Talk:Muhlenbergia pungens
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Discussion from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors edit
Muhlenbergia pungens is just a string of phrases copied and pasted from its sources with a word inserted here and there. No, that is not a summary. No, you don't get to copy and paste the entirety while intermingling with copies and pastes from other sources. No, you don't have to write it in only way since it is a technical description. And, once more, with all this copying and pasting, the facts are still wrong!
Please remove the article from the queue. And please don't argue with me that it can stay on the main page as a copyvio and that be checked later, and don't argue all the other crap, either. A Wikipedia article is a summary of the knowledge of other source,s it isn't a cut and paste of all the phrases from the other sources.
-Fjozk (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I hesitate to involve myself, but can you point out which facts are incorrect or misrepresented? Chris857 (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Really? A couple dozen sentences lifted from their sources and that's all you care about? While checking the various sources, the one thing I found in the article that I couldn't locate anywhere else was incorrect and appeared to have been a copy-paste typo, but I don't remember what it was. -Fjozk (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Best I can determine is that Fjozk believes that Muhlenbergia pungens is a copyright violation. This leaves the question of what text has been copied to create the copyright violation, a task that is beyond my current ability to determine. An examination of the article contents before Fjozk replaced them with a {{copyvio}} template finds an article with less than 2k of readable text citing 10 different sources. When I examine the text in the article with the text of the source, I find the article text paraphrases the information in the source and does not copy or plagiarize the text. Based upon this information, I strongly suspect the real problem is that Fjozk does not understand what actually constitutes copyright violation. This is probably because of a misunderstanding where he thinks it is possible to copyright facts and ideas instead of just their expression. --Allen3 talk 02:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the free psychic workshop, but it is not what I am thinking. I write plant descriptions, and my material is vetted by experts, and, no, I am not allowed to copy from 10 sources and intermingle the phrases from each to make it appear as if, because it is copied and pasted from 10 different sources, that I have somehow created something I can copyright and call my own. I read the sources. In fact, I've used the same sources, so as soon as I started reading the article, I recognized the sources from having used the same sources myself. I compared each and every phrase in the article, and all but one, is the exact same phrase, the same words, the same order, with sometimes a brief "in" or something else thrown in. -Fjozk (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Best I can determine is that Fjozk believes that Muhlenbergia pungens is a copyright violation. This leaves the question of what text has been copied to create the copyright violation, a task that is beyond my current ability to determine. An examination of the article contents before Fjozk replaced them with a {{copyvio}} template finds an article with less than 2k of readable text citing 10 different sources. When I examine the text in the article with the text of the source, I find the article text paraphrases the information in the source and does not copy or plagiarize the text. Based upon this information, I strongly suspect the real problem is that Fjozk does not understand what actually constitutes copyright violation. This is probably because of a misunderstanding where he thinks it is possible to copyright facts and ideas instead of just their expression. --Allen3 talk 02:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Really? A couple dozen sentences lifted from their sources and that's all you care about? While checking the various sources, the one thing I found in the article that I couldn't locate anywhere else was incorrect and appeared to have been a copy-paste typo, but I don't remember what it was. -Fjozk (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)