SkipCaptcha
422
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 173:
Line 173: − +
→Vandal
:No need to apologize for not being on here as often as others. I have a LOT of free time right now, but it comes and goes. You may not see me for weeks or months at a time with little or no warning.
:No need to apologize for not being on here as often as others. I have a LOT of free time right now, but it comes and goes. You may not see me for weeks or months at a time with little or no warning.
:I'm not sure what to say about your article. It is somewhat different, but I can still see it's origin in it fairly clearly. Maybe if you find some more info on it and interject (and cite) that, it would help? I have a hard time saying "this is fine" or "this is plagiarism." I just try to keep well clear or the grey area (though I may or may not succeed). To some extent, this is a subjective call, and since you're the main writer, you're the one to make that call. If you think that's okay, then you can publish it and I and others will probably try to improve is somewhat.--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:21, 11 January 2016 (EST)
:I'm not sure what to say about your article. It is somewhat different, but I can still see it's origin in it fairly clearly. Maybe if you find some more info on it and interject (and cite) that, it would help? I have a hard time saying "this is fine" or "this is plagiarism." I just try to keep well clear or the grey area (though I may or may not succeed). To some extent, this is a subjective call, and since you're the main writer, you're the one to make that call. If you think that's okay, then you can publish it and I and others will probably try to improve is somewhat.--[[User:DavidB4|DavidB4]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|talk]]) 12:21, 11 January 2016 (EST)
::I'll restore it, and some other editors may be kind enough to improve it. After all, I cited the original Britannica article. So, the original source is not unacknowledged. Hence, we can improve it, and it, eventually, will become entirely different from its source.
::I'll restore it, and some other editors may be kind enough to improve it. After all, I cited the original Britannica article. So, the original source is not unacknowledged. Hence, we can improve it, and it, eventually, will become entirely different from its source. [[User:U.U|U.U]] ([[User talk:U.U|talk]]) 20:27, 11 January 2016 (EST)