User talk:AgadaUrbanit/Archives/2011/March

Close paraphrasing

Hello. Please do not add close paraphrasing of other content to Wikipedia articles as you did in this edit and this edit. Even though it isn't "full-on" plagiarism, it is still considered a violation of its author's copyright. Thank you. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 00:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for head ups. I see what you mean, maybe you can help to improve the content per provided source. How would you summarize the source's position in your own words? I'm not an expert on copyright, but after consulting with WP:INTEXT, maybe using in-text attribution would resolve inadvertent plagiarism, something like "According NYT Critics' Pick Miyazaki technique ... ". This would helps to orient the reader as to where the position is coming from. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how I would summarize the source's position. Maybe some sort quotes from the source? And as far as the theme goes, one could simply use put the main ideas of the Themes section of the article into the lead. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess there were couple of points based on the provided source:

1. theme ... dislocation ...
2. about plot ... leaving old friends and school behind ...
3. about Miyazaki's technique ... child's primal wish, transporting kids to a fantasy world they cannot escape ...
4. about Viewer's experience ... phantasmagoric and shifting morality of dreams, fascinating and frightening aspect of having something that seems to represent good become evil ...

Using reliable sources backed content would only improve the quality of the article. Thank you for your thoughts. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoah, whoah, whoah, I did not mean you should revert my edits. Yes, the information is sourced, but it's closely paraphrased. Close paraphrasing, especially when it uses the author's own words borders on copyright infringement. Either use your own words or don't reinstate the text. Thank you. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

LoL ;) It appears as communication break down. I understand your point, though I'm not convinced it is a pressing one, you also don't define this as "full-on" plagiarism but as close paraphrasing. We have inline citation, to inform the reader where this information is coming from. With that your concern about author's intellectual properties is a valid one and I share it. Strangely as far as Wikipedia style goes, we should MOS:FOLLOW source's terminology. I think we're lucky that you review the article and invested some of your time into reading the source. English is not my first language, and I welcome your help in rephrasing. I already told you I have no problem also with attribution or direct quote. If you don't have time to summarize the source's position in your own words, maybe some other editor would peak up the glove of improving the article. Bottom line is I'm not sure removal is the right approach here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you placed the text in the article, it's your job to make sure it's not a copyvio. And it is a copyvio if you use the author's words. Citing a source just says that you read it. Please read WP:PARAPHRASE.

Also, you misread MOS:FOLLOW. The page says to follow a sources' conventions on proper names, etc., not to use the source's words. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm pretty happy with current article status. I've noticed you have removed with family when source says with parents. Now we're copy-vio safe ;) Anyway, maybe you should assume good faith more and to remember that Wiki editing is about collaboration. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maps

please discuss any changes you want to make on the articles talkpage and get consensus if you want to change it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reminder. Since I've initiated the discussion I know it is there and I'm watching it. Please give me some time to formulate my thoughts. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I support a centralized discussion, but the original CIA map at the GH article there was never any consensus to remove, your map is basically showing the same thing as the edited map, and even worse as it also has inaccurate lines, so please before mass changes, discuss it and reach agreement first. Same thing for the location maps at the other GH articles. It is following the IC view, if you want to change it, discuss this first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in, responded on the article talk page. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For Golan heights I would not be opposed to having both a Syria map and the Golan Heights pin map. It has its use.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep on adding the location map into articles?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

SD, I have already explained you on the article talk page, it allows addition of skyline image, like File:Overlooking_Ghajar.jpg in Ghajar for instance. I'm a little bit surprised though, after number of your reverts, the location template map have received at least your grudging acceptance here. Thank you for noticing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because you left a comment about your pov at the talkpage does not suddenly establish a consensus for the map you want. And just because I dident remove your map doesn't mean that I agree with it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Establishing consensus I do on the article talk page. I'm going to sleep, talk to you soon. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Gyro vs. shawarma vs. doner kebab

Thanks for contributing the Reliable Sources to this discussion. I've copied one I had previously mentioned into that section. --Macrakis (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering which Oxford Symposium source you were referring to, thank you for copying. It appears reliable sources agree on merge point, this is basically the same food. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Carthago delenda est

When reverting your edit, I didn't look at the source at all -- I looked at the fact that you had changed the translation to "Carthage is destroyed", which is simply wrong in the article context. AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

You're welcomed to the ongoing discussion at that article. GoodDay (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've argued for the usage of 'constituent country' for years, but to no avail. There's some editors who refuse to use anything but country for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland & England. This stance is also why some have rejected my current article-content proposals. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Lazy evaluation

[1] Using a sledgehammer where a scalpel is necessary? —Ruud 20:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not object refining. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN: Five-Year Plans of the People's Republic of China

-- tariqabjotu 21:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)