Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Acather96
Username: Acather96
User groups: filemover, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Dec 29, 2009 09:16:18
Unique pages edited: 14,696
Average edits per page: 2.08
Live edits: 24,227
Deleted edits: 6,329
Total edits (including deleted): 30,556
Namespace Totals
Article 7310 30.17%
Talk 1385 5.72%
User 780 3.22%
User talk 9087 37.51%
Wikipedia 4056 16.74%
Wikipedia talk 151 0.62%
File 1093 4.51%
File talk 59 0.24%
MediaWiki talk 1 0.00%
Template 131 0.54%
Template talk 45 0.19%
Help 4 0.02%
Category 55 0.23%
Category talk 62 0.26%
Portal 7 0.03%
Portal talk 1 0.00%
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2009/12 20
2010/01 2112
2010/02 2356
2010/03 501
2010/04 418
2010/05 1088
2010/06 1442
2010/07 1151
2010/08 534
2010/09 995
2010/10 1511
2010/11 1208
2010/12 1597
2011/01 782
2011/02 947
2011/03 957
2011/04 1172
2011/05 697
2011/06 565
2011/07 525
2011/08 387
2011/09 628
2011/10 190
2011/11 367
2011/12 0
2012/01 273
2012/02 357
2012/03 24
2012/04 53
2012/05 112
2012/06 43
2012/07 87
2012/08 1
2012/09 11
2012/10 1
2012/11 3
2012/12 0
2013/01 2
2013/02 0
2013/03 1
2013/04 6
2013/05 0
2013/06 40
2013/07 11
2013/08 2
2013/09 4
2013/10 173
2013/11 390
2013/12 483
Top edited pages
Article
77 - Little_Chef
57 - Luzula_nivalis
55 - Luzula_sylvatica
41 - Saxifraga_paniculata
41 - Kalanchoe_blossfeldiana
35 - ATV:_Quad_Frenzy
34 - Silaum_silaus
25 - National_Housing_and_Planning_Advice_Unit
20 - Biddenham_Pit
16 - Battle_of_Dornock
Talk
6 - Luzula_nivalis
6 - John_Prescott
6 - Main_Page
4 - 2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami
4 - The_Missing_Coach
4 - The_Sorcerer_and_the_White_Snake
4 - Little_Chef
3 - National_Housing_and_Planning_Advice_Unit
3 - Double_Arches_Pit
3 - Self-replicating_machine
User
300 - Acather96/CSD_log
154 - Acather96
38 - Acather96/monobook.js
29 - Acather96/huggle.css
27 - Acather96/Copyright
25 - Chzz/dsc0511
15 - Acather96/PROD_log
15 - Chzz/dsc0311
14 - Acather96/Todo
4 - Kuyabribri
User talk
513 - Acather96
27 - Fir0002
26 - VernoWhitney
24 - Kumarrajendran
21 - Shoka
19 - E._S._V._Leigh
19 - Extra999
18 - Benfeing
16 - Saudahmed66
15 - Blackwatch21
Wikipedia
271 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
123 - Huggle/Whitelist
92 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
51 - Suspected_copyright_violations
50 - Files_for_deletion/2011_May_14
46 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire
42 - Possibly_unfree_files/2011_May_14
37 - Requests_for_page_protection
34 - Possibly_unfree_files/2012_February_15
33 - Contributor_copyright_investigations/20100822
Wikipedia talk
8 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire
7 - Twinkle
6 - WikiProject_Plants
5 - WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards
5 - Valued_picture_candidates
4 - Article_alerts/Feature_requests
3 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/Assessment
3 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/Archive_1
3 - BEDS
3 - Files_for_deletion
File
4 - Birkirkara.png
4 - Main_page_errors.png
4 - Meghamalai_seen_from_the_Thousand_Lingam_Temple,_T...
4 - Thousand_Lingam_Temple,_Theni_District.jpg
4 - Mount_Vernon_from_the_front_lawn.jpg
4 - Karyasiddhi_Hanuman_statue_at_Carapichaima_2.JPG
3 - Simón_Bolívar's_tomb.jpg
3 - The_Sun_Man_at_Cosmovitral.JPG
3 - Nissan_Leopard_Y33_interior.JPG
3 - Mr._Potato_Head_Saves_Veggie_Valley.jpg
File talk
2 - Bedford_river.jpg
2 - Biggleswade_United_Football_Club_Logo.jpg
2 - Information.png
2 - Bedfordshire_County_Cricket_Club_Logo.png
2 - Bedfordshire_flag_cloth.png
2 - Flag_of_Bedfordshire.svg
2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Barnstar.png
1 - Bedford_St_Johns_Station.jpg
1 - Bedfordshire_Barnstar_Hires.png
1 - Biggleswade_Town_Council.jpg
MediaWiki talk
1 - Viewsource
Template
9 - Vandalism_information
9 - Did_you_know_nominations/Luzula_nivalis
9 - WikiGuide
7 - Dsc
6 - SCV
6 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/doc
4 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Welcome
4 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Inactive
4 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Barnstar
4 - Dsc/doc
Template talk
8 - Did_you_know
5 - Di-missing_some_article_links
2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Barnstar
2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Welcome
2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire_Inactive
2 - User_Bedfordshire
2 - Bedfordshire-geo-stub
2 - User_WPBedfordshire
2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire
2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire/doc
Help
2 - Contents/Browse/Editing_Wikipedia
1 - Contents/Editing
1 - Userspace_draft
Category
4 - Wikipedia_files_of_unsupported_filetypes
2 - Bedfordshire_articles_by_importance
2 - File-Class_Bedfordshire_articles
1 - United_States_Ninth_Amendment_case_law
1 - Wikipedians_in_Bedfordshire
1 - Template-Class_Bedfordshire_articles
1 - Book-Class_Bedfordshire_articles
1 - Shades_of_green
1 - Wikipedia_backlog
1 - Economy_of_Bedfordshire
Category talk
2 - Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_Bedfordshire
2 - Bedfordshire
2 - Unassessed_Bedfordshire_articles
2 - Wikipedians_in_Bedfordshire
2 - WikiProject_Bedfordshire
2 - NA-Class_Bedfordshire_articles
2 - Bedfordshire_articles_with_a_complete_infobox
2 - Bedfordshire_articles_with_no_infobox
2 - Bedfordshire_articles_with_an_incomplete_infobox
2 - Bedfordshire_articles_by_quality
Portal
2 - Featured_sounds
1 - Nicaragua/Selected_article
1 - Human_body
1 - Arts/music/June,_2009
1 - Dravidian_civilizations/DCSC_Summary/DCSA_Dravidia...
1 - United_States/Selected_picture/candidates
Portal talk
1 - Human_body
Is this close paraphrasing?
[edit]The following table shows the source and the article text that I allege is a close paraphrase. Tryptofish has challenged it as an "unreasonable complaint", or I would not have done this. Let editors make up their own minds. The table quotes the two texts exactly, though it omits the italicization and wikilinking in the article text.
| Source | article, older version | |
|---|---|---|
| Perennials c. 20–30 cm tall, | Luzula wahlenbergii is a perennial and herbaceous plant around 15–35cm high | |
| subglabrous, | ||
| caespitose, | in a loosely caespitose fashion.[1] | |
| sometimes with short ascending vegetative shoots. | ||
| Stem with several basal and 1–2 cauline flat leaves; | The stem has 1–2 cauline leaves which are flat, | |
| basal leaves 5–10 cm × 3–5 mm; | as well basal leaves which are 5–10 cm × 3–5 mm in size; | |
| upper leaves up to 3–5 cm × 2–4 mm; | the upper leaves of L. wahlenbergii are smaller, sized at 3–5 cm × 2–4 mm.[1] | |
| leaf margins papillose-serrulate; | The leaf margins of L. wahlenbergii are papillose-serrulate | |
| leaf tip acute. | with an acutely-shaped leaf tip.[1] | |
| Inflorescence a lax nodding ‘panicle’ | The inflorescence of Luzula wahlenbergii is lax, and could be described as a 'nodding panicle', | |
| of 10–30 flowers, c. 4 cm long and 3 cm wide; | having 10-30 flowers which are 4 cm in length and 3 cm in width - | * |
| flowers borne singly, pedunculate, or in 2(–3)-flowered clusters. | these flowers are pedunculated and borne singly in 2–3 clusters.[1] | * |
| Lower bract 4–10 mm long. Bracteoles up to 2.0 mm long, fimbriate-ciliate near apex. | The bracteoles of L. wahlenbergii are fimbriate-ciliate near their apex and up to 2.0 mm long, whilst the lower bract is 4−10 mm long.[1] | |
| Tepals equal, 2.0–2.8 mm long, ±acuminate, entire, ±brown. | L. wahlenbergii has equal tepals which are 2.0–2.8 mm long, entire, brown and acuminate, | |
| Stamens 6; anthers 0.4–0.6 mm long, | along with six stamens and anthers which are 0.4–0.6 mm long.[1] | |
| ±equalling filaments; | ||
| style up to 0.5 mm long; stigmas c. 1 mm long. | L. wahlenbergii has a style and stigma 0.5 mm long and c.1 mm long respectively, | |
| the plant also has equaling filaments.[1] | * | |
| Capsule ellipsoidal, ±subacuminate, ±exceeding tepals; | The seed capsule of Luzula wahlenbergii is ellipsoidal, subacuminate with exceeding tepals; | * |
| capsule segments brown, 2.0–2.4 × 1.1–1.5 mm. | the seed capsule is 2.0–2.4 × 1.1–1.5 mm in size and segments are brown in colour.[1] | |
| Seeds narrowly ellipsoidal, 1.2–1.4 × c. 0.7 mm, dark castaneous brown, without appendage; base fibrillate. | The dark, castaneous brown seeds of L. wahlenbergii are 1.2–1.4 × c. 0.7 mm in size, narrowly ellipsoidal, lack an appendage and have a base which is fibrilate.[1] | |
| 2n=24 [BL], H.Nordenskiöld, Hereditas 37: 330–331 (1951). |
--Stfg (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is difficult for a non-expert in this field to evaluate. If we were writing just a general description of this plant for everyday use, it might be a bit close. On the other hand, if botanical descriptions are conventionally prepared in a format enumerating these particular elements in this particular order, using a restrictive set of technical terms, then parallelism might be unavoidable. It might be of interest to look at other botanical descriptions of this plant apart from this source and the wiki article and see whether they too contain parallels in the descriptions. In any event, the candidate has indicated he will bear this concern in mind going forward, and I don't see it as an impediment to the RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think the paraphrasing is pretty close for most articles but I don't see there is any way to avoid it in technical articles like this. The terms are specific to the type of plant and organelles so without using the same technical scientific language it wouldn't give the topic the accuracy it should have in the project. I would be more concerned however if this was occurring in biographical articles or articles of a non technical/scientific nature. Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Many of the terms in botanical descriptions have precise, exact, definitions. You cannot simply substitute one for another. I think this was a pretty good job of changing the wording a much as possible without becoming inaccurate. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with everything that Newyorkbrad, Kumioko, and Randykitty said here, and I don't really have anything further to add to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Many of the terms in botanical descriptions have precise, exact, definitions. You cannot simply substitute one for another. I think this was a pretty good job of changing the wording a much as possible without becoming inaccurate. --Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think the paraphrasing is pretty close for most articles but I don't see there is any way to avoid it in technical articles like this. The terms are specific to the type of plant and organelles so without using the same technical scientific language it wouldn't give the topic the accuracy it should have in the project. I would be more concerned however if this was occurring in biographical articles or articles of a non technical/scientific nature. Kumioko (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
(←) Thank you all for your comments. Please forgive me if I return to it one last time -- it's not to affect the RfA, but there are some things here you seem to have overlooked and there are some questions about what Wikipedia should be trying to do in articles like this. Please point me at a better place than an RfA talk page to raise these, if you like (or by all means tell me to drop it :))
- @Kumioko: indeed, things like bracts and tepals and sepals need to be named as such; there's no getting away from that. But not all the language used in the source is like that. Some of it is simply obfuscation. Castaneous, for example, means nothing more precise than chestnut-coloured. There are more examples. Fancy words don't always imply fancy ideas. Did you have a look at the rewrite of the article I did yesterday? It omits some of the fine detail, but is it any less accurate?
- @Randykitty: "without becoming inaccurate" just ain't so. I've added markers to the right of the table showing four places where the paraphrase changed the meaning from the original (which I've corrected in yesterday's rewrite).
- Did anyone spot that the source bears a CC-BY-NC-SA tag and a statement allowing non-commercial use on condition of appropriate acknowledgement? So the source could have been used intact in a blockquote without introducing errors and poor prose. By contrast, presenting such a closely parallel text and citing that source for each separate statement (nine times in all) makes it look as if it's Wikipedia's assembly of the material, and that is not quite fair to the source. (I do assume good faith and I don't think the candidate meant to do that, but it's something we should learn not to do, and surely that's what close paraphrasing is all about.)
The real point I want to make, though, is why we want to have material like this in a Wikipedia article at all. Anyone who knows why subacuminate is better than tapering to a point (if it is) already knows enough that they won't be coming to Wikipedia to look up plants. Do we believe in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or not? Who are we writing for? --Stfg (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? The NC license isn't incompatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA so a quotation would require the same fair use claim as a copyrighted source, and use of the entire section would almost certainly not be considered fair use (not to mention its terseness making it unsuitable). For what it's worth, I too do not see a close-paraphrasing issue benmoore 22:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)