User talk:TwilligToves/Archives/2009/May

Gulfton FAR
Hi! At the moment I'm responding to each of your points and making some changes. I would especially like to ask about the citing quotations; I have each quotation cited by whatever reference is at the end. I.E. the quote "double-up" is to citation #5, "conservative" is to citation #13, "lost its focal issue" is to citation #15. How should I modify the citation structure? Please see the FAR for more details. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

re:Video game FAs
Sadly, you're right...it's a very difficult challenge. My favorite: "a number of trees &mdash; six to be exact &mdash; are located up and down the Giza Plains and must be knocked over in order to complete the task." There are some decent sources out there, but they're hard to find. &mdash; Deckiller 09:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I would like to thank you for your participation in my RfA and for finding the blatant issues that you posted there. As such I have withdrawn my nomination as I do not think an RfA on my behalf can proceed until I have fixed all issues that pertain to plagiarism and copyright infingement are taken care of. Thank you and I appreciate the personal note. kelapstick (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BudJ, you seem to have handled it with appropriate decorum. When the issue was first raised, I was intrigued. The examples on the RfA talk page are, I think borderline. The ones you found are more concerning. Citations do provide attribution, but clearly that isn't a free license to closely copy substantial content. I think refining the policy so it's clearer might be appropriate. I've looked at other RfA candidates a bit, and I find many aren't major article content contributors, use offline sources, or similar issues exist. I also wonder about my own contributions and whether I've modified and paraphrased enough. Too much in the other direction and accusations of synth are proferred. And the no OR policy makes clear we aren't supposed to add original content, so it's all supposed to be coming from somewhere. How much it needs to be altered or quoted, and beyond what point it shouldn't be altered are interesting questions. Do you think this issue is just coming to light more now in the wake of another recent nom that went wrong? I wonder if we started going through previous noms and checking article content what we'd find... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)