User talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. You appear to be a new user (based on today's welcome message), so welcome. I am somewhat surprised, therefore, that you made an update on my CCI page. Are you working CCI? Is my CCI almost over yet? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the CCI is nowhere close to finished. Basically, most of the biographies you created, of which there are many, seem to have cut and paste or close paraphrase copyright violations. While the investigation was opened a while ago, it had ground to a halt until I started to work on it. That's no reflection on the editors previously involved, who have generously donated countless hours to Wikipedia. There simply aren't enough users helping with contributor copyright investigations to handle the workload in a timely manner. Most of the articles you created have yet to be investigated. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. Then I will review and update them in light of my own "hard-knocks" insights into copyright violations so we can avoid unnecessary deletions, if possible. I would like to state that the term "plagiarized" is inappropriate. I may have unintentionally violated CCI but I did not take words without crediting the source, which is what plagiarism is. I'm not playing with words, the accusation of plagiarism, which is for me an extremely strong word, is one that should not be made lightly. Again I may have violated Wikipedia's rules re CCI, which I regret, but I never failed to credit the source(s).

Just to add, as per CCI: "Listings are not intended to imply a presumption of bad faith on the part of any contributor, as copyright laws vary widely around the world and many contributors who violate Wikipedia's copyrights policy do so inadvertently through not understanding it or the United States' laws that govern it." Plagiarism on the other hand is almost unavoidably a result of bad faith editing. Thanks for understanding. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am using "plagiarism" not as a shorthand for plagiarism, but Wikipedia:Plagiarism. While the concepts are basically the same, the difference is that the real world considers repeated, systematic lack of adequate credit for copied text to be done in bad faith (malicious misrepresentation of someone else's text as one's own work to gain a grade above what what one's own linguistic competence would justify) while Wikipedia regards the same problems as good faith errors (due to not thoroughly reading and understanding Wikipedia:Plagiarism, or not having learned proper writing practices in school.)

What's the Wikipedia:Plagiarism problem with your articles? An inline citation after text in an article indicates only that information was taken from a source, as WP:NOR requires (we can't just make stuff up.) When text, representing significant and unique creative expression, is copied from a source, quotation marks or a similar method must also be used to show the copying, as Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria additionally requires (for works still under copyright.)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism creates copyright problems because, when the copying of non-free text isn't properly shown, it violates WP:NFCC and doesn't allow us to see whether the copying was excessive, exceeding what the NFCC, or even fair use law itself would allow.

I apologize for any perceived insinuation of bad faith. So long as you improve your citation practices to clearly quote copied text, and don't copy any material in violation of WP:NFCC, you should encounter no future problems of this kind. Your local community college may offer courses in proper academic writing and citations. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to preemptively explain why I am proceeding to speedy deletion requests after articles have been confirmed to contain substantial copyright infringements in the current and all previous revisions. When I began work on your CCI, I picked through the current text of the first article I examined with a fine-tooth comb, and rewrote any questionable material [1]. However, I do not have time to do this for every article you created, assist in other investigations in the massive CCI backlog, and make the other contributions in which I have an interest. Ultimately, the burden is upon the editor submitting text to ensure that is not a copyright violation. It is unrealistic to expect that the continual increase in open CCI cases can ever be stopped if investigators are required to rewrite all copyvios, or at least to assess every sentence of every article for violations and selectively redact material. Converting everything to one-sentence stubs might be easier, but of only questionable benefits in comparison to red links. Some editors believe that microstubs on notable subjects are actually worse than no articles at all, since the blue links hide a substantial lack of coverage. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I do not expect you to do the work of fixing or rewriting an article that has a copyright violation. That is for me to rewrite. However, could you please explain why you continue to request speedy deletion for the Joan Refshauge article even after User:SchuminWeb previously declined this request, stating in the edit summary: "Decline - I can't find any copyright infringement". Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 06:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The latest deletion request for Joan Refshauge article is not speedy, but via the usual Wikipedia:Copyright problems process, which can take weeks. The declination of the speedy deletion request itself is of no moment when the declining administrator has simply refused to explain his rationale, or respond to my query about it in any way, though he is continuing to edit. It light of this silence, it is highly implausible that a Wikipedia administrator in good standing would have actually concluded that what approaches several sentences of cut and paste and close paraphrase, provided in the example alone, is actually a situation in which there isn't "any copyright infringement". If that is actually his position, then I believe almost all of his fellow administrators will strongly disagree. The more likely hypothesis is that the matter is the result of simply error in hastily evaluating a speedy deletion request. Note that one of your other articles has already been speedily deleted at my request (by the same administrator [2].) Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

While it's inadvisable for editors to remove copyright violation notices on articles they have written, if you believe that I had no reasonable basis for placing the notice, you can post a request on WP:AN for immediate removal. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I feel compelled to respond, however much I may regret it later as you have the upper hand in this matter:

1) "...or at least to assess every sentence of every article for violations and selectively redact material" -- if you need to read every sentence of every article I have ever created, there are few articles which will survive your scythe

2) "Note that one of your other articles has already been speedily deleted at my request (by the same administrator)" -- sounds like a mean-spirited boast to me

3) Re Joan Refshauge: if you believe that the article does little more than "approach[es] several sentences of cut and paste and close paraphrase", after the article's edit history shows clearly no fewer than 17 separate edits by myself, and several other edits by intervening editors, in what I recall was a rather painstaking approach to comply with CCI, then I must question your judgment. I was told by, among others, the editor who initiated this CCI in the first place earlier this year, that complying with CCI meant rewriting the text so that it did not resemble the original source. In any event I will recreate the Refshauge article (and possibly others) once the dust has settled.

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC) re

1. The point of a CCI is to assess all content ever submitted by a user for copyright violations. In ambiguous cases, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." (Wikipedia:Copyright violations)
2. The statement is not a boast, but a simple observation of fact, to show that I haven't been tagging articles for deletion frivolously.
3. The problem with your changes to Joan Refshauge and other articles earlier this year is that the rewrite was insufficiently extensive to actually remove the copyvio text and avoid close paraphrase issues. Just a few superficial changes, severing a few sentences, rewriting or cutting out a bit of material, while leaving the linguistic structure and substantial text from the original intact won't cut the mustard. Acceptable free content on Wikipedia comprehensively rewrites source material (that isn't directly quoted within the limits of WP:NFCC), "while substantially retaining the meaning" (Wikipedia:No original research) Here's an example of an thorough rewrite that (I believe) still preserves the meaning of the source, from an article I've been working on recently:

Source: [3] (Sunny Lane, responding to an interviewer)

Yes, they [my parents] are nudists. I was brought up that way my entire life. That's why I'm so free with myself. That's why when I jumped from skating to dancing I could do it and not feel ashamed of anything. I'm very proud. It's an artform, my body is an artform, I love who I am, so why not share it?... Just naked around the house. It's nothing uncommon. It was very normal...

My rewrite:

She attributes the ease with which she was able to transition from ice skating to adult entertainment to the salubrious body image inculcated by her own practice of naturism with her parents at home during her childhood.

The sentence structure, word choice, and order in which facts are presented are substantially different, to ensure that no copyrightable creative elements of the original expression are preserved in the rewrite. The residual sentence structure, word choice, and ordering from the original is sufficiently small and generic to present no copyright issues. Nonetheless, the core, non-copyrightable meaning, is basically the same. If you recreate articles, this is the level of rewriting that you should try to perform. It's understood that certain material from sources can't easily or shouldn't be changed (technical terms or phrases of the art, "Phrases that are the simplest and most obvious way to present information." (Wikipedia:Plagiarism), obvious, non-creative ordering of facts, etc.) Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Or, perhaps more relevant, on Trevor Clay, as it's closer in subject matter to the articles you've created:

Source: [4]

During his time there it became the fastest-growing trade union and the largest outside the Trades Union Congress. By the time he retired it had over 285,000 members.

Your rewrite, presenting close paraphrase issues, as well as introducing some inaccuracy in figures:

The RCN became the fastest-growing trade union, and the largest outside the Trades Union Congress, during Clay's tenure. When Clay retired due to illness the RCN comprised almost 300,000 members.

My rewrite:

With a membership in excess of 285,000 upon Clay's pensioning off due to illness in September 1989, no labor organization unaffiliated with the Trades Union Congress surpassed the RCN in size, and none whatsoever boasted a higher rate of expansion.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Other accounts

Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another username or using an IP address? T. Canens (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Must have as you don't start working on CCI on the same day you register as an editor and are "welcomed" to the fold. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I've been editing as an IP for a while. Interestingly, I recently responded to a similar question by an IP user [5]. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC))
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

As  Confirmed by CheckUser. –MuZemike 01:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)