Rgg6 (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Piotrus. You have new messages at Dekimasu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade

On November 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to us! I'm taking credit of this too . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I just saw you don't read other talkpages ;) Thanks again for added me as co-author in the nom; I remembered that ;); and for placing the above template on my talkpage :) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Message

Replied on my talk page. Ucucha 19:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions for arbcom candidates

Hi Piotrus, Thank you for your questions relating to the upcoming arbcom election, I have endeavored to answer them here. Please do not hesitate to post more questions if you see fit. Unomi (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Duchy of Belz

On November 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Duchy of Belz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Pittsburgh, copyright problems

Hi. I'm sorry, but Economy of Pittsburgh has problems, too. :( I've identified major issues in the first section and further down. I haven't yet identified who placed the content--if it was all the same individual--but I'm off to evaluate now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've identified one source of problems here, with text introduced by User:Jpd26. Here, with User:Rach3191, there seems to have been a misunderstanding. S/he put quotation marks around the text, which suggests that s/he might have believed such extensive use of copyrighted text is okay as long as you indicate that it is copied. Clearly, this would suggest no clear idea of how much change is required to create a new, copyrightable text, since s/he removed the quotation marks around that material after removing some of the text and placing other text in parentheses further down. I do not know yet if problems are limited to what I've found or to contribs by these two. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Copying the content to the subpage is probably a good idea, but we're not supposed to publish the material there, either. Do you think that your students would be able to work on it behind the template there? Or trusted to replace the template between sessions of working? My big concern at this point is that they not create derivative works, which can happen if they try to revise line by line. As I know you know, revising copyright problems can be very tricky for people who aren't completely familiar with how to handle sources. I can't imagine there was intentional intellectual property theft here, particularly with edits like Rach3191's. :/ Seems well-intentioned to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, often "sofixit" with copyvios means "so delete it", because we don't have the manpower working on copyrights to rewrite content. Removing the copyvios is imperative, and in addition to the regular couple of dozen copyvios we deal with every day, we've got literally thousands of articles to go through at WP:CCI. The CP process works to give contributors a chance to fix the article, but if they don't (and often they don't), frequently the content is selectively deleted and the last clean version (if there is one) restored after the seven day listing period. If there's no clean version, we frequently lose the article altogether. While you may have noticed that the top of my user talk page advertises continually for WP:Copyclean, we just really haven't attracted that many people who have time and interest in rewriting this text.

I want to be clear that I understand what you're proposing here. I haven't finished reviewing this one, but have adjusted the template at Food power. Do you propose that I simply remove the blanked content from the article, leaving the presumptive clear? If so, is it your idea that the students would work on new content in the article space? We would need somebody to verify that their revisions don't create derivative works. We already know they have issues with copyright.

As for identifying the individual, I typically try not to highlight that to reduce embarrassment, but I can see the value in situations such as this.

Obviously, when a problem is first discovered, it can take considerable time to verify that the rest of the content is clear. I could not just blank the sections in which I've located issues, for instance, before I've verified that the contributor (or contributors, in both of these cases) have not violated other copyrights as well. Going through an article's history can be very time consuming. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in here, I'm one of the copyvio cleanup crew and have MRG's talk page watchlisted.

I don't know how practical or feasible this is, but I for one would be extremely interested to get some feedback from your charges on what their reactions were when they were first confronted with the fact that their contributions were in violation of our copyright policy. What was their line of thought / reasoning when they added the material? Did they understand the concerns raised? How did they come to terms with them? How did they integrate notions like derivative works or WP:Close paraphrasing? How did that affect their rewrites, and their subsequent contributions? What proportion among them believes in good faith that they did nothing wrong?

This kind of insight could be invaluable to us to help us re-think how we communicate our policies and the related guidelines, and I think we'd all love to hear these stories, if collecting them were doable. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here as well but I just found this conversation important. My group members that are working on the Economy of Pittsburgh with me as well as myself I think are having difficulty because of the subject of the article. We have always had good intentions not trying to unlawfully use any material, but we are unsure on how to paraphrase because most of the information is statistics. This is why I feel some of the edits are too long of quoted material. There just isn't many other ways to say what we find. What I am getting from this is that pretty much every thing should be rewritten in our own words/paraphrased and at the same time contains no original material. This is just very frustrating being a new wiki editor and I think wiki could have easier ways to go about this.Tuna12 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll just note here (redundantly, since I did so as well at my talk page) that I'm only aware of one other issue in the list at my talk page, and it's already been overwritten with clean content. I think that the rest are free at least of major concerns. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

proto-globalization

Your talk page is certainly quite cluttered with complicated GA review arguments/questions! I'll just join the melee, if that is ok:

you wrote: 'The time of the Roman Empire and it trade links with China are certainly notable in the context of proto-globalization, as they form one of the early world systems. That said, this is relevant to archaic globalization, and proto-globalization covers a much later period, and as such while the article could use a section summarizing the earlier history of globalization, it should not be the article's main focus.'

You're right of course, & I will try not to make too-whiny of excuses for my lack of making a better effort to draw my written/researched section on "pre-proto-globalization" to proto-globalization, except to say that (a) I was really having trouble focusing on the scope of how to sort of "introduce" the world system as it lead up to proto-globalization, and kind of wussed out there and just picked my favorite nations/the ones I've encountered in my college education thus far. (as a Classics minor I am very biased as to the influence that the Roman Empire had on the modern world, and from our article reviewer's opinion I can see others do not share my view...also does this count as "original research" in that area, which is against wikipedia's policies? I thought it might but I have not yet been accused of this) (b)communication between my group members has been limited and as you can see the organization & flow of the overall article is less than stellar in terms of each "sub-topic" relating to the other/what proto-globalization is.

My real concern is, should I completely rewrite & refocus my section at this point? Or cut it entirely and maybe focus on editing & fixing the sections researched and written by everyone else? I ask because, of course, I am concerned for my grade on this assignment. :-/ Toasterlyreasons (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

All my email accounts have been disabled.

All my email accounts have been disabled that I used to connect to Wikipedia. I am awaitng google's assistance. For now please be warned that if anything will be posted be my that seems strange I won't be me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MyMoloboaccount (talk • contribs)

Food power

Hello, Piotrus. You have new messages at Laurinavicius's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Politico media complex

Well, at this point in a normal GA I'd fail them for lack of response. What do you want to do? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you get them to start addressing my comments? I'd like to not run up against the deadline, and there's lots of work to do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Piotr,

Thank you for the heads up regarding the EU section, I will rewrite it within the next few days. Hope you had a good thanksgiving! Kmm131 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pax Tatarica

Hello Piotr. How can we redirect Pax Tatarica to the Pax Mongolica article? Also, a guest editor has made some additions to our article, see Personnel Exchanges during Pax Mongolica; however, the graphic added to the section seems to be a scan of page 6 from this book: [2] Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia by Thomas T. Allsen. What is to be done? --Gxlarson (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind on the re-direction. I just figured it out... --Gxlarson (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)