Talk:Vijayanagara musicological nonet

message: ::And pray, how is that cpvio?  Because the order of all the names is the same?! 
::The source reads -
::
::I paraphrased it as -
::
::Now, how is that a cpvio?!  Would you mind pointing me to some wikipedia policy or guideline which tells us how much paraphrasing is enough paraphrasing? 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By our guidelines at Wikipedia:Copyrights, "It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". However, considering how much of the language is still in fact the original source's words, it at the very least at least in my eyes is at least dubious. I acknowledge that the editors who review the Wikipedia:Copyright problems page know more about this than I do, but as per the reply I got at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#How close a paraphrase is too close a paraphrase?, "If only minor changes are made, it isn't paraphrasing its plagarism and a COPYVIO violation". John Carter (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And this article is certainly more than just "minor changes".  Yes, some of the sentences you picked need more paraphrasing (which is something I said myself yesterday) but it is nothing that is remotely as blatant as would merit a discussion of this length.  Also couple of examples you've thrown like the one I've pointed out above are themselves dubious.  I have replied on that page and now if you will get off from here and let me work on the article, it'd be greatly appreciated. Sarvagnya 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't finished looking over the entire source, as I've already noted. However, there are at least several sections which are clearly as sections copyright violations. And, actually, I think that, barring moving it to userspace, I think we should both wait for judgement of others before coming to conclusions regarding whether the content constitutes plagarism, which is not permitted by the rules of wikipedia. And at this point all that's happening is that I am pointing out which sections could be considered problematic, thus, among other things, allowing you to know which sections need the most work. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you mind numbering your examples so I can refer to them when I acknowledge or rebut them here?  More than a couple of your examples do NOT qualify as "almost verbatim" and I'd like to point them out without interspersing my comments between yours.  and fwiw, I've given two sections a round of cpedit and it should have taken care of most of the issues - real and imagined. Sarvagnya 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't misquote me, like you did above. I never said that they had to be "almost verbatim", only that a few were. All that is required as per the quote we were given is "If only minor changes are made, it its plagarism and a COPYVIO violation". And there really wouldn't be any purpose to "rebutting" any of them, as I don't think either of us will necessarily be making the decision or involved in the decision anyway. You certainly could strike through those quotes which you've substantially altered, or number them yourself, though. John Carter (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well.. my point was - some of the examples you quoted are not examples of "..if only minor changes are made, its plagiarism.." either.  Anyway, you sure have come a long way in defending your knee jerk revert and tag teaming with ncmv.  Good going. Sarvagnya 21:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In all the examples I pointed out, I believe, although I haven't taken the time to review them, the same content was almost always presented in basically the same order, often using pretty much the same words. As per the Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin cases as I remember them, that is sufficient by US law, which has to be considered in this case, as plagarism. Moving or separating out a clause into a separate sentence probably would still qualify if the content within that clause or sentence itself remained substantially unchanged. And, as I remember, the DKG case and the content of the Doris Kearns Goodwin#Claims of plagarism section, use of "almost identical phrases" (the phrase used there) is sufficient for plagarism. I have noted above that several of the phrases used, and in other cases words if in slightly different order, can be found in both, which is probably enough to meet the threshold established in that case. Having said that, if the content can be substantially rewritten such that those phrases and combinations of words do not appear as frequently, that would probably be sufficient to invalidate the appearance of plagarism. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The plagiarism(!!) pitch is misplaced and Stephen Ambrose and Doris Goodwin are quite irrelevant here.  For starters, this article makes no attempt whatsoever to hide its source.  The source(s) are mentioned in the references section quite conspicuously and the source in its entirety is available for anybody at the click of a button.  I do not see any evidence of this article breaking any American law or even wikipedia law!  btw, may I know what the law had to say in Ambrose and Goodwin's case, as opposed to what their detractors had to say?  Finally, in spite of your exaggerated alarmist pitch you've employed over the course of the day, the evidence you present doesnt add up to anything alarming or even remotely alarming.  It adds up to about '15 minutes of cpediting required'.  I must say I am totally impressed at how you've handled the 'situation'.  You sure went to a very good admin coaching school. Sarvagnya 23:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At least I primarily address the topic at hand, rather than continue to insult those who are honestly raising what they consider relevant points. I wish you would pay a bit more attention to even "general editor school", perhaps including, most importantly, WP:CIVILITY. At least once in a while try to discuss the article without putting in your completely gratuitous, off-topic, desparagement of others, if you actually are capable of doing so. I regret to say that I haven't seen any evidence of that to date. John Carter (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: This article is posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 February 28. I have posted a  tag on the article and posted my review Diff. Jeepday (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review copyvio