Talk:Ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified peptides

Contested deletion
I'd like to contest the deletion of this page due to copyright infringement. I'm not sure why the page flagged the Duplicate Detector.

Structurally, the article is quite distinct from either of the cited articles, which are reviews in the same field. This article was written independently of the two articles and is not a simple adaptation or translation. I think this is apparent from the comparison of the table of contents of the two cited articles and the deleted article.

One of the articles (which is heavily cited in the main text) is a universal nomenclature review from the field--I suspect that this is why the Duplicate Detector was being flagged. Looking at the Duplicate Detector Report nearly all of the flagged issues are 3 word phrases that are phrased in the scientifically correct way--but since they are multiple word phrases, maybe it is being interpreted as plagiarism?

Example:

Another example:

I think it is difficult to even call the above "close paraphrasing". The terminology in the field is quite often this way. I think that the Duplicate Detector flagging is here just situationally overzealous.

In fact, the longest matched phrase is simply the title of one of the review articles cited:

This appears in the citation list and is simply a result of accurately citing the article in question.

Additionally, all the figures included in the deleted article were made independently, from scratch--no copyrighted figures were reproduced or repurposed.

In short, I believe that this article does not merit deletion. If someone would like to address this (perhaps I am missing something or could clarify further) I'd greatly appreciatei it.

Thanks! --Harmonslide (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Please can an admin check this before deleting as a copyright infringement? I looked at it, and the copyvio %ages were over 80% and about 65% to the 2 pages I listed, and there were a lot of phrases that were exactly identical. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Joseph2302; thanks for the quick reply. Would you mind posting the reports that give these high copyright percentages? I'm very concerned that it would show that high. I believe that to be an issue with the software if so; when you read the three to compare, I'm surprised you didn't note this. Thanks! Harmonslide (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * They're and [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=User:Harmonslide/sandbox&url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2975598/&oldid=666099596, with and  showing the copied phrases. Having looked more closely, the identical phrases are just names of things- looks like it was just an oversensitive bot, should have checked more closely the first time. I've reinstated the article now, sorry for the confusion. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good to hear it was just an oversensitive detector. I suspect this is not an uncommon problem in scientific articles. Do I need to submit this again for review or is it back in the queue? Harmonslide (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's back in the queue- I reverted myself, so that added the review tag back. Unfortunately I have 0 subject knowledge in this area, so I cannot review it myself. Best of luck though, if you wish you can continue editing it whilst waiting for a review. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Proteusins
I corrected the part about proteusins, because there was a wrong discrimination about ptoteusins and polytheonamides. It's clear, if you read the cited article: "Polytheonamides are likely the first char- acterized members of such a family for which we propose the name proteusins (from Proteus, a Greek shape-shifting sea god)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunya9 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)