User talk:Topcipher/Archives/2017/May

Copying text
Dear Topcipher, all of your additions to the Schadenfreude article were copied verbatim from academic articles (not even paraphrased). Even though they were footnoted, extensive copying (or even quoting) violates our rules about copying text from other sources. I have removed all this text. I noticed the same problem in your contributions to the Pain psychology article, and have removed that text as well.

Could you please remove any such materials from other articles you've contributed to, and review our policies WP:Copy-paste, WP:PLAGIARISM, and WP:COPYVIO before contributing any additional material to articles? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, you might want to review Identifying reliable sources for general background, and Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for medical research. Though psychology isn't a biological science, similar rules should apply: a single article presenting the results of an experiment is not a reliable secondary source. --Macrakis (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

14:54:11, 9 May 2017 review of submission by 12.30.158.140
Hi Topcipher-I'd like to clarify your reasons for rejection and ask you to re-review our posting. We own TCOMConversations.org and drafted the communimetrics post as an overview for the theory to share with our readers. 12.30.158.140 (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

NPP
Please do not use AWB to patrol and tag new pages. That's not what it's for. If you wish to patrol pages please do it properly - apply  for the New Page Reviewer Right and use the Page Curation tools. Read the tutorial first, and remember to inform the creators of your tags. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

brief articles
The articles on scientists you have been creating are excessively brief, and you need to flesh them out at least a little. The basic way is to find their university web page, or even better their formal CV, and use this to fill in their biographical data: birth, schools and degrees with dates, thesis title and advisor, (checking to see if the advisor is notable), and chronological list of positions. Check for additional major honors, especially visiting professorships and national level prizes. Then a few of the most cited publications should be added, using either Google Scholar or the commercial databases Scopus and Web of Science.

Although the bare information you have added is generally considered enough to show them notable, other editors have been very strongly criticized to not making such articles more substantial. If the articles should be challenged, then someone will need to improve them--it's really your responsibility. Naturally, thismeans going considerably slower. After many years of experience here, I myself rarely work on more than a few articles a day.  DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

15:10:54, 3 May 2017 review of submission by 216.255.101.59
Hi, we'd updated the info as you'd requested. The article you were referring to actually quotes the band's original biography (seen here: http://conversingwithoceans.tumblr.com/about).

Thanks!

02:36:15, 11 May 2017 review of submission by Pyrocatch
The text which matches at http://www.mdarc.org/resources/regulations/line-a-line-c is itself copied verbatim from the text in official government sources, such as on the page at http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/canline/ which is included in the "external links" section of this article draft and is a work of the US Federal Government and not subject to copyright. The text itself is taken from Title 47 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (47 CFR 2.1(c) "Terms and Definitions") which is a also work of the Federal Government and not subject to copyright.

Is there something I should to do to clarify this in the submission process?

15:16:17, 16 May 2017 review of submission by Danielnoamwarner
The entry was not simply a copy of another web page. That other web page listed the 6 principles of a communimetric measure, which are standard prose that must be written as it is, and it also appears on the Wikipedia page that way since that is the standard language. However, the Wikipedia entry has much more diverse information on it when discussing things that are different from the 6 Principles. This Wikipedia entry is now filled with a diversity of sources, which demonstrates notability and that the entry is not idiosyncratic. Please post or explain exactly what needs to be improved.