User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2010/April

Help desk - thnx
Hello LeadSongDog, just wanted to thank you for your input regarding cache/blank pages. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I hope it helped. User:LeadSongDog come howl  05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Please reference your articles. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's one reason I marked it as a stub. Still, most (if not all) of what is shown there is easily found by following the links provided in the article. Was there something specific in the article that you wished to challenge? User:LeadSongDog come howl  05:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Impressive, light-speed catch on the spelling change, re:potentiation. I'm familiar with the source you provide, but still don't see why it is spelled differently throughout the article. Jim Steele (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim. That article needs close watching, as it draws lots of POV pushers including one well known sock. I didn't provide that source, but it's the one cited (well, technically the glossary is on a separate page, but it is hosted at and linked from the cited source). If potentiation is also used, there should be a source for that usage too, but I suspect that is actually a distinct term, referring to an unrelated concept in neurochemistry, (akin to the charging of a fuel-cell) building up a voltage across the wall of a neuron prior to the firing of that neuron. User:LeadSongDog come howl  16:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right--it is a distinct term. I'm surprised with the diligence people monitor this article the two spelling differenced have never been an issue. Maybe they have, but I didn't see it in the archives. Some time ago I took a chance and posted on the talk page my concern that the introduction is too long. It seems that POV pushers from both sides locked horns and when the dust settled there was a bloated start to the article. But the responses from other editors showed I was out of my depth, as the article seems to be in the running with Sea of Japan in terms of contentiousness. I'll stay out of it, until I feel up to it.

Jim Steele (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

G&M
Hi, that looks much better and in that form there is no problem with adding it to the article. The way the reference was, was really too cryptic. If even somebody like me working in the biomedical field has no clue, then it will be even worse for the casual reader! Thanks for the education, I learned something :-) --Crusio (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Aviastar
Hi LeadSongDog -- While doing some other cleanup work I discovered just how extensively we've linked to Aviastar (around 500 links) and that as far as I can tell, they don't actually own a single thing they've put up on the site. Linking there opens us up to accusations of contributory copyright infringement at worst, and is unethical at the very least. I'll leave a note at WP:AIR. --Rlandmann (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So far, I've positively identified word-for-word plagiarism from Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, The Complete Book of Fighters, Jackson's The Encyclopedia of Aircraft, plus several books on helicopters. They do indeed name these sources in their bibliography, but in their fixed-wing section do not identify where they've plagiarised the text from. In the rotorcraft section, they thoughtfully tell us!
 * This goes far beyond citing sources; they are plagiarising these books word-for-word, which is what makes the site so problematic. Do you have some evidence that All the World's Aircraft has ever plagiarised anything? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than the fact that Jane's photos were never credited? I'm not sure about their recent practice, I'll have to check. Still, if you've found direct plagiarism at aviastar, the best approach would be blacklisting the site, not removal of the refs. That gives editors a chance to find the source aviastar have plagiarized and put the credit where due instead of simply making WP the plagiarist in lieu of aviastar. Got a plagiarized quote or two as examples? That would put an end to the discussion promptly. User:LeadSongDog come howl  21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a commercial venture, we can rely on the fact that Jane's does indeed secure the rights to what they print, whether they credit individual contributors or not (and many publishers, especially of periodicals, do not). We can rely on their legal team to have done their job. On the other hand, a self-published website carries no such assurances. Nevertheless, if you have any evidence to suggest that Jane's has ever used material illegally, then please present it, because it means we have a far bigger problem on our hands! :)
 * Per WP:BLACK, we can only blacklist the site after removing the existing links, and I agree that this is the logical next step.
 * A selection of plagiarised material, as requested:
 * Their entry on the Heinkel He 70 is copied word-for-word from Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, Volume 4 page 655 in the 1980 edition.
 * Their entry on the SNCAC NC 1080 is copied word-for-word from The Great Book of Fighters (also published as The Complete Book of Fighters) page 11.
 * Their entry on the Short Crusader (aka Short-Bristow Crusader) is copied word-for-word from Robert Jackson's The Encyclopedia of Aircraft page 452.
 * Remarkably, every entry in the site's "Rotorcraft" section not only lifts texts verbatim from published sources, but actually names the source. I guess these then aren't examples of plagiarism, but if Aviastar hasn't secured the rights to all this material from all the various publishers involved, it is certainly copyright infringement, which is the real issue here. Indeed, if they were only plagiarising public-domain works, we wouldn't have a problem. I'll switch to using "pirated" in my edit summaries instead, to clarify this.
 * Finally, we're fortunate in that the vast majority of links are only in the "External links" sections of articles. In other cases, wherever I've been able to identify the source, I've replaced the citation with a citation to the actual source of the pirated material (for example, in SNCAC NC 1080). In other instances, we've been fortunate that facts cited to aviastar either did not support the statement in the article at all (for example, First mid-air collision of airliners) or were referenced to both aviastar and another source (for example, Campbell MacKenzie-Richards). Of the material cited exclusively to aviastar, none (so far) has actually required a citation per WP:CITE ("material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations"). In these instances, I've let the material stand uncited rather than remove it entirely. Please feel free to review and to add "cn" tags anywhere that you feel is appropriate, or remove the material as unverified if you prefer. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's certainly pursuasive. If the track record doesn't suggest falsified content I'd just go for the cn rather than removing the content which we could (for now) presume to be accurately pirated, as distasteful as this might be. Could we add a hidden or talkpage note directing editors to an explanation? It would be helpful if they could somehow find the books listed at aviastar's bibliography in order to track down the legit book sources. Come to think of it, iirc simple lists are not copyrightable - we might be able to legitimately transcribe the bibliographic data itself, though not its exact format. Best to check on that first of course. Alternatively, temporarily whitelisting the specific page that hosts the bibliography would also serve the purpose. User:LeadSongDog come howl  13:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that the Estonian copyright law is pretty much standard for European jurisdictions, but with a 70 (vice 50) year duration from the author's death, or from publication in the case of anonymous/pseudonymous works. This WIPO page gives more details. User:LeadSongDog come howl  15:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea; an explanatory page at WP:AIR (or somewhere more central, if such a place exists) would definitely be more helpful. I'll implement that before I tackle the next batch and work out a way to direct readers to aviastar's bibliography. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS and yeah, nowhere have I found evidence of falsified (or even original!) content. If anything, the copies are of an extremely high standard. I am yet to detect a single transcription error of the kind that I'd expect from a transcription done by hand, nor any examples of the kinds of errors typical of OCR. However the material was taken from page to screen, it has been done meticulously! --Rlandmann (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Explanatory note now at WP:AVIASTAR. Needless to say, this discussion has really helped me to write that and (I hope!) to state the issues clearly, so thanks! Any improvements or clarifications to the text there are of course welcome. Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Twain
Hi there, I couldn't find a userpage of the other editor, so I'm addressing you, if you have a minute. I put in a reference in the infobox because there were many instances that there was confusion about basic facts, like page count, publishing year, publisher etc. Since the facsimiles are now on commons that works fine as well. However, I do think that it has added value if the text can be easily read in its original form. Downloading a 30-50MB book isn't exactly easy, nor for Wikipedia's bandwidth. Apparently you seem to have the final word on this? so I would like to exchange some thoughts with you on this! cheers mate, Magafuzula (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't know that one. Thanks for the info on the OCLC,Magafuzula (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the example on Is Shakespeare Dead?, but the only online version I can get through Worldcat is a simple text one. Perhaps it is my location, outside the US? (eg Google Books doesn't work here neither) I prefer a facsimile of the original first edition.Magafuzula (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and the last page of Is Shakespeare Dead? doesn't have a pagenumber, but belongs to the story as well: half a page of text, signing of by Mark Twain and "The End". So you actually corrected that erroneously. Magafuzula (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides
Eubulides has not edited Wikipedia in six weeks and I'm beginning to think he'll never come back. I'm just letting you know. You may want to ask your question to someone who'll give you a quicker response.  — Soap  —  17:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch! I certainly hope that isn't the case, it would be a huge loss for WP. Thank you for the advisement. LeadSongDog come howl  17:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)