Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Mdd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]
First remark copied here from User:Mdd

MRG, I started using the cleanup list you created and checked the 11th section, and I added my findings in the editsummary. As you can see, here, I took five different actions. Two of them remained with some suspision. Is this the way you want it to work..?? And could you take a look at the Talk:Flow visualization Copy-paste registration. Is this how you like it to be..?? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split section in different parts

[edit]

Today I have split the section 11 in two parts

  • One section checked by Mdd with some kind of remark, and
  • One section with no problems (according to Mdd)

In the section with some kind of remark:

  • when I corrected the problem, I added a {{y}} mark
  • when I didn't correct the problem I didn't add a {{y}} mark
  • In both cases I added the remark after the item before I signed

This seems like a good idea because:

  • It will keep all the information regarding my checks in one place
  • This might make it easier to see, what new cases I found
  • And might it make easier to check

Now I started in section 11 because things are the most simple there. When things get more complicated, I might make more sections. I will see about that. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the list and further action

[edit]

I checked all items listed in the past month, and today finished checking. Before discussing how to proceed, first some overview with some numbers:

  • This project page has listed about 700 articles and 3000 edits
  • In total here on the English Wikipedia I edited in about 6500 article and made 14000+ edits.
  • These 700 articles are about 11% of the articles I edited, and these 3000 edits about 20% of the edits I made to articles
  • Those other 80% of my edits (in those other 90% of the articles) were all minor edits: a lot of them creating links and/or categorization of articles.

Now about the 700 articles I checked:

  • According to my check about 400 seems to be correct, and I made corrections in 300 articles:
    • In about 105 articles I removed one or more sections
    • And in about 200 articles I made some kind of correction or improvement

With this checking in the past month I did what I could to isolate the possible copyvio problems, and in the process I restored some of the articles with still work sections missing. Now I believe the possible copyvio problems in my work are (largely) resolved. I am not going to stated it is resolved completely. I am quite sure I am not going to make the same mistakes again. And I will keep alert of the things, I might have missed in the process of checking.

I would like to proceed rewriting/improving most of those 105 articles, where I removed some (work) section. This can take even longer than one month, but I have no idea. Some of them have a high priority for me... others I might even just let it be. In my opinion these further action is mainly about further improving Wikipedia coverage, and no copyright cleanup obligation... but I am not sure about that either!?

Now I would like to know how the WikiProject Copyright Cleanup would like (me) to proceed here?

-- Mdd (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you so much for your diligence in addressing this situation.
Once the copyrighted material is removed, the process of rebuilding is entirely at your discretion and that of other contributors to the articles. Our first concern is removing the copyvio. Everything else is secondary and can go at your schedule.
At this point, I believe it would be a good idea for me to spot-check the cleanup just to be sure that you have recognized issues. I propose to randomly pick a dozen articles or so from the list and check over them myself. If I find remaining problems, we can talk about how we might need to address ongoing concerns. I'll draw together a list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad with all opportunities you are offering me to help solving the copyvio problems, I caused. I would like to keep assisting removing those copyvio's, but I do need your help and some of your guidance. The main problem, I am experiencing at the moment here, is finding those remaining problems. It would be a very good idea if you indeed do those checking yourself... and register every problem you find. This could give me (us) some clues about what to check and correct next...!? I allready noticed some things myself and will make a note about those things here below in a separate talk items. -- Mdd (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed spot-check

[edit]
  1. Software development methodology: (13 edits, 9 major, +27952) (+23186)(+646)(+332)(+126)(+806)(+105)(+495)(+32)(+322)(+54)(+71)(+1692)(+85)
  2. Systems psychology: (13 edits, 5 major, +22919) (+18634)(+36)(+1321)(+698)(+28)(+1353)(+676)(+29)(+18)(+34)(+34)(+24)(+34)
  3. Ontology components: (1 edits, 1 major, +14024) (+14024)
  4. Diagrammatic reasoning: (7 edits, 6 major, +15929) (+948)(+42)(+1582)(+450)(+641)(+12125)(+141)
  5. Complex systems: (7 edits, 3 major, +11014) (+10517)(+16)(+257)(+54)(+119)(+31)(+20)
  6. Architectural drawing: (11 edits, 9 major, +28042) (+10167)(+1102)(+4290)(+1002)(+867)(+1804)(+393)(+23)(+33)(+8032)(+329)
  7. Loet Leydesdorff: (2 edits, 2 major, +10766) (+9829)(+937)
  8. Mental Health Research Institute (Michigan): (2 edits, 2 major, +8721) (+8608)(+113)
  9. Richard F. Ericson: (6 edits, 4 major, +9245) (+8512)(+194)(+59)(+113)(+323)(+44)
  10. Metadata modeling: (4 edits, 2 major, +15996) (+7729)(+18)(+8213)(+36)
  11. Tableau économique: (5 edits, 2 major, +8660) (+7874)(+611)(+35)(+81)(+59)
  12. Alan MacEachren: (4 edits, 3 major, +7942) (+20)(+7302)(+449)(+171)

Needs attribution

[edit]

Plot (graphics) still requires attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy paste registration al ready in edit summaries

[edit]

Hi MRG, doublechecking the Metadata modeling I noticed the edit summary did have a copy-paste notification, but it was not perfectly described. Now I noticed similar problems could exist in the following articles:

Maybe these articles could be double checked, and maybe and extra copy-paste notivication could be made on the talk page. What do you think? -- Mdd (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi MRG, I already noticed in the Diagrammatic reasoning article a type of problem particularly difficult to determine, which I could call "Copyvio problems in sections copy/paste from other articles". In the the diagram section of the Diagrammatic reasoning article did have some of those problems.

  1. Diagrammatic reasoning : (7 edits, 6 major, +15929) (+948)(+42)(+1582)(+450)(+641)(+12125)(+141)

I am well aware that this is a kind of problem I might have overseen in more articles. I am aware not yet sure how to double check this some more and would like you idea about this. -- Mdd (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here; can you clarify? Do you mean that you have copied content from other articles that were already copyvio problems there? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will try. The Diagrammatic reasoning has 8 parts copy/paste from 8 different articles. In the part I copied from the diagram article with this edit Sept 23, 2008 it contained some copyvio's problems (quotation marks missing), which I didn't notice when I checked the article Nov 1, 2009. I noticed this problem Nov 12, 2009 because I started recreating the diagram article...? -- Mdd (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, you could look over the listing on October 21st and go back over those articles to see what you recognize. I presume that you are fairly familiar with these text issues at this point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will just give it a try and report here. -- Mdd (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Report

[edit]
  • Chart (history · last edit) from [various Wikipedia articles]. Nomination completed by DumbBOT (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Green tickY checked. Extra action: Removed two of the three references, and with the third reference: Quotation-marks added + some rewrite + updated source reference. Still: the quotation-marks and reference now are in the first sentence. A reference is used to define the subject, which is far for perfect. This should be improved, but now that it is clearly a quotation in the first sentence everybody can do that. Mdd (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be further double checked
Extended content

by DumbBOT (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Things are going real slow at the moment, partly because I have less time to spend here, but also because I am trying to work things out and develop a more advanced way of working here. This takes some time at the moment. I made a deal with myself not to proceed in starting new articles or initiatives here, but remain focussed on the problems at hand here. For now this remains my main priority here. -- Mdd (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After two years no new copyvio problems have been detected by me or others, as fas as I know of, so I completed the list. -- Mdd (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/Mdd&oldid=454519816"