User talk:TwilligToves/Archives/2009/June

Thanks for your input
I want to thank you for coming out to my RfA and participating. As you know I withdrew my nomination when it was sitting at (48/8/6) I felt that the examples that you showed proved that I need to work on my content contributions rather than expanding to different areas of responsibility. For what it is worth I do not think that you were attempting to "torpedo" my RfA, you brought up valid concerns when researching a candidate. I would like to draw attention to this edit in which you call my copyright violation "systematic". I read that sentence as suggesting that I had clear intent to plagiarize/violate copyright which is not the case. I did not wake up one day and say "I am going to create an article using wording that is so close to the source that it could be deemed plagiarism/violation of copyright." I think it would be quite foolish of me to provide an online link to the source (with the exception of any off-line sources I had), it would also be particularly foolish of me to provide a link to an article I intentionally plagiarized or violated copyright on at my RfA wouldn't you think? While I assume that your intention was not to say that it was intentional but rather how through it was, it did strike a chord with me and felt like you were not just calling me a thief (as plagiarism/copyvio is essentially theft), but a stupid thief at that. Again I appreciate your participation and thorough investigation of my candidacy, I hope it makes me a better editor which is an ideal outcome of any RfA. Cheers and happy editing. --kelapstick (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, the misread the word issue, similar to the way I misread Rootology's "What's your poison" as "What's your position". I understand why you opposed, am completely fine with it and there are certainly no hard feelings.  My contributions to the pages in question are far beyond what could be considered insufficient adaptation (if I may use that phrase) and are clearly complete enough throughout the article to be considered in violation of copyright.  Unfortunately I had fallen into the trap of simply using the original content and reworking it to create what I thought was sufficiently different (as you had mentioned on CoM's talk page), although I will correct you, it is not because I do not understand the material.  It is because it is easier, which is clearly not an acceptable reason either.  My withdrawal was not because I thought the RfA would be unsuccessful, it was because I have enough of a concern with my editing practices (to ensure compliance with policy if you will) that I need to refine before I am ready to move on.  Which falls in line pretty close with the reason you opposed (although your opposition was based on what you thought my understanding of policy was).  As I had mentioned before (not sure if I did here), provided the editor is improved (and I feel I have), and in this case articles too, it was a successful process regardless of the outcome.


 * I agree there are issues with the plagiarism guideline, and rightfully its status as a guideline is currently under dispute. As I said on my RfA page and at Durova's talk page (as she was the promoting editor I felt it appropriate to bring it up there) there is no clear definition of what plagiarism actually entails.  Rather it is defined using a few ambiguous phrases that need clear definition following their use in a similar manner as the general notability guidelines.  Thanks again for showing me how to improve as an editor, I sincerely do appreciate it.--kelapstick (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this one?
Twillig, consider replacing the template on Cortez Gold Mine with this one: Close paraphrase. (You might consider the same for Batu Hijau mine.) That may be just as appropriate, considering, as I have pointed out before, that "plagiarism with attribution" (and I'm quite sincere about the quotation marks here) is not uniformly called plagiarism, neither in Wikipedia nor in all other sources. Besides, it doesn't suggest bad faith or lack of intelligence on the part of the contributor who is deemed to be guilty of the infraction. The current template says that only administrators can touch it, so I'm staying away from it--I'm offering this for your consideration and since, as I gather from your talk page, you wish the project and your fellow editors well. Thanks, 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lincolnshire FAC
Hey, Twillig.

It's too bad I wasn't able to get the bibliography by the time the article failed to pass review, but I have it now; my friend sent them to me over Facebook a few hours ago.

I don't know if I would violate copyright by uploading the scans of the bibliography to Wikipedia. I could take the time to rewrite it or I could sent it via email, if you are still willing to look it over.

Thanks for taking the time to look at the FAC; I really do appreciate it. If you could do a little more for me, I'd be really grateful.

Please get back to me as soon as you can.

Best, --Starstriker7(Talk) 03:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)