Talk:John Tylney, 2nd Earl Tylney

Copyvio
This text: "In March 1750, John Child, now John Tylney, succeeded to the title of Earl of Tylney and inherited, among other properties, Wanstead House. He was nicknamed "the bachelor Earl Tylney". He lived lavishly at Wanstead House, and his homosexuality was an open secret. When he was found "in flagrante delicto" with a male servant he was forced to leave England. In February 1764, Tylney was in Italy. Later he settled in Naples and became an art collector, mostly to enrich Wanstead House, all pieces were sent back to England; among them there were paintings by Casali and Rembrandt and three bronze statues retrieved from the ruin of Hercolanus." is not a copyvio of the text you find at (which I do not copy to avoid problem) and that I used as a reference. "the bachelor Earl Tylney" and "in flagrante delicto" are quoted. Are you contesting male servant? or open secret? paintings by? bronze statues? two consecutive words are not copyvio. The text has been paraphrased. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, here we go again – appears still to be incapable of recognising what is, and what is not, copyright violation. Here's an example of the problems here:


 * This is clearly copied directly from the source, with a few words changed ("the ruin of Herculanus"? what's that?). It is not even minimally conceivable that the editor could have thought up the phrase "in flagrante delicto with a male servant" and that by sheer co-incidence it should also be found in the book. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the reason why I did not want to recreate the article myself. Apparently I'm not able to understand the paraphrasing concept. I changed it even more. BTW the article was recreated by Fram to allow me (and not someone else) expand it. But as I said, I knew that was a bad idea, and therefore please, I kindly ask to stop here this topic. I will go back to avoid creating/recreating articles. Thank you. Elisa.rolle (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK,, I'll leave this where it is for now (I was about to take it to WP:ANI); but do please take your own (very sound) advice. Please understand this: there is no "paraphrasing concept" – we don't "paraphrase" our sources, but write new content in our own words; that content can contain and express the facts and ideas of the source, but must not contain the form of expression, the way those facts and ideas are presented, the language used. Please also note that copyright material must be removed, not re-phrased. It is never enough just to change a few words, as this may simply create a WP:derivative work. I have again removed your additions to the page for that reason. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've revision deleted the violating content. Justlettersandnumbers, I understand completely that you're doing everything here for the good of the project, but I think directly accusing Elisa of incompetence isn't likely to get her on your side and help fix the issues; it might have been better to just tone it down and say "I'm sorry, but in my opinion there is still too much close paraphrasing here that could cause legal issues if left unresolved". Just my 2c. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, yes,, normally I often would do just that. However, this is an editor who has twice been indeffed for copyvio, has twice been unblocked on condition that she be more careful about copyright violation, and is nevertheless still infringing copyrights. You'll have seen that after I removed the copyvio the first time, she reverted my edits – an unwise move for any editor and a completely reckless one for someone in her situation. I wrote "here we go again" because I have already discussed this with her at length (please see Talk:Mary Farhill, which I can't see because it has been revdeleted in error) but without managing to convince her that this actually matters, any more than have the various admins who have blocked and unblocked her. I am marginally encouraged by her recognition that she is "not able to understand the paraphrasing concept", but I'd really like to see some recognition that there is no "paraphrasing concept". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Image
In reverting the page I have removed this image, which had the caption "British Gentlemen at Sir Horace Mann's Home in Florence (circa 1765), including John Tylney, 2nd Earl Tylney; Currently at the Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection". What is the source for the statement that Tynley is shown here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * it was in the original text, but I didn't reinstate the source when I rewrote the article. It's there now: --Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And what reliable source is that based on? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * this is the RS the "friends of Wanstead Park" have probably based their claim on. I only have the Google snippet, so I can't guarantee 100% that the image discussed in the snippet and the image in the article are the same, but it is 99% certain this way. Fram (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)