User talk:Shadymattg

Please revise the XF-12 article as it is in violation of copyright as is. FWIW Bzuk 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Copyedit from the XF-12 Rainbow article talk page: "As i have stated this is a learning experiance for me. As i study the wikipedia rules, and try to learn the format and how things are organized, arranged, i realize that i am in over my head. all the knowledge i do have has been painfully learned trying to keep up with the corrections you have been making and the criptic hints/notes you have been leaving. Not that i am complaining, just stating the fact the we are not on the same playing field when it comes to this site and there rules and requirements.

but i have stumbled across a couple of points: 1."You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating." what can i say, i have taken this rule to heart... 2."If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it", and yes i read the link concerning the details behind that. im looking for help, im asking for help to work through this editing process. 3."Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." im hoping that although i have obviously violated a "rule", that this issue can be corrected, so that the information is not lost 4."The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both" again, just trying to keep this information where it belongs 5."building an encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared to that goal. Zero. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated" just pointing this out so that you dont "revert" the information back, at least not with out giving me an opportunity to correct it

now as for the other side of the coin, i do take full accountablity for what i have written, and certain lines of it was "cribbed", but i want to make it right. and do what needs to be done to correct it. and perhaps learn in the process

"Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced. Add appropriate source information to the article wherever possible, or move unsourced material to an article's talk page until sources can be found." If the information i have "cribbed" is not copy writed, it can stay then, right? how can i tell if its copy righted? especially when indentical text shows up on two seperate independant sites?

I know this a lot to read. but i apriciate your time and guidence on this matter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadymattg (talk • contribs) 07:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the questions above: (repeated on your home "talk page") Shadymattg, thanks for your comments and explanation. I will provide a framework for discussion by dealing with each point you have raised.

Contributing to Wikipedia for a newcomer is welcomed and learning the "rules" prior to submitting would be very difficult to master.
A request for assistance is likewise appreciated as it does take a period of time to learn the process in order to contribute within the sometimes overly complex article formats that have been established by other editors. What you have chosen to undertake is the daunting prospect of becoming an author of a historical article and either task, namely writing in an acceptable literary standard as well as providing accurate researched data is extremely difficult for the "newbie" and more experienced Wikipedia editors can provide valuable "bridging."
Although another editor immediately challenged your first edit, after the edit was re-inserted with an attempt to provide validation, I considered your efforts a "good faith" contribution.
The XF-12 Rainbow article is a prime example of an article that was a "work-in-progress" that would be characterized as a "stub" requiring more detail. Any substantive additions to the article are welcomed.
Bearing in mind that your edits had not been disruptive, inaccurate or examples of vandalism, the submissions were acceptable. After initial review, certain phraseology became suspect as most of the submission was coached in awkward, poorly-written and grammatically flawed sections, these phrases raised concern that they were not "your work." A very cursory examination of available research showed that the material submitted was plagiarized and is not acceptable. The crux of the issue regarding copying is that any use of a phrase, passage or portion of another's work is considered a copyright violation whether the material is identified as protected by copyright or not. Historians and researchers do rely on sources, ranging from first-person accounts such as interviews to second-hand records in extant media and third-person sources. It is contingent upon researchers to draw from reliable, authoritative works but to be cognizant that plagiarism does not occur and all instances of plagiarism must be removed in the article. It's a big undertaking but no larger than the original submission which normally takes a great deal of time to "craft" or develop and when a "textdump" occurred, "warning flags" were raised. My background as you can determine by checking my home page is as an author, editor and teacher and your work was nearly the "classic" example of a student's work that was submitted as original but was mainly copied without proper attribution.
In order for copyright material to be accepted there are only two viable options:

Quoting and attributing the original source through proper citations and bibliographical referencing and
Rewriting the material to eliminate any plagiarized material. The second option is the only realistic alternative to a complete reversion of all the submitted material and that is my recommendation. FWIW Bzuk 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC). "[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 07:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]