Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 22 February 2010

User	Talk	Contribs	My Sandbox	Improve Me!

User:Richardshusr/Status

Hi, and welcome to my talk page! Please remember to: Be civil Start new topics at the bottom, and give your message a descriptive heading. sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages or frequently asked questions. To leave me a message, click here.

If you leave me a message here but do not plan to watch this page for my reply, please say so as I do not normally copy my replies to other Talk Pages.

Thanks!

Richardshusr (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Archives

• December 2008
• December 2009

Happy New Year, Merry Christmas

Richard, I hope you new year is happy and your Christmas was merry! Thanks for your kind Christmas present posted on my page. NancyHeise 07:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why delete without notice?

It is my understanding that articles are not removed without discussion or notification. The flag itself assures this. It has been less than 24 hours since I submitted my first wiki article - and twice in that time I have had my article removed -- without notice, -- without comment on my defense points and -- without opportunity to make edits. (with the exception of one who answered my response back to them - and I thank them)

I am new here. I posted my article to wiki. The first administrator came along and made a minor change to my title. I had modeled my after multiple examples of others in the same industry as posted to wiki - but not really a big concern to me. Happy to learn best practice and perhaps the other 5 articles are not good examples.

I then had a user flag my article for speedy delete.

Very quickly - A second administrator deleted my article. If I'm reading the chain correctly - it was deleted something like less than 10 minutes after flagged. No one notified me. No one gave me the opportunity to make changes or instructions as to where the specific problem was.

Per the "item deleted" page that suggests you work with the other parties involved, I first contacted the user that flagged my article and the administrator who deleted it. The user said his concern was that it sounded to him like advertising and noted on what points. I wrote a very detailed response to him telling why the information he noted was presented as it was, addressing his source concerns, etc.. He has not followed up with me - I assume that means no problem with my response? Or perhaps busy doing other things.

I also forwarded the defense response to the administrator who deleted my file. Before sending the him points of defense (I was still drafting), he did send me a note saying it was an "advertising" concern. He pointed me to a general help page (which I'd already read) and a page where I could retrieve the original version of my article. Combined with the point to the article - and no reply to my defense - I took this to mean Go again with it.

I reposted the article - and had another user flag it for advertising - but no specific information. I removed the tag per the box's instruction that I could do so as long as working on resolving the problem. I responded to the flagger in great detail and requested specific feedback. (which was then deleted and marked as too much detail) I replied again in a more brief response. I added the hang on notation.

I am now addressing you because you have deleted my article - without any comment or notice to me. I assure you that I am not being difficult - but am very frustrated with the lack of interaction and guidance I am receiving here. It seems easy to hit a delete - but of little interest to provide anything specific like assistance. Am I wrong to assume administrators are supposed to be a source for information and assistance - wiki mentors if you will. My experience on my first day using wiki has been that administrators shoot first - and don't care in the least about even asking questions later. In fact - they will ignore them.

I do not believe you could have read the contents of the talk page in the period of time lapse between the flag and your delete. I expect that before deleting my article - one would check the talk page and see if the matter is being addressed. This is what the flag box ASSURES me that is wiki policy to do. I have extensive notes on the article sources and answered all questions in a very timely fashion - but I cannot understand why I seem to be the only person following a procedure.

I hope this is simply a matter of catching a couple of administrators on "off" days. I am very frustrated with the lack of administrators following what I understand to be their own policies. Please review my talk page and advise. I also respectfully request that you reinstate my article. I await your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie.Bauer (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

Hi.

In today's Copyright Problems listing is the article Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, in which another contributor detected similarity to . I see that the content in question was copied over from Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States, but it seems to have originally been placed there by you. I presume you authored that text, unless you imported it without attribution from another article.

This text includes a combination of close paraphrase (addressed in our copyright FAQ as well as in that user essay) and direct copying.

For an example of close paraphrasing, you wrote:

The June 2002 meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was unprecedented in that it had an exclusive focus: the adoption of a collective response to the spate of charges and admissions of sexual abuse by priests and bishops, many of them involving minors.

The meeting was also unusual because of the atmosphere created by the presence of media and victims, especially those from SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests).

The source says:

The June 13-15 meeting in Dallas of the Catholic bishops was unprecedented in its exclusive focus: responding collectively to what’s being called “Roman-collar crime,” the recent spate of charges and admissions of sexual abuse by priests and bishops, many of them involving youngsters.

The meeting was also unique in the pressure-cooker atmosphere created by the presence of so much media and the hurting and angry victim/survivors, especially those from SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests).

The structure of these pieces is substantially the same; you have retained some of the creative text ("spate of charges and admissions of sexual abuse by priests and bishops, many of them involving"); in other places, you have made minimal alterations that are insufficient to create a new copyright (adding a few words to "created by the presence of media and victims, especially those from SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests)")

Since copyright covers the creative expression of ideas, not facts, we can paraphrase external sources , but we do have to be careful when paraphrasing that we do not too follow the language and structure closely enough to create an unauthorized derivative work.

The US government that governs us utilizes a "substantial similarity" test intended to determine if infringement exists. Melville Nimmer produced subcategories of "substantial similarity" for which the court search. In the first, they look for "fragmented literal similarity", checking for phrases and passages copied from the original text. Unless such phrases are defensible as fair use, their presence is a strong indicator of infringement. (And, of course, Misplaced Pages's policy requires that such phrases must always be clearly marked to conform to our non-free content guideline.) In the second, courts look for "comprehensive non-literal similarity." Even if there is no verbatim duplication of the copyrighted original, infringement can be found if the new version follows so closely on the structure of the original that copying is clear. As the US Court of Appeals noted in discussing Artica v. Palmer, et al. (970 F.2d 106, 1992): "A plaintiff succeeds under this doctrine when it shows that the pattern or sequence of the two works is similar."

A close paraphrase of another source may be a derivative work, which is actionable unless it meets the fair use doctrine. The best way to avoid this is to substantially restructure the information you take from external sources in addition to using your own language.

In the next section, you have completely duplicated the creative text used by the authors of that piece to introduce the Bishop's quotations:

• "In his opening address Bishop Gregory called the current situation"
• "He confessed the bishops’ guilt"

While the Bishop's words are properly marked, this creative content is not marked as duplicated at all.

Our copyright policy requires that we only use non-free content in accordance with WP:NFCC and WP:NFC, which require that all copied content from non-free sources be clearly marked.

Of graver concern, my additional investigation into the tagged article shows that it also duplicates several paragraphs from this 2003 article, , beginning with the words "In the Charter, the bishops pledged to report to the police all allegations of sexual abuse..." I have not closely compared, but there seem to be little or no changes. This material also appears to have been introduced to Misplaced Pages by you, in this edit, unless you copied it from another Misplaced Pages article without attribution.

Compare some of the text you added in that edit with the source:

Independent of the Church's efforts, public authorities continued their own investigations and prosecutions. Although many cases could not be prosecuted because of each state's statute of limitations in civil law, the Church's canon law allows for prosecution of many of those cases.

During their June 2002 meeting in Dallas, the nation's Catholic bishops approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and then Essential Norms, new canonical procedures for dioceses and eparchies (Eastern Catholic dioceses) to implement the Charter. The Essential Norms and Charter were revised in November 2002.

The Charter pledges that the Catholic Church will provide a "safe environment" for all children in Church-sponsored activities. To do that, the U.S. bishops will eventually need to develop uniform procedures for handling sex-abuse allegations against lay teachers in Catholic schools, parish staff members, coaches and other people who represent the Church to young people.

Source:

Independent of the Church's efforts, public authorities have continued their own investigations and prosecutions. Although some cases cannot be prosecuted because of each state's statute of limitations in civil law, the Church's law allows for prosecution of many of those cases.

During their June 2002 meeting in Dallas, the nation's Catholic bishops approved a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and then Essential Norms, new canonical procedures for dioceses and eparchies (Eastern Catholic dioceses) to implement the Charter. The Essential Norms and Charter were revised in November 2002.

The Charter pledges that the Catholic Church will provide a "safe environment" for all children in Church-sponsored activities. To do that, the U.S. bishops will eventually need to develop uniform procedures for handling sex-abuse allegations against lay teachers in Catholic schools, parish staff members, coaches and other people who represent the Church to young people.

This would seem to be a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policy, with which I know you were familiar, not just because you are an administrator but because we talked about them in March 2009 after other concerns had been raised about your text. I also see that you have received notices from CorenSearchBot here and here. Since you did not source your material, I'm not sure if you found it somewhere else indicating it to be copyright free. Can you explain? --Moonriddengirl 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's probably a copyright violation. Feel free to rewrite it or delete it as you like. I will try to fix the copyvio when I have time. Thanks. --Richard S (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More extensive concerns

I find it very alarming that you would paste multiple paragraphs of a copyrighted source onto Misplaced Pages within such a short time of having been reminded of copyright policy, and I am very much concerned that there may be more issues with your text.

I see that on January 10th, you added the following to Catholic sex abuse cases:

When sexual scandals involving Catholic priests in the US came to light in 2002, the Philippines media began reporting on abuses by local priests. In July of that year, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines apologized for sexual abuse committed by hundreds of its priests over the last two decades and committed to the drafting guidelines on how to deal with allegations of such offenses. According to Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, president of the Catholic Bishops Conference, about 200 of the country's 7,000 priests may have committed "sexual misconduct" - including child abuse, homosexuality and affairs - over the past two decades.

The source says:

When sexual scandals involving Catholic priests in the US came to light earlier this year, the Philippines media began reporting on abuses by local priests

and

According to the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, about 200 of the country's 7,000 priests may have committed "sexual misconduct" - including child abuse, homosexuality and affairs - over the past two decades.

On January 8, you copied a paragraph from this source. The article said:

The bishops spent a major portion of their June 8-10 meeting discussing a report from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, published May 20 under chairman Sean Ryan. The commission found that church institutions failed to prevent an extensive level of sexual, physical and emotional abuse and neglect.

The source said:

The bishops spent a major portion of their June 8-10 meeting discussing a report from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, published May 20 under chairman Sean Ryan. The commission found that church institutions failed to prevent an extensive level of sexual, physical and emotional abuse and neglect.

In that same edit, you brought over with minimal alterations content from this source. The article said:

Ireland's national police force announced that they would study the report to see if it provided any new evidence for prosecuting clerics for assault, rape or other criminal offenses. The report, however, did not identify any abusers by name because of a right-to-privacy lawsuit by the Christian Brothers order.

The source said:

Ireland's national police force, the Garda Siochana, announced yesterday that a senior detective, Assistant Commissioner Derek Byrne, would study the report to see if it provided any new evidence for prosecuting clerics for assault, rape, or other criminal offenses. The report, however, did not identify any abusers by name because of a right-to-privacy lawsuit by the Christian Brothers order.

Also in that edit, you placed the following:

Following a June 4 meeting with the Irish government, the 18 Irish religious orders implicated in the abuse have agreed to increase their contribution to the compensation fund for victims. The orders also agreed to an independent audit of their assets, so that their ability to pay further compensation can be determined. In a joint statement following the meeting, the orders said they were willing "to make financial and other contributions toward a broad range of measures, designed to alleviate the hurt caused to people who were abused in their care."

The source said:

The 18 Irish religious orders implicated in decades of abuse of thousands of children in their care have agreed to increase their contribution to the compensation fund for victims. Following a June 4 meeting with the Irish prime minister and other government ministers, the orders also agreed to an independent audit of their assets, so that their ability to pay further compensation can be determined. In a joint statement following the meeting…the orders said they were willing "to make financial and other contributions toward a broad range of measures, designed to alleviate the hurt caused to people who were abused in their care."

Your changes to this material are minimal.

In this edit, on January 5, you’ve duplicated extensive content from this source into a hidden comment. While the text is hidden, we still cannot import it under our copyright policy. Extensive quotation is forbidden by policy, and even if it were not, there’s nothing to even indicate that the material is a quote. Any contributor might remove the formatting and put that into publication, not understanding its purpose.

On more than one occasion, you also seem to have violated the copyright of Misplaced Pages’s contributors. For one example, this edit seems to be an unattributed paste from Sexual abuse scandal in Cloyne diocese of content you did not author. I’m not sure why you didn’t provide the requisite reuse attribution there, since I’ve seen you do it multiple times.

Here you have introduced a quotation without a source, which is a problem under WP:NFC in itself.

I am concerned that this may demonstrate a pattern of ignoring copyright policy, and I am seeking additional input at the administrator’s noticeboard. I will link that conversation once I have placed it. --Moonriddengirl 16:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have opened the conversation here. --Moonriddengirl 16:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin status

Hi. I don't understand your actions, and unless there's a very good reason I'd have to answer your question at my user talk page that yes, I do. If you were not an administrator I would have blocked you with my standard User:Moonriddengirl/cblock template. Obviously, that would be inappropriate here; the purpose of a temporary copyright block is to make sure that contributors know we're serious about copyright and take time to understand the policies. As an administrator, you should already understand those policies and know that they are enforced. If you don't, then you should probably consider resigning and reapplying (if you want) after you are confident of that material. If you do understand them, but copied material anyway, then I certainly though resignation would be appropriate. One of the ways organizations avoid contributory infringement charges is by showing due diligence, and I'm afraid that retaining administrators who violate copyright policy may undermine the Foundation's standing on that.

My biggest question at the moment is what to do to about content already added. We do have a process board for this, at WP:CCI, but with contributors who have been around as long as you have, this requires a major investment of time from those willing to help evaluate and clean. --Moonriddengirl 18:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow administrator I also feel you should resign. You could redeem yourself partially by doing that but also by helping clean up copyvio. In fact, you could dedicate any time that you put in using your tools in the past to copyvio work. Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll chime in as another administrator. I think the fact that you come clean and admit it is good (not that it would be an easy thing to deny), but this is the kind of thing that could seriously harm Misplaced Pages as a whole and it doesn't look good for someone trusted with the admin role to be doing this. Giving up the tools voluntarily would avoid unnecessary drama and help mitigate matters quite a bit. -- Atama頭 20:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see an established pattern of blatant disregard for a core principle of Misplaced Pages. I see repeated copying, not fixing a copyvio when it is uncovered, and moreover responding with what amounts to "I can't be bothered; you fix it." This is unacceptable for any editor, and doubly unacceptable for any admin. --Una Smith (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Following the discussion at ANI, and reviewing the discussion here, I would suggest that it is possibly best for you - the editor - to resign the admin bit. Chiefly, having this black mark (the copyvio) on your record is going to make your sysopping more difficult, expecially in regard to dealing with editors/vandals. Ultimately, you are going to have this instance thrown back in your face when you warn or sanction editors, or make decisions in your admin capacity in disputes, etc. In this instance, I am not so worried about the trust thing - because trust can be built up again by acting in a commendable manner. The start of that process would be to resign. Under the circumstances you may find that you can regain the bits after a while - yours is not a name that crops up when "unworthy" admins are discussed. In the meanwhile, identifying and removing copyvio as an editor will also work to that end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I think I've heard from "enough" users. Here is my request to have my admin privileges removed. --Richard S (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for handling this gracefully. I don't know how the bureaucrats handle this type of situation, but there's any difficulty getting your bit back upon request six months from now then please leave word at my user talk. If Moonriddengirl confirms that there have been no further problems it would be an honor to renominate you at RFA. We all make mistakes. People who take responsibility and correct theirs deserve the community's support. Durova 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do make sure that you reapply for adminship. That you have voluntarily resigned adminship from here speaks volumes and I would be more than happy to support you if and when you reapply. Please leave a message on my talk page if you do! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 11:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me also thank you for handling this with commonsense and honor. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I also suggest that you actually do include a link to the WP:ANI thread where the issue was discussed on your Steward Request on meta? I realize it's been actioned, but I think that your behaviour on that thread itself positively belongs there for later, beneficial reference. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick note

Hi. I'm impressed with your efforts on this CCI. I'm afraid I'm going to have to work on it in spurts, because we have multiple others pending that also need attention, but I'll try to help process it as quickly as we can. It may be beneficial to ask for additional assistance from a WikiProject. I typically do this as a matter of routine, but as you are so proactive on it figured I'd ask you first. You know the population who work on these subjects; are they likely to be helpful or will content issues obscure the main purpose?

My main reason for writing you here is to say that I've left a few notes directly on the CCI, in response to yours (not at its talk page). Will that be effective for communicating with you, or would you prefer the CCI talk page? --Moonriddengirl 16:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've completed my notes at the CCI on Nanking. Please let me know if you can't address these matters quickly so I can blank the article. --Moonriddengirl 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Catholic missions

Thanks for your work so far on Catholic missions. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Richard, I appreciate how careful you have been to annotate your actions in cleaning up these copyright concerns, but one spot check in Nanking Massacre controversy and denial makes me really concerned that this method may not be successful. Take #6 of the problems in Nanking Massacre controversy and denial, which is the first one I decided to spot check. The article still contains the following text (both examples, source first; article):
Example one

One side (the Great Massacre School: see below) is politically and ideologically committed to arguing for the validity of these tribunals and their findings.

The Great Massacre School is politically and ideologically committed to arguing for the validity of these tribunals and their findings.

Example two

The Illusion School, on the other hand, is based at least to a certain extent on a rejection of these findings as "victor's justice". The debate in Japan is thus heavily influenced by a broader philosophical and ideological debate on history and historiography, and in particular the debate on the legitimacy of the historical narrative on prewar Japan that emerged from the postwar military tribunals.

The Illusion School, on the other hand, is based at least to a certain extent on a rejection of these findings as "victor's justice". The debate in Japan is thus heavily influenced by a broader philosophical and ideological debate on history and historiography, and in particular the debate on the legitimacy of the historical narrative on prewar Japan that emerged from the postwar military tribunals.

This method is only going to work if you aggressively track down all identified issues. I can't spend the several hours necessary on each article rechecking to make sure that you haven't left material behind. Otherwise, I don't see that we have any choice but to excise it aggressively. --Moonriddengirl 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The article still retains the following unattributed direct quotation, though you seem to have fixed the other material from#7: "The Nanking Massacre remains a highly controversial episode in Sino-Japanese relations." The source says, "The Nanjing Incident remains a highly controversial episode in Sino-Japanese relations." --Moonriddengirl 19:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mit Brennender Sorge

Richard, you did a nice job cleaning up Mit Brennender Sorge. I think it is much more NPOV and comprehensive than its ever been. I'm still not happy with Catholic Church as I've expressed on the article talk page. I think that it fails to tell Reader the good things about the Church in history and in cultural influence. The origins section gives reader the perfect view of scholarly opinions that also need to be represented in the Inquisitions, crusades, WWII, and sexual abuse sections of the article. These are notable controversies for which scholars have varying points of view and need to be summarized on the page for it to meet FA standards NancyHeise 16:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lurking appreciation

I wanted to acknowledge your civility and levelheadedness on the cesspool that used to be Talk:Catholic Church over the past few months. Contrasted to the snarkiness and personalizing of otherwise very fine editors (e.g., NH, K, and X), your behavior there is to be commended. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mexico

I agree with your removal of the sentence from the lead. Too many misleading statements are made on that article on flimsy sources. Bambuway (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

History of Liberia

Hi. This CCI has come back up in my rotation again, and I've checked to see if you completed the cleanup of History of Liberia, as I finished annotating problems with it on January 27th. I see you have noted some cleanup, but there is significant material that does not seem to have been addressed. For example, content from is still present in South Atlantic air ferry route in World War II, to which it migrated after you placed it in History of Liberia. Please come to the CCI to annotate what steps you are or have taking to clean this content. To make it easier for you to see, I have separated out that material where you have indicated action from those items that await your attention/response. --Moonriddengirl 13:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Query about deletion of the page titles "Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College"

Hi Richardshusr,

I am an alumnus of Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College. I have graduated in 2006 with Mechanical Engineering. I want to create a page in Misplaced Pages for my college, but I have found that a previous such attempt was deleted by you.

Please let me know the reasons behind your deletion and the possible measures of rectifications that you deem fit.

Regards, Kinjal Sengupta, Kolkata, India +91 947 709 5408

kinjal.sengupta@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinjals2010 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic Church and AIDS

This article is very poor at the moment, merely being a list of statements rather than covering or tackling the issues involved. Xandar 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article should be topic based rather than organized around individual Catholic personalities who have made statements on the topic. --Richard S (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is poor logic, I find. If we want to know about Jewish views on anything, we would cite a list of responsas from rabbis, and that would presumably correspond to the sect's views. These Cardinals are no different from chief rabbis, in that they present the opinions or philosophies of their peculiar religious group, which tend to build a type of consensus. It is a type of collegiality or conciliarity, if you like. Cf concept of ordinary magisterium. ADM (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)