User talk:Esobczak

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Esobczak, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to International Association for Pattern Recognition has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Dissident Aggressor 15:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

February 2015
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Venugopal Govindaraju a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. MadGuy7023 (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There are some more basic issues here. What you wrote there amounts to a piece of puffery; with edits such as this one you added peacock terms not supported by reliable third-party sources. The lack of such independent sources is a problem throughout the article, which is largely based on either statistics that you then interpret on your own, and on sources affiliated with Govindaraju. Consider for comparison this claim: "In only two of his 17 most significant papers he collaborated with someone whom he had not previously advised as a PhD student." That claim appears true if we accept the list of "impactful papers" (which does not come with a reliable source measuring impact), but it puts an entirely different spin on the basic facts. Giving the facts such a spin is not acceptable (and neither is it when you are doing it to give a positive spin). You may want to take a look at our guidelines on conflicts of interest, on the use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources and on original synthesis. Wikipedia content should be based on what reliable, independent sources have written about Govindaraju, not on our own interpretation of list entries and search results nor on his own CV or his own writings. If you work for Govindaraju's department and edit Wikipedia as part of your job, you may also want to check out the Terms of Use that govern paid editing on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)