Talk:Coal gasification

Copyright problem: Coal gasification
There is a discussion about potential copyright issues with this article. Beagel (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Beagel It's totally incorrect and inappropriate to direct people to discuss a copyvio issue on your private user page. The template clearly directs people to discuss it at the copyright investigation page Copyright_problems/2014_August_6 for very good reasons.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Echoing User:Beagel, User:Wuerzele. I'm quite sure the website mentioned in the copyright investigation page, that is, Ascentrustllc , copied from WP, not the other way around. It happens a lot - Template:Backwardscopy is linked in 954 places. . I've been caught out on this myself.

Evidence. The company says it was established in 2009 so it's quite unlikely that they published a website on this topic before then. WP articles on the topics existed before then.

There is a Wikimedia Labs tool called Duplication Detector that can be used to compare the text in two urls. A comparison between the December 2008 version of Coal gas and the earliest Internet Archived version of the ascentllc website, which dates to February 2014 , shows considerable duplication. 

Because I think there is a strong presumption that the company's first published page on this topic appeared in 2014, based on its first appearance in the Internet Archive then, here's a Dupe Detector comparison between Coal gasification as of December 2013 and the company article's first appearance in the Internet Archive as of February 2014. . Again, a lot of duplication. Regards, Novickas (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Novickas, I had considered that. I see you are rel new to WP, good work. I have to tell you though, you should have posted this on the copyright investigation page Copyright_problems/2014_August_6 for transparency, and not here. Because Beagel incorrectly directed people to his talk page, there are now 3 pages dealing with this, which means no other sane person will join the discussion. I hope, this wasnt intentional. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out the page where concerns were described. It would be useful if this link had been provided here at the first stage. It seems a clear backwardscopy case. Beagel (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just some more evidence about backwardcopying. ascentrustllc.com website includes a section called 'Carbon capture technology' with same subsections as this article here. But here it was added only on 6 August 2013 by user:Ehrucyll by this edit. It is possible, of course, that four years (or even more as four years before that the text was moved from one article to another and not created) after the first accused copyvio happened, a different user copied here the missing part from that particular page (and not copy, but at first copying text with some differences which they correct afterwards one-by-one). But it is highly theoretical. It is also very unlikely that when this article was created by split from three different articles only copyvio text was split, and even more, put at the same order as it was in this so-called "source". Beagel (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The following is copied from User talk:Beagel, who kept the discussion on his private page.

 * Thank you for your notice, Wurzele. However, if you would look the edit summary of my first edit at that article (it says: "spin-off from the coal article"), as also the template at the top of the Coal gasification talk page (the template says: "Material included in the associated project or article page was split from Coal on 14 June 2009. The page history of that page now serves as the attribution history for the contents of the associated project or article page."), you would see that I am not the author of that text. Therefore, using that kind of notice template at my talk page as you used is not justified. About content, it would be useful if you could explain at the article's talk page what text exactly and from which source is copyvio. Thank you very much. Beagel (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Beagel it appears you didnt look at the Coal gasification copyvio flag before writing this. Please read it.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You marked that article with Copyvio. To investigate potential copyright issues you have to compare the text with sources. That template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes). This was not done. There is also no explanation at the talk page. I checked the lead and find a number of websites containing the same text. However, all these websites were derivatives of wiki or sites mirroring this article and not vice versa. Without providing sources of copyvio I do not intend to spend more time with this issue. My second question was if this template applies to the whole article (as it does now) or any specific section. Right now there are 32 references and I don't think that all of them are violation of copyrights. Unfortunately you did not answered these questions.
 * I also advice to spot the person who originally added that text which you think is copyvio (as I don't know what you think I can't do it myself) to Coal from which article it was split, and notify them. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to correct myself. It seems that the problematic part (if I assume correctly what the editor who tagged that article means) is originating from Coal gas. It may originate even from Town gas which was merged into Coal gas in 2007. Beagel (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank to the post at the article's talk by other user page I find out what the problem is. Unfortunately this link was never mentioned at my talk page or originally at the article's page. I would help if this has been provided instead of newcomer's welcome messages. As of content, it would be better to be discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * , for someone who screwed up so big by copying heaps of completely unreferenced material -and so many times on the WP articles that you appear to chief edit- these are enough accusations, "advice" and other negative comments. You ignore absolutely basic netiquette: addressing users by name (so it lands in their message box). You are being addressed, but dont appear to return the favor of using the . It also keeps discussions clearer, when someone else answers in between, but this seems none of your concern.
 * the coal gasification page tag contains all the info you needed to comprehend and work productively on the issues. You also didnt carefully read my remark on Copyright_problems/2014_August_6
 * the process of tagging for copyvio PRESCRIBES to put this template ("courtesy" message) on the user's page that one finds having introduced potential copyvio material to the article page. I didnt choose a "welcome message" so dont complain.
 * the place, where discussions should take place per the copyvio flag, is not up to you, or on your private talk page, but a special neutral space as indicated on the flag Copyright_problems/2014_August_6 (for good reasons, also protected from blanking whenever a user likes to).
 * The accusation of not filling in as "the template requires that sources are included (there is a specific parameter 'url=' for this purposes)-it is at the proper page..." is incorrect, and you did realize it, since you posted on "the "proper" page (above)already but you didnt admit the error or apologize for your accusation.
 * As far as "I do not intend to spend more time with this issue" (which is rather arrogant): you wont have a choice.
 * As far as glossing-over-the-problem remark above "That issue has been discussed and explained" you will have to get down and humbly discuss the issues (plural, not singular)) I brought up. The issue of copyvio may have been mechanicallyexplained as backward copy by, thanks (whom you finally saw a chance to answer) but lets see what others at the copyvio page think - you dont judge about yourself and its not in your power to call it quits ; But the issue of introducing completely unsourced material hasn't been discussed at all. You of all people (bringing pages to GA status ?) should know better plus take the responsibility for your actions. instead you chastize me. you cant expect for someone to go back to Adam and Eve to find the original author of this. I see you tried, but only after the fact of advising me to find the "proper author".
 * I'd appreciate if you stop kneejerk accusations, fault finding, erroneous advice and instead apologize, admit your errors and be productive. I am especially troubled to have frequently seen you judge harshly, but obviously use a double standard, when it comes to yourself. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would kindly request to remove the text copied from my talk page as it does not discuss potential copyright issues related to that article or how to improve it and therefore does not belong here. These (incorrect) accusations against me will be answered on my talk page. Beagel (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello,, the text does belong here, for the above reasons, huge WP:plagiarism issue. you just dont copy uncited material, ok? And: pLease learn basics WP stuff, like how to ping people, otherwise you might continue to talk to yourself (as above). --Wuerzele (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Required attribution to DOE
A series of substantial edits in 2013 seems to have introduced content from US government websites. For example, this has content from. This has content duplicated at.

I checked to see if the copying here was reverse as well - it does happen - but this suggests not:
 * Content added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coal_gasification&diff=prev&oldid=564823632 at 18:26, 18 July 2013 includes the following:
 * "The plant site is located in a predominantly rural area on the Wabash River outside of West Terre Haute, Indiana. PSI’s Wabash River Station was originally a mine mouth plant, and most of the new facility is built over land which was previously shaft-mined in the early 20th century. The site is bounded by the Wabash River to the east, woodlands and agricultural areas, a reclaimed strip mine, and residential areas 0.2 miles to the southeast and 1.5 miles to the north. Downtown Terre Haute is about eight miles south and there are no nearby wilderness areas or national or state parks."
 * This content, with other content added in that edit, is found at http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/wabash.
 * Some of the text was removed less than 10 minutes later at 18:33, 18 July 2013.
 * This would have given the external site a very narrow window to copy that content.

For that reason, it seems pretty clear that the content was copied from these government pages, and more than just identified above. Wikipedia permits copying of public domain and compatibly licensed resources but requires full attribution, including acknowledgement of copying. Please see Plagiarism. I have added a general attribution template - Department of Energy - but it is more within keeping with Wikipedia's policies to attribute specifically the pages from which content is copied than to generally reference it in this way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Syngas
This article is littered with references to syngas production, which seems to be off topic and the worthy of of its own article. Syngas seems to be regionally specific- and not a term I encountered when teaching the topic 40 years ago in the UK. It is hardly surprising that the article has few references. Coal gas (town gas) seems to have alternative definitions now too. There appear to be other articles that overlap, so perhaps a way forward is to cull back the duplication, and abandon the intention to be all things to all men. My interest is with Gasholder No 8 at Kings Cross, but any mislinking of Manchester articles grabs my attention. A new starting reference may be The_History_of_the_Gasholder. I am alone here? Opinions please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClemRutter (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you Sinebot.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)