Talk:Quasicravenoceras

Project banners

Does the above have any essential function relevant to the subject at hand? And if so why can't it be more concise and less garish. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikiproject banners has been explained to you a number of times now, why do you continue to ask the same question?--Kevmin § 20:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.goniat.org/showTax.html?TaxId=tax00000000000000000000000004828. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

What problem?. The assessment although in reason was entirely subjective. Not that respect for copyright isn't important. No, the description in the original was not copies from Goniat directivly although it might have seemed close enough for concern. Hance the revised version.

J.H.McDonnell (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@J.H.McDonnell: It was more then just a "little close", it was very clearly into copyright infringement, which is why @Justlettersandnumbers: removed the text entirely. I have been seeing this as a consistent habit of yours, simply copy/pasting sections of text from sources, and not providing inline citations so as to obscure the sourcing. This is a serious legal problem for wikipedia and if it is shown to be a broad spectrum problem with additions, all additions by a user may be deleted in their entirety. Do you understand?--Kevmin § 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

J.H.McDonnell, my assessment of the degree of copyright infringement here was indeed subjective – I am not a machine. To help you understand why I removed the description of the shell, here is a comparison of some passages:

Initial version of our article	The source, goniat.org
Sculpture consists of distinct lamellae, sometimes thickened into small riblets. Constrictions are weak on shell surface.	Sculpture consisting of distinct lamellae, sometimes thickened to little riblets. … Constrictions weak on shell surface ...
… median saddle liss than half the height of the entire lobe	… medial saddle is less than half of the height of the whole lobe

Some words have been changed ("small" instead of "little", "entire" instead of "whole") and some verbs have been changed or added; overall, the passages read as subjectively little different from the source material. Could you not have written "the surface texture of the shell consists of marked lamellae, at times so thick as to become fine ribs" or "the outer surface is lamellar or ribbed" or "the lamellae of the surface structure are of variable thickness and may become fine riblets" or whatever else takes your fancy as long as it does not have the "look and feel" of the source? As I've mentioned on your talk page, there is a second reason for doing this: much of this jargon is completely meaningless to ordinary people. If you tell me that something is "relatively involute, generally subdiscoidal, the umbilicus of medium size", you really might just as well be speaking Tamahaq for all the meaning you convey. If you write in your own words and in clear English you will add useful content to the encyclopaedia and avoid copyright problems too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@J.H.McDonnell: do you plan on responding to this and undertaking @Justlettersandnumbers: request?--Kevmin § 14:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Justlettersandnumbers: It looks like @J.H.McDonnell: plans to ignore the problems that have been raised, whats the next step, given the problematic nature of the copy/paste violations?--Kevmin § 01:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)