Thedustbuster
Thedustbuster (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)== August 2008 ==
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Transcranial magnetic stimulation, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Transcranial magnetic stimulation was changed by Thedustbuster (u) (t) deleting 7965 characters on 2008-08-12T18:39:36+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit you made to Transcranial magnetic stimulation constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content. Thank you. Rror (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Copyright violation edit
Hello,
I only saw your note when I already reverted your edit. However, the section does not look like a copyright violation to me. They cite "Chambers" throughout the paragraph. If it was a copyvio that would not be the case. Just summarizing a paper and rephrasing it is no copyvio. But I might be wrong since I do not know anything about the topic.
Please note the three revert rule that might get you blocked if you continue reverting edits. If you are sure about the copyvio, contact me on my talk page.
Regards,
Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
And you did it again while I was writing the above... Please stop and let's sort it out.
Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see below. The majority of the section on 'attentional control' does not constitute 'rephrasing' but is taken word-for-word. Thedustbuster (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As you will see from the history, the material you are disputing was added by me and was a summary of the article in "The Psycholgist", as clearly stated. I regarded my version as an honest and accurate summary of the facts from that article. I have no wish to plagiarise Mr Chambers and colleagues, nor to embarrass the BPS, nor harm "The Psychologist". Please could you outline where you feel the plagiarism exists and/or suggest any better summary. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the content pending your response to the above message from Martinevans123. —SMALLJIM 19:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The section on 'attentional control' is virtually identical to text from the article by Chambers. The section does not 'rephrase', it reproduces word-for-word. Some sections are reproduced literally, while others are subtly altered but essentially identical. We ask that the user who uploaded this text, Martinevans123, revise this section to remove all reproduction. Further action will be taken if this is not forthcoming.Thedustbuster (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the section again. The burden of proof should not be on you but on the contributor. Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Gunnar, many thanks for the prompt resolution. Thedustbuster (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your mediation, Gunnar. But not sure I'll try and be so "accurate" next time, or even bother, or hold ny hands up, after The Anonymous Hoover's polite suggestions.
- Apologies for a lazy edit, Non Cyclonic separator. I wonder where Wikipedia would be without "reproduction" of any kind - probably where you'd prefer it to be. I certainly didn't want to save anyone from rushing out to buy their own copy of The Psycholgist or from reading one of Chambers' original papers. But it seems my sloppy free publicity is the sort of courtesy you can well do without, at least in this domain. Unless your anonymity implies that you just want Chambers' work to end up in The Dustybin? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)