Talk:Ernst-Heinrich Schmauser

Possible cut and pasting
Hey all, I think this edit might have been a cut and paste from another source. The text looks very familiar, I think I read it some time ago on another website, but can't recall which one. Anyone else recognize it? That's also a very large single edit, leading to the idea that it was copied from a preexisting document. If I'm wrong, sorry for the trouble. -OberRanks (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know it. User:Obenritter made the addition, so he should be able to answer any query you have. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I requested details. I think it might be a word-for-word translation from the German Wikipedia article. I am very unclear on the rules about this. Wikipedia generally frowns upon copying text from other websites due to Copyrights, but the alternate language websites are Wikipedia also. There is however WP:Plagiarism which might also come into play but which may also be offset by Copying within Wikipedia. Again, unclear about the guidance and policy. -OberRanks (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oberranks. This was a large single edit because I translated the German into English in its entirety just about before editing the page. This IS NOT copy and paste and your presumption that it was is highly offensive. So much so in fact, that I will no longer translate any more German for non-German speakers on Wikipedia. By the way, compare the German and English and you'll see there was additional research I added to strengthen the article. WOW. The nerve of some people. If you could have shown all of us where this came from, you're argument would have teeth but I personally translated this so I am profoundly offended --Obenritter (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OberRanks, I am not aware of any rule that says Wikipedia users cannot translate a Wikipedia article from one language into another language. Isn't that why we have an entire Translation system set up in the first place?  I am the one who requested of Obenritter to translate the article.  Perhaps you have viewed the content on a mirror site/another wiki? - Hoops gza (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I located this guideline which seems to relate to what we're discussing. -OberRanks (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I knew you would not apologize. Of course you don't need to apologize, slinging editorial mud with impunity is permissible.--Obenritter (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Yes - this discussion has everything to do with the article since you are claiming that it was likely plagiarized somehow. --Obenritter (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any editor has the right and obligation to ask another for clarification of copyright and source material. Sorry if you mis-understood the motives. -OberRanks (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowing the qualifications of a person conducting a translation is relevant (since you've deleted that). Qualifying the translation's accuracy/integrity in not being word-for-word as you implied, was pertinent, as was the fact that the German citations were rendered into a more recognizable English/American format, and the fact that there was additional research in the English language version that did not exist in the German version should have made it obvious that this was NOT plagiarized. There's a huge discrepancy between what you posited and the manner in which it was couched. Just because the edit is large does not imply plagiarism. --Obenritter (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tagged both the article and this talk page with the appropriate tags noting that translation was involved. I hope this resolves any problems. Sorry for any troubles I may have caused by not staying aware of translation policies. - Hoops gza (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hoops, that is fine. First, lets remember men why we are all here. Putting together information/articles for general readers. Part of the problem is in the fact, all communication is done by writing and none by talking; written words can be taken in different meanings and tone, at times. With that said, if work is copy edited and properly WP:RS cited from one Wikipedia article to another; there should be no problem with it being carried over, so to speak. So, cool down guys and carry on. Kierzek (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Guys, I was very surprised at the very wiki-violent response to a simple question about the copyright regs of foreign text. Due to the posting as well on my talk page, this sadly had to be forwarded to WP:ANI here.  I've removed the article from my watchlist and will step away from this issue.  I imagine Obenritter will be upset about the ANI, but conduct like what we just saw on Wikipedia is a one way road to blocking.  Out here. -OberRanks (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Obenritter, what you are saying above is all beside the point. Your additions have, ultimately, been legitimised, but not for the reasons you state here. The fact that your translation was not a slavish word-by-word one doesn't matter a bit – as an historian you ought to know perfectly well that plagiarism is still plagiarism if you change some details here and there; your text was definitely close enough to count as plagiarised. No, the only reason this was ultimately salvagable was the fact that the source text, as a Wikipedia page, was released under a free license, so you were allowed to copy it. However, please be aware that the Wikipedia license (CC-by-sa) requires source attribution, which you forgot to provide with your edit. That happens a lot, but techically it's still true: without that attribution, it objectively is plagiarism and a copyright violation; now that the attribution has been supplied, it's saved. Please keep this in mind for the next time, and stop berating other editors for legitimately pointing out your mistakes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of instructing me on how to properly attribute a translated text since I did not understand the issue and felt offended - the editor who raised the issue kept things vague and then escalated things to their current status. Heck - he/she could have actually made the correct attribution in accordance with Wikipedia and pointed me to it. Instead of constructive instruction, I was left offended. If you tell an academic they're plagiarising - what would you expect them to do? My mistake won't be repeated. Thanks for setting me straight.--Obenritter (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)