User talk:Meetoohelp

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Gimme danger (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

You have violated the three-revert rule on Article. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Priyanath ^talk 23:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not "a massive cut and paste" as you claim. Plagiarism and copyright violations may be acceptable to some people in certain settings, but not here. Your additions are also an extreme violation of WP:UNDUE, and without references are a violation of WP:RS. Read those guidelines, and the ones posted above, or you will be blocked for violating the numerous WP policies that you've already violated. Note that it is your responsibility to learn Wikipedia policies, just as thousands of other editors have done. The link have been provided, please spend time learning how to work within the guidelines as other editors do. And also please learn what vandalism is before you start accusing other editors who are following policies of vandalism: WP:VANDALISM. Priyanath ^talk 23:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reply to Priyanath, making a statement about this incident, in order to create a better relationship with him and with other editors on Wikipedia.

For the record, and not to foment a POV bicker fest, from my vantage point I posted a well written article, with adequate imbedded references, that improved an existing bio that consisted of 445 words of criticism with only about 100 words of bio facts. It was already tagged in two places as requiring editing to correct for imbalances, indicating an expressed desire for the service I provided.

My posted 12 page 3669 word article was bulk deleted 4 times in a single day. I welcome and appreciate any effort to discuss edits or improvements that could be made to the text I added to the article. I would prefer that to finding bulk deletion without discussion. As to learning the guidelines, it would serve well, to anyone reviewing my contributions, to assume that I am very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, copyright law, and academic and scholarly conventions and best practice standards, and in many cases more so than those with whom I am discussing my articles or edits. Meetoohelp (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetoohelp - for the record, and also to help you understand Wikipedia policies, I'm responding to your comments. I won't continue to revert your problem edits at Wendy Doniger, but don't take that as acquiescence or approval of what you are doing. I don't have the time for a protracted edit war on one article - unlike yourself, I am not a Single Purpose Account. I'm interested in improving Wikipedia more broadly, and am not currently watching your article.

Before your edits[1] the article had 5155 characters worth of bio plus criticism of Doniger's opponents, and 2021 characters of what might be called 'criticism' of Doniger, using this tool.[2] (At least 25% of your "445 words of criticism" is criticism by Doniger and her defenders against those who have the temerity to question her scholarship.) Over 70% of the article was bio, and arguably 30% criticism - far from your claim of "445 words of criticism with only about 100 words of bio facts". While honesty is not an official Wikipedia policy, such real life norms can and should be followed here, thank you.
The first version of your massive copy-and-paste included only one 'reference', to a blog - which is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. I'll note that the current version of the article still has that blog excerpt, against Wikipedia policy. Please study Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources.
After removing your addition, with my explanation of "rv massive copy and paste, unreferenced, undue, etc.", you responded by throwing it all back up and accusing me of vandalism.[3] Please read up on Wikipedia policies on No Personal Attacks and Assume Good Faith
Please learn about Wikipedia policies on using Weasel Words. That would cover your addition of words describing Doniger such as "accomplished", "impressive", "distinguished".
Then there is the minor issue of what Wikipedia sees as Plagiarism. You have exact sentences copied from Doniger's CV on the U of C website. ("Doniger’s research and teaching interests...", for example) In fact most of your copy-and-paste job is directly from her CV there. WP:PLAGIARISM states:

Whether it is the result of deliberate deception, or improper attribution, duplicating the work of others without credit can bring both author and publisher into disrepute.

You can avoid any dispute concerning potential plagiarism by:

rewriting text completely into your own words, using multiple referenced sources;

marking any material you copy as a verbatim quote, using quotation marks, and referencing the source;[3]

properly attributing any public-domain, or free-content text, that you place directly into an article.

Finally, please learn Wikipedia policies before making accusations yourself. Whatever background you are coming from (academic publishing?), I'm interested to see that Wikipedia's policies and standards are much higher. As I said, I'm too busy to continue warring over policy violations on one article, so don't mistake any future silence for agreement. Happy editing, Priyanath ^talk 21:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, naturally, I am disappointed to find this posted here, and find its analysis flawed, but rather than comment on its merit, I will leave its tone to contrast with the contents of the article that I, as a service to the Wikipedia community, wrote. Meetoohelp (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People can see for themselves - I assure you the analysis is accurate, along with the policies from Wikipedia that I've been trying to help you with. With your new addition of "and to the extent that being awarded eight Ph. D.’s in the subject [2] is held to be a measure, has a distinguished scholarly background in Sanskrit and South Asian religions", you have combined Original Research with Weasel Words in quite a creative manner. I sincerely suggest that you go ahead and read the Wikipedia policies I've been linking. They really will help ensure that your additions stick over time. Priyanath ^talk 03:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on Wikipedia

Hi. I'm looking into some of the copyright concerns with the article Wendy Doniger, and I see from the article's history that you may not fully understand Wikipedia's copyright policy and policy regarding the use of non-free text. Also, here, you indicate a belief that "limit for fair use is 500 words"--I'm afraid there is no such clear-cut guideline for fair use allowances in the United States, although it is a common misconception. See [4], for instance. If there were, it would certainly be much simpler. However, determining fair use is complex--particularly with Wikipedia as a non-profit organization generating content to be used as well by commercial entitites--and Wikipedia has sidestepped some of the complexity by adopting a relatively straightforward set of policies governing how previously published text may be used.

Wikipedia's policies forbid the extensive use of copyrightable content that has been previously published elsewhere unless that material can be verified to be free of copyright restrictions--either because it has been explicitly licensed or released or because it is public domain by age or point of origin (as, say, with US federal government works). If it cannot be proven to be free of copyright restrictions, we can use brief quotations, clearly marked by quotation marks or blockquotes, under the circumstances set out at WP:NFC.

Some material is not copyrightable because it lacks even the minimal creativity necessary to earn copyright protection under US law. A comprehensive list of works cited, for instance, cannot be protected. (An abbreviated or selected list of works cited may be, depending on the selection criteria; basically, if it involves human creativity, it is likely to be protected.) But the text I have just removed, which you first added to the article in August of 2009 (and which you have restored after it was removed at least once, here), is amply creative enough to clear the threshold, and it is not used in compliance with WP:NFC. Accordingly, it constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies.

While I appreciate that you have put a lot of effort into improving this article (and it's particularly great to see you keeping an eye out for WP:BLP issues), I must ask you to be careful to comply with those policies. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. It just requires caution in how you use non-free content or (if you are connected to the original publisher) verification that the content is free.

Please feel free to stop by my talk page if you'd like to discuss any of this further. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that was very instructive and I appreciate your help in making that edit. Only to keep the record clear it was one sentence that you quite correctly deleted from my longer contribution, which long contribution was repeatedly bulk deleted rather than incisively corrected as you have done. Thanks for getting involved and for helping me. Meetoohelp (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three sentences, but, yes, it was by no means the entirety of material posted. I'm glad if my note was helpful to you. I hope that you and the others interested in the article can soon reach consensus for how to develop in creating a neutral biography of this woman. I'm afraid that I give almost all of my attention to copyright on Wikipedia at the moment (and there is more than enough to keep me occupied full time!), but if you think mediation of some kind would be helpful, there are several possible fora to request it listed at WP:DR. Sometimes seeking feedback on Wikipedia does require patience. It may be simply a matter of waiting for response to the request currently outstanding here. Good luck with it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was 3 sentences, didn't mean to minimize it, and thanks again. Meetoohelp (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]