User talk:Auntieruth55/Archive 2

Thank you
As I read through the FAC list today, I noticed that you had given thoughtful reviews on several articles. Thank you for taking the time to provide constructive help to the nominators; your comments were also very useful to me in determining which articles should be promoted/archived today. I hope we see you at FAC quite often! Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. I had an article for nomination last month, and only 2 people read it, and JN told me that they are always in need of reviewers.  I had been reviewing the GA nominations, but I thought one had to be invited to review the FACs.  Glad to help.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Unification of Germany for FA
Did we succeed? I can't find the page with the results of the 'voting'! --Bermicourt (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * here it is it looks like no decision yet....Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on the promotion of the article. Thanks for all the hard work you put into it (including all my niggling little concerns about alt text). It is appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Image size and caption
Can you please supply a specific diff showing what you tried to do, and explain what is wrong with the result? I expect that the problem is that somebody replaced "thumb" with something like "300px" (which does not work; the replacement must be "thumb|300px" instead), but I'd like to see the exact problem. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, thumb waas taken out. I've got it now.

THANKS!!!! Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cologne map
Sure will do. Are you sure this is the best map to be using? I was wondering if maybe a modern map would be more accurate. I guess the rivers have changed course by now... But the locations would be the same. Of course now I'm half way through tracing the rivers ;) TastyCakes (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * the problem with a modern map is that the Electorate of Cologne disappeared as a polity in 1803. The map I've given you is more or less accurate (as far as the Dutch were concerned, at least) as of 1580.  If you can think of a better way to do this, tell me.  I'll look at any number of possibilities.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Mölders-letter
Thanks again for all your help. I just recently added another section called "Mölders-letter". If you find time please have another look. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Interesting. I've reorganized some of this.  If they quibble on the statement I added about his career illustrating the problems of post-war integration of NS regime heroes, I can produce a source.  I've also reorganized and retitled some of the sections in that big section.  What is the status of this "controversy?"  That would make a good conclusion.  16:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I broke the long paragraph in the lead up, makes it a bit easier to read. Changed dates of rank to Promotions.  Otherwise, it looks really good.  What doyou think?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed it looks very good! Could you have a look at the first sentence in the "legacy" section again. To me this sentence reads odd. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Caracciola
Hi. I've responded to your review. I apologise if I seem a little adversarial, I have attempted to explain as clearly as possible when I don't agree with your critique, and I really appreciate the time you took to scour the article in order to improve it. BTW, good work with Otto Merz; when I was writing RC's article I was surprised to see that it was a redlink, and he certainly deserves to have an article. Aptery gial  04:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I left comments for you on the FAC page. You didn't seem adversarial. I know absolutely nothing about racing (strange, then, that I would write about Otto Merz, eh?  but I reviewed for GA a different article or list and realized it was missing.  Merz led to the Drehers....sigh).  Just to make a small point, when several of your reviewers stumble on the same sentence, you've probably got a problem with the sentence, or there is something wrong in how it's put together.  The two major points to think about on that article, then, are the statements about racing and class (at least 2 of us thought it was redundant, and I think another person had a question about the second statement), and the bit about the cast.  You know the adage, right, if one person says, you could ignore, but if several...  Anyway, just my two cents worth.  You might focus the bit about the prince differently, and leave out the earlier mention of class and status.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken on the multiple reviewer issue, but I couldn't help but notice that the three reviewers having problems with it are American (I think you are American, apologies if I am wrong), while my Australian self and my British friend are confused at what the problem is. Perhaps it is a regional thing, but you can understand why I'm hesitant to change a sentence that half of the English speaking world can't understand so the other half can't. Aptery  gial  00:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is most definitely a colloquial thing. But seems to me if half of the English speaking world has trouble with it (despite the fact that the other half doesn't), certainly you can find a way of saying it that 90% of the English speaking world readily understands...?  The point is not to get into it over our regional colloquialisms, but to make something that is readily understood.  I wouldn't want to lose half my audience (or give them the giggles).  I happen to have several British colleagues, and we are constantly in some kind of hysterical giggles over each other's colloquialism, and the misunderstandings we get into.  It took me a while to get the grasp of "one off."  It took them a while to figure out "prit-nar"   Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And yes, I am an American.
 * Sorry, now I'm desperate to know what "prit-nar" is. By the way, this plaster thing, it's not that I don't want to change it so more people can understand it, I'm just having trouble identifying the problem to fix. Aptery  gial  00:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "prit-nar" is pretty near, as in close. Have you hear yinz?

okay, the problem is this. you say his injuries are in a plaster (cast). It sounds like his injuries have been separated from him. Like they were taken out and stuck in a jar. His injuries per se are not in a plaster or a cast, his injured hip is. The issue (at least now, after it's been qualified somewhat with the addition of "cast) isn't that you call whatever was put around his injuries "a plaster," although I always think of that as what we call a band-aide, the sticky thing one puts on a paper cut. How about saying, he was incapacitated by his injuries and remained in a plaster cast for several months.  Or just, he was in a plaster cast for several months. Or he had a shattered hip, and remained in a plaster cast for several months. A typical americanism would be "he was laid up for several months" but that really isn't proper English on any side of the Atlantic or Pacific.   Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. As I said on the FAC page, I find the image of someone in a plaster cast pretty hilarious, as you don't put the person in it (at least not the whole person), you put the bits that need mending in it (i.e., the injuries). So that's the problem, and we need a solution so that one set of people don't think his leg was chopped off the and the other set don't think his whole body was put in a giant piece of plaster... She'll be apples, Aptery  gial  00:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * well, I'll leave that to you (the solution, I mean). she'll be apples?  hmmm :)  yes, what does it mean?  Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * she'll be apples. I'll think about a solution. Aptery  gial  01:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! And congratulations are due for Unification of Germany as well. It took me ages to do all the research for Caracciola's article, I can can only imagine the huge amount of effort you put into Unification of Germany (that source list is incredible). 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ummmmm :) yes, it took a while. And there were two FAC attempts, in which we endeavored to solve a variety of world problems. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Walter Nowotny
A while ago I re-wrote the article about Walter Nowotny adding many details about his life. Maybe if you have time and are at least a little interested in the subject you may want to visit the article and tell me what you think/copy edit if you want. Maybe it can evolve to FAC quality too? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * will do. at first glance, it looked good, not too many problems. I need to work on my own dissertation this week, and I'm hoping for a positive A review on Hermann Detzner (take a look!) (interesting guy). And I'm still waiting on Unification of Germany.  Question, are you interested in the Cologne War (1583-1588)?  I'm looking for someone to collaborate on several of the battles.  Sources are mostly in German, so that makes it a problem for some (but not for you).  Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Unification of Germany
Hi, Auntieruth -- I saw that you got your star! Congratulations! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, and thank you very much for your advice and assistance! Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Johann Flierl
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Johann Flierl, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A080550b.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Johann Flierl
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Johann Flierl, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A080550b.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Johann Flierl and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain'' leave a note at Talk:Johann Flierl with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA, and note that you have done so on Talk:Johann Flierl. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Johann Flierl saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! MLauba (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Very confused
I cut and pasted what was left on my own computer (from last night), into the temp page. I really don't see how this is a copyright violation. Would you run your bot on it again and confirm this, because it seems unbelievable to me. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem comes with your use of copy / pasted material. This is governed by WP:NFC, which states:
 * And here lies the problem. The article combines straight copy / pasting of text which does not serve to illustrate a point (but save on original writing), and what is called "Close paraphrase" (see WP:close paraphrasing for an explanation of that), in other words, reusing the source material and just rearranging it a bit or using synonyms.
 * The problem with the latter is that when you start with copy / pasted material and then rework it, the result is often something that, to your eyes, and in the best faith (which I absolutely do not doubt), is 100% original. Yet to the outside reviewer, the source is easily recognizable.
 * Let me give you an example or two.
 * Let me give you an example or two.

Compare with
 * In this example, most of the text is found verbatim in the source, only some of the more "fluffy" descriptive text has been left out.
 * Another example:
 * That compares with
 * Here you have some copy / pasted material as well as some close paraphrasing.
 * The real problem is that first, there is no compelling reason to use material from the source verbatim. And second, since it isn't actually directly identified as a verbatim quote, next time another editor comes and starts modifying the text, or thinks the source isn't really all that good and removes the reference cite (which is in fact attribution), the copyright violation worsens.
 * That's why in almost any case, there is both no compelling reason but also a clear danger to using the copy / paste function in the edit window in the first place.
 * What you should do is to read two or more different sources and then write a synthesis of these sources, using your own words, that's the only way to avoid the problem.
 * Now considering the amount of supporting sources you referenced, I'm assuming you have access to them, so writing a synthesis of Flierl's life by combining what you learned from them should be "relatively" easy. If you want, I can help get you started on a rewrite.
 * Hope that clarifies.
 * Best, MLauba (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, I have a lot of sources, and I don't need any help. I'll just make a very short article out of what I have. and put it back up.  I don't think that quote and mine are near the same.  They cover the same material, yes, but not in the same order, there is different information included it the paragraph, from different sources, and the wording is different.  Just because material is included in the same order doesn't mean it is copied.  And I think that my article includes a LOT more material than the one in the biography dictionary. A lot more.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, the danger with copy / pasting and then paraphrasing is that when you do that, you are absolutely convinced that you created original material, and I do not doubt your good faith even one second on this. The outsider however recognizes the source clear as day, and that's what has happened here. And BTW, the order in which copyrighted content appears isn't really relevant, legal precedent in the US (where the en-wiki servers are located) has clearly established that even paraphrased and rearranged content can (and has been) actionned in the past.
 * As your communication here demonstrates, you absolutely have the necessary writing skills and I'm fully confident that the next go will be 100% your creation. Best of luck, and again, if I can be of assistance, let me know. Cheers, MLauba (talk)
 * yes, I have a lot of sources, and I don't need any help. I'll just make a very short article out of what I have. and put it back up.  I don't think that quote and mine are near the same.  They cover the same material, yes, but not in the same order, there is different information included it the paragraph, from different sources, and the wording is different.  Just because material is included in the same order doesn't mean it is copied.  And I think that my article includes a LOT more material than the one in the biography dictionary. A lot more.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, the danger with copy / pasting and then paraphrasing is that when you do that, you are absolutely convinced that you created original material, and I do not doubt your good faith even one second on this. The outsider however recognizes the source clear as day, and that's what has happened here. And BTW, the order in which copyrighted content appears isn't really relevant, legal precedent in the US (where the en-wiki servers are located) has clearly established that even paraphrased and rearranged content can (and has been) actionned in the past.
 * As your communication here demonstrates, you absolutely have the necessary writing skills and I'm fully confident that the next go will be 100% your creation. Best of luck, and again, if I can be of assistance, let me know. Cheers, MLauba (talk)

how else does one say "son of Johann Konrad Flierl, a farmer, and his wife, Kunigunda, née Dannhauser" .... and did you look at the copy I posted last night (a second copy is posted on the temp page? Because I'm not finding some of your text in there.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To briefly answer this specific question: "JF was born to the farmer Johan Konrad Flierl in year at place" for instance. Or "The son of a Bavarian farmer, JF was born in place at date". Even such very short statements can be formulated several ways. MLauba (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

next step?
I have reworked the article on the the temp page and changed nearly every sentence, plus added some other material I had collected. Is it okay to paste this over the regular page, or whatever should happen? The notice says not to edit anything (except the temp page) without administrator permission. Presumably you are an administrator....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Had a look, it's all good. I'm no admin myself, so best way forward: simply copy the content of the temp space over what's there, I'll place a template tomorrow to get an admin to remove the initially infringing text from the article's history whenever they have time and we're all set. Good job. MLauba (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, did that, but I did not try to copy over the big bad black template. Not sure what to do about that. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)