Talk:American Association of Zoo Keepers

Copyvio (July 2010)
I've done essentially the same thing as for this article (read the web site an summarize) on many others and have not seen this to date. The bot is pointing to a site I had never seen, but which is a local chapter of the vc organization, and that web site (along with several other chapter web sites I looked at after this message) basically did a straight copy for the parts I summarized. I have made some additional changes since the bot marked this, but I am going to leave the tag in the hopes that a more experienced editor can either tell me what I did wrong, or that the bot is wrong. One statement the bot makes is true. There is no extra information in the article that is not on the web site it points to. I don't personally see how this is relevant for stub articles (by definition they need to be expanded), but that may be part of why the warning was triggered. Also, there are a number of "lists" (organizational goals, strategies, and publications, for instance) which as far as I know I can't realloy do much with except maybe rearrange them.

Also, it would be great if this bot could somehow be triggered "manually" to re-test, or to test older articles (I've rewritten several that were obvious copy and paste). Donlammers (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked over it and from what I could tell, what you had at the beginning was a close paraphrase of a copy of the source that CorenSearchBot located. Summaries are tricky to do while retaining all of the information if you're only working from one source, because it's easy to get carried into copying short phrases which contain the non-copyrightable facts and numbers or presenting them in the same creative manner. That said, after your rewrite it appears to no longer be a problem, so good job! As far as triggering it manually, just put a wikilink to an article at User:CorenSearchBot/manual and it will run it for you. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree about the difficulty of single-sourcing. I've been looking for other sources, but they all seem to be copies or very close paraphrases of the original that I was looking at. I'll keep looking so I can hopefully expand the article with other information. Donlammers (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I just took a quick look too and didn't see much. There are lots of hits in Google news and Google scholar, but it would probably require a lot of digging to find anything relevant. Good luck. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)