Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Acather96

Username:	Acather96 User groups:	filemover, reviewer, rollbacker First edit:	Dec 29, 2009 09:16:18 Unique pages edited:	14,696 Average edits per page:	2.08 Live edits:	24,227 Deleted edits:	6,329 Total edits (including deleted):	30,556

Namespace Totals

Article	7310	30.17% Talk	1385	5.72% User	780	3.22% User talk	9087	37.51% Wikipedia	4056	16.74% Wikipedia talk	151	0.62% File	1093	4.51% File talk	59	0.24% MediaWiki talk	1	0.00% Template	131	0.54% Template talk	45	0.19% Help	4	0.02% Category	55	0.23% Category talk	62	0.26% Portal	7	0.03% Portal talk	1	0.00% Namespace Totals Pie Chart Month counts 2009/12	20 	2010/01	2112 	2010/02	2356 	2010/03	501 	2010/04	418 	2010/05	1088 	2010/06	1442 	2010/07	1151 	2010/08	534 	2010/09	995 	2010/10	1511 	2010/11	1208 	2010/12	1597 	2011/01	782 	2011/02	947 	2011/03	957 	2011/04	1172 	2011/05	697 	2011/06	565 	2011/07	525 	2011/08	387 	2011/09	628 	2011/10	190 	2011/11	367 	2011/12	0 	2012/01	273 	2012/02	357 	2012/03	24 	2012/04	53 	2012/05	112 	2012/06	43 	2012/07	87 	2012/08	1 	2012/09	11 	2012/10	1 	2012/11	3 	2012/12	0 	2013/01	2 	2013/02	0 	2013/03	1 	2013/04	6 	2013/05	0 	2013/06	40 	2013/07	11 	2013/08	2 	2013/09	4 	2013/10	173 	2013/11	390 	2013/12	483

Top edited pages Article

77 - Little_Chef 57 - Luzula_nivalis 55 - Luzula_sylvatica 41 - Saxifraga_paniculata 41 - Kalanchoe_blossfeldiana 35 - ATV:_Quad_Frenzy 34 - Silaum_silaus 25 - National_Housing_and_Planning_Advice_Unit 20 - Biddenham_Pit 16 - Battle_of_Dornock

Talk

6 - Luzula_nivalis 6 - John_Prescott 6 - Main_Page 4 - 2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami 4 - The_Missing_Coach 4 - The_Sorcerer_and_the_White_Snake 4 - Little_Chef 3 - National_Housing_and_Planning_Advice_Unit 3 - Double_Arches_Pit 3 - Self-replicating_machine

User

300 - Acather96/CSD_log 154 - Acather96 38 - Acather96/monobook.js   29 - Acather96/huggle.css 27 - Acather96/Copyright 25 - Chzz/dsc0511 15 - Acather96/PROD_log 15 - Chzz/dsc0311 14 - Acather96/Todo 4 - Kuyabribri

User talk

513 - Acather96 27 - Fir0002 26 - VernoWhitney 24 - Kumarrajendran 21 - Shoka 19 - E._S._V._Leigh 19 - Extra999 18 - Benfeing 16 - Saudahmed66 15 - Blackwatch21

Wikipedia

271 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 123 - Huggle/Whitelist 92 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention 51 - Suspected_copyright_violations 50 - Files_for_deletion/2011_May_14 46 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire 42 - Possibly_unfree_files/2011_May_14 37 - Requests_for_page_protection 34 - Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_15 33 - Contributor_copyright_investigations/20100822

Wikipedia talk

8 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire 7 - Twinkle 6 - WikiProject_Plants 5 - WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards 5 - Valued_picture_candidates 4 - Article_alerts/Feature_requests 3 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/Assessment 3 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/Archive_1 3 - BEDS 3 - Files_for_deletion

File

4 - Birkirkara.png 4 - Main_page_errors.png 4 - Meghamalai_seen_from_the_Thousand_Lingam_Temple,_T... 4 - Thousand_Lingam_Temple,_Theni_District.jpg 4 - Mount_Vernon_from_the_front_lawn.jpg 4 - Karyasiddhi_Hanuman_statue_at_Carapichaima_2.JPG 3 - Simón_Bolívar's_tomb.jpg 3 - The_Sun_Man_at_Cosmovitral.JPG 3 - Nissan_Leopard_Y33_interior.JPG 3 - Mr._Potato_Head_Saves_Veggie_Valley.jpg

File talk

2 - Bedford_river.jpg 2 - Biggleswade_United_Football_Club_Logo.jpg 2 - Information.png 2 - Bedfordshire_County_Cricket_Club_Logo.png 2 - Bedfordshire_flag_cloth.png 2 - Flag_of_Bedfordshire.svg 2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Barnstar.png 1 - Bedford_St_Johns_Station.jpg 1 - Bedfordshire_Barnstar_Hires.png 1 - Biggleswade_Town_Council.jpg

MediaWiki talk

1 - Viewsource

Template

9 - Vandalism_information 9 - Did_you_know_nominations/Luzula_nivalis 9 - WikiGuide 7 - Dsc 6 - SCV 6 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/doc 4 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Welcome 4 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Inactive 4 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Barnstar 4 - Dsc/doc

Template talk

8 - Did_you_know 5 - Di-missing_some_article_links 2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Barnstar 2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Welcome 2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Inactive 2 - User_Bedfordshire 2 - Bedfordshire-geo-stub 2 - User_WPBedfordshire 2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire 2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/doc

Help

2 - Contents/Browse/Editing_Wikipedia 1 - Contents/Editing 1 - Userspace_draft

Category

4 - Wikipedia_files_of_unsupported_filetypes 2 - Bedfordshire_articles_by_importance 2 - File-Class_Bedfordshire_articles 1 - United_States_Ninth_Amendment_case_law 1 - Wikipedians_in_Bedfordshire 1 - Template-Class_Bedfordshire_articles 1 - Book-Class_Bedfordshire_articles 1 - Shades_of_green 1 - Wikipedia_backlog 1 - Economy_of_Bedfordshire

Category talk

2 - Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_Bedfordshire 2 - Bedfordshire 2 - Unassessed_Bedfordshire_articles 2 - Wikipedians_in_Bedfordshire 2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire 2 - NA-Class_Bedfordshire_articles 2 - Bedfordshire_articles_with_a_complete_infobox 2 - Bedfordshire_articles_with_no_infobox 2 - Bedfordshire_articles_with_an_incomplete_infobox 2 - Bedfordshire_articles_by_quality

Portal

2 - Featured_sounds 1 - Nicaragua/Selected_article 1 - Human_body 1 - Arts/music/June,_2009 1 - Dravidian_civilizations/DCSC_Summary/DCSA_Dravidia... 1 - United_States/Selected_picture/candidates

Portal talk

1 - Human_body

Is this close paraphrasing?
The following table shows the source and the article text that I allege is a close paraphrase. has challenged it as an "unreasonable complaint", or I would not have done this. Let editors make up their own minds. The table quotes the two texts exactly, though it omits the italicization and wikilinking in the article text.

--Stfg (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is difficult for a non-expert in this field to evaluate. If we were writing just a general description of this plant for everyday use, it might be a bit close. On the other hand, if botanical descriptions are conventionally prepared in a format enumerating these particular elements in this particular order, using a restrictive set of technical terms, then parallelism might be unavoidable. It might be of interest to look at other botanical descriptions of this plant apart from this source and the wiki article and see whether they too contain parallels in the descriptions. In any event, the candidate has indicated he will bear this concern in mind going forward, and I don't see it as an impediment to the RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the paraphrasing is pretty close for most articles but I don't see there is any way to avoid it in technical articles like this. The terms are specific to the type of plant and organelles so without using the same technical scientific language it wouldn't give the topic the accuracy it should have in the project. I would be more concerned however if this was occurring in biographical articles or articles of a non technical/scientific nature. Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many of the terms in botanical descriptions have precise, exact, definitions. You cannot simply substitute one for another. I think this was a pretty good job of changing the wording a much as possible without becoming inaccurate. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything that Newyorkbrad, Kumioko, and Randykitty said here, and I don't really have anything further to add to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. Please forgive me if I return to it one last time -- it's not to affect the RfA, but there are some things here you seem to have overlooked and there are some questions about what Wikipedia should be trying to do in articles like this. Please point me at a better place than an RfA talk page to raise these, if you like (or by all means tell me to drop it :))


 * indeed, things like bracts and tepals and sepals need to be named as such; there's no getting away from that. But not all the language used in the source is like that. Some of it is simply obfuscation. Castaneous, for example, means nothing more precise than chestnut-coloured. There are more examples. Fancy words don't always imply fancy ideas. Did you have a look at the rewrite of the article I did yesterday? It omits some of the fine detail, but is it any less accurate?


 * "without becoming inaccurate" just ain't so. I've added markers to the right of the table showing four places where the paraphrase changed the meaning from the original (which I've corrected in yesterday's rewrite).


 * Did anyone spot that the source bears a CC-BY-NC-SA tag and a statement allowing non-commercial use on condition of appropriate acknowledgement? So the source could have been used intact in a blockquote without introducing errors and poor prose. By contrast, presenting such a closely parallel text and citing that source for each separate statement (nine times in all) makes it look as if it's Wikipedia's assembly of the material, and that is not quite fair to the source. (I do assume good faith and I don't think the candidate meant to do that, but it's something we should learn not to do, and surely that's what close paraphrasing is all about.)

The real point I want to make, though, is why we want to have material like this in a Wikipedia article at all. Anyone who knows why subacuminate is better than tapering to a point (if it is) already knows enough that they won't be coming to Wikipedia to look up plants. Do we believe in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or not? Who are we writing for? --Stfg (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? The NC license isn't incompatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA so a quotation would require the same fair use claim as a copyrighted source, and use of the entire section would almost certainly not be considered fair use (not to mention its terseness making it unsuitable). For what it's worth, I too do not see a close-paraphrasing issue benmoore 22:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)