Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/CarolSpears

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I ran through CarolSpears' contributions and pulled the ones that have a capital N in front, I left them in the order of type, "Created page," "started," "moved," as maybe these should be the articles that Wikipedia is now concerned with, however it winds up checking them. The stubs that contain no other content than the taxobox and existence of the plant won't need to be deleted. I thnk there are 147. --Blechnic (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to subpage: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/CarolSpears/Mixed lists. --Blechnic (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a bot that can do this?

Create temp pages from the articles leaving only the taxoboxes, references, and information below the references. It's all markup that's left, so it should not be hard.

--Blechnic (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What remains

Here's what is left:

No copyvio problems; the taxonomic situation would seem to require more than a quick glance. Kingdon (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been copied from Freebase there probably isn't a problem as that publishes material under a free license. However, looking at the dates, it appears that Freebase copied the material from Wikipedia rather than vice versa. This seems to have been taken from the citations given, and doesn't seem to be a copyvio.
However, the dates (rather than years) of birth and death don't seem to be verifiable from the citations given. The citation given for his death seems to describe him as being active in May, not dieing on the 1st of May; searching on "Olov Hedberg" finds what appears to be a news report (my command of Swedish is negligible) of his death, in November. There's also a number of Carolisms, such as giving herbarium codes for some herbaria (without explanation of what they are), but not for Uppsala, giving one affiliation, but not other more, arguably more important, affiliations, and an unspecified affiliation (place of birth?) with a locality. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, though, because the problem with all these articles was seen as them all being copyright violations. As you said, this clearly isn't a copyright violation, merely an article with questionable facts and details. Enigma message 09:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've misinterpreted the context a little; this is a list of articles created by an editor with a record of cut and paste material from sources, which it was therefore desirable to check for the presence of copyvios. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the AN/I post, I thought that all of these articles were thought to be copyvios. I guess some are and some are not, and it's up to people to volunteer and sort it out. Thanks, Enigma message 09:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Senecio rupestris is a synonym of Senecio squalidus is debatable. There's a paper which argues that the latter arose from a hybrid swarm between Senecio aetnensis and Senecio chysanthemifolia (names from memory, not checked) and subsequently became established in Britain. In this paper Senecio rupestris is the central European and peninsular Italian replacement for one of the two parent species. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my files on this topic include the following papers
  • Abbott et al, Recent Plant Speciation in Britain and Ireland: Origins, Estabishment and Evolution of Four New Hybrid Species, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 105B(3): 173-183 (2005)
  • Harris, Introduction of Oxford ragwort, Senecio squalidus L. (Asteraceae), to the United Kingdom, Watsonia 24: 31-43 (2002)
  • Abbott et al, Hybrid origin of the Oxford Ragwort, Senecio squalidus L: morphological and allozyme differences between S. squalidus and S. rupestris Waldst. and Kit., Watsonia 24: 17-29 (2002)
I've stubbed this. Note also that it turns out that there's already been some discussion of this on Talk:Senecio squalidus Lavateraguy (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or redirect to Counter machine models? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That (Counter machine models) is an awful article. Did someone split off a section of the main article without copying over the bibliography being referred to? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Computability: An Introduction to Recursive Function Theory by Nigel Cutland is available online at google books. The article looks like a close copy of the pages around here at pp 9-10 ish (I hope that links stays active, but if not a google search for the title will find it). The article isn't widely linked on WP, so I think delete is a safe option (and probably the best). Mr Stephen (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)
I've deleted this article, as it seemed to match the online text of the book closely. Given that there was no previous content, deletion seemed to be best; it can always be restored or re-written as needed. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


These all potentially have serious plagiarism/copyvios. Every one I looked at, where I checked the sources, was either copied entirely, or the source link was bad. Some of the Senecio spp. just have a question about the name change, the one I checked, I don't know which, did not seem to be taxonomically correct. These have to be checked by a botanist, but are stubby enough to be kept. --Blechnic (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am systematically cleaning the bios--they are all notable people, and the references and links seem accurate, and a valuable contribution to WP. I'm stubifying the rest. DGG (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would not like all of the concern to be about the plant articles. --Blechnic (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot worse than plagiarized, they're factually wrong

In a plant article, I had to explain to Carol Spears why she can't use a quote about the mountains of northwest Africa to describe the mountains of eastern Africa;[1] in a virus article I had to explain that she can't rename a species, particularly giving it two different names, one as the name of the article, and another in the taxobox, that are both different than the name listed in the taxonomy resource she was using;[2] and now she says that because she doesn't think "the bugs know the difference" between two different species of Senecio she can add information from a famous experiment on one species done in Oregon, to another species of plant well known for studies on it in the British Isles.[3]

Can someone point me to a valuable article by Carol Spears that is accurate? Or explain why there is so little concern about all these inaccuracies? While going through her articles to prepare the list of about 150 new articles that may be plagiarized, every link I clicked on to verify information in the articles was either a bad link (a few) or a dud link, as User:Lavateraguy says, a link to a reference that does not say what is in the article. If everything is either copied or wrong (a far greater concern), isn't anyone else concerned?

--Blechnic (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been as hands-on with the plagiarism issue. It's left me scratching my head to see the good faith some people still extend in the threads that aren't about FPC, considering that she's selectively driven new people away for so long and has been so clear and deliberate about it. DurovaCharge! 01:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FPC is a hotbed of hostility toward anyone new who comes along, as far as I can tell, so I've not commented on the FPC situation. Anything I say there is treated like dirt, by numerous people. I don't know if Carol has been among them or not, because I tend not to read down to the name on the hostile comments. I find it difficult to be at FPC without a protective facade of hostility, though, so, again, I hesitate to judge Carol's actions there without seeing her in action, or without being able to distinctly differentiate her from the general style there.
I would just like to have someone point out to me one good and accurate plant article. I'm beginning to be concerned about the taxoboxes, now. --Blechnic (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FPC is a meritocracy: the comments may be ungentle, but to a purpose. That may come across as harsh or confusing to editors who are unfamiliar with the standards. Occasionally a commenter wanders out of his or her depth (my favorite was the one who suggested a daguerrotype suffered from a faulty negative), but that's usually a one-off and the person comes around as soon as they receive a technical explanation. High quality work earns high praise. Carol's conduct is very much out of step with FPC standards. It's one thing to give an unvarnished opinion that's pertinent to a nomination, entirely another to repeatedly add irrelevant tags to a new voter's pertinent comment merely because one holds a grudge against the nominator. That is the sort of thing Carol does; her behavior in the area is seldom useful and usually ranges from weak inappropriate humor to dirty pool. DurovaCharge! 02:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, she's the one who adds fact tags to people's comments in discussions. I saw that--maybe I've seen it with more than one person. Interesting I got blocked for questioning a fact, that I really questioned, and told I was editing disruptively, but she doesn't get blocked for disruptive editing for using fact tags inappropriately. Nonetheless, the important point is, how valuable are these articles when it appears they are not accurate, in addition to being plagiarized? And the editor is sarcastic and rude? It appears there is leeway for sarcastic and rude when the editor is valuable. So, how valuable are these edits when the geology is wrong, the biology is wrong, and the sources don't reference what they claim to reference? How many articles are like this? --Blechnic (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. The metric I apply generally is this:
  1. How self-correcting is the editor? If the editor accepts reasonable feedback, fixes past problems, and does better in the future, then there isn't a serious problem.
  2. For an editor who is not self-correcting, how much volunteer time is consumed in managing the problems that editor creates and does the editor bring sufficient positives to make that effort worthwhile? What's the net gain or net loss to the site? Add a thumbnail estimate for the drain this places on the productivity and morale of other editors. DurovaCharge! 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is out making new articles that will have to be checked while other people correct this crap. These are only the newly created articles by Carol that are a problem. Did she plagiarize additions to hundreds of other articles? Is she as factually inaccurate about insects as she is with viruses, geology, and plant? --Blechnic (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These worries and her hostile reaction to my suggestion of a mentor were why I proposed a siteban at ANI. Other editors have since noted that the problem is not limited to new article creations: she also goes to existing articles and replaces legitimate content with plagiarism and copyvio. Adding misuse of sources to the list of concerns makes this even more problematic to examine. About two years ago a Wikiproject was necessary to undo the damage that had been caused by one editor who had been a prolific contributor to articles about the origins of European family names, and who fundamentally misunderstood the subject. I'm beginning to fear a similar project may be needed here. DurovaCharge! 06:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[Unindent] I didn't want to be the one to first comment on it, with everything else going on, but, yes: She doesn't seem to understand the sources, and will randomly paste in things without regard for context. She's pasted in statements about Isreal as if they applied to worldwie distribution, shoved in a list of 100 names in various languages into the lead of an article. (WHY?!) She pasted in a description of a stem as if it described a leaf, and many other frankly bizarre things. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why the geography of the Alps applied to mountains in western Africa, all of a sudden apply to any mountains in Africa. Passive margin/Active rift/any tectonic regime, it's all the same. There is no understanding behind the copy/pastes. In fact, maybe that's what we should accumulate: evidence of these completely wrong copy and pastes, so people stop complaining about how valuable they are and begin to see just how monstrous the clean-up is. --Blechnic (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, you've put your finger on it: the problem with Carol is not so much her plagiarism or copyvio, but rather her lack of understanding of the topics about which she writes. I honestly believe that the reactions to her copyvios are overblown, but if the RfC were on the topic of her uninformed edits (or even her abrasiveness), I think I'd have a very different statement.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that seeing how others on Wikipedia are reacting to the plagiarisms, maybe my attitude about them is not usual. I get paid to write, though, so if I copy someone else's work without quotation marks it will co$t me--most likely my job. I think the issue of her lack of understanding is huge and insurmountable. She clearly should not write anything about geology on Wikipedia, yet she does. She probably should stay away from taxonomy, also. Plagiarism is rampant on Wikipedia, but I see it is common to tangentially target someone with an RfC while allowing a much bigger problem with that editor to loom. I might just start gathering her uninformed edits in a massive list. I don't know what to do here. --Blechnic (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright questions

Starting a new section for images.

NRCS Public Domain tags

Carol has assigned this public domain tag to a variety of Commons uploads. In some cases the tag is clearly inappropriate, but the material is still acceptable as pre-1923 U.S. public domain. In other cases I have been unable to locate the claimed source because of insufficient documentation.

Examples:

  • commons:Image:Silphium asteriscus-linedrawing.png attributes without page number to An illustrated flora of the northern United States, Canada and the British Possessions. Courtesy of Kentucky Native Plant Society. I saw no indication that the Kentucky Native Plant Society should be regarded as an agency or contractor for the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In fact, it would be impossible to attribute NRCS authorship because the NRCS was created 22 years after this book was published. The Google Books file for this volume clearly attributes copyright ownership to Nathaniel L. Britton and Helen C. Brown. Fortunately for Wikipedia and Commons, this work was published in 1913 and happens to be in the public domain for reasons that are unrelated to Carol's assertion. Carol uploaded a variety of images and attributed them to this book. I have not checked to ensure that they actually come from it because it is 735 pages long and she never attributes page numbers.
  • commons:Image:Silphium_perfoliatum-linedrawing.png attributes without page number to Wetland flora: Field office illustrated guide to plant species, NRCS National Wetland Team, Fort Worth, TX, date unknown. I was unable to locate this on Google Books.
That one seems to be OK (and easily found). See image and public domain status. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

This seems to be OK. A page showing the image credits the image to NASA/JPL. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there's probably a lot more to come. I'm just beginning. DurovaCharge! 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Spears' new articles that she writes as these are being checked

Carol is writing articles while folks are doing an excellent job plodding through this list of only her newly created articles with plagiarisms in them, so I thought I'd add the new ones as she writes them for everyone who is willing to check them.

It's quite clear she doesn't take this seriously, or the problems she has created seriously, or the work she is creating for others.[8]

--Blechnic (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note her only edit to the RFC, and think of what rhymes with species. DurovaCharge! 04:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that comment probably would have earned an instant 24 hour block if I was an admin, I suppose justified based on WP:CIVIL. Perhaps it is good I'm not an admin. Kingdon (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is why I posted here, it was so interesting. Pieter is a post-doc, the only sources are his articles, nothing about him, and his article probably needs a deletion tag. Hopefully one of the deletionists will take care of it, in fact, I think I'll direct it that way, as they'll know better whether or not it is keepable. --Blechnic (talk) 05:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While probably not... exactly copyvio, compare:
Liabeae [9] http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/Botany/scb_RecordSingle.cfm?filename=sctb-0054
In 1983 the tribe consisted of these 15 genera: Austroliabum, Cacosmia, Chionopappus, Ferreyranthus, Liabellum, Liabum, Microliabum, Oligactis, and Sinclairia, Chrysactinium, Erato, Munnozia and Philoglossa ...the Liabinae containing Austroliabum, Cacosmia, Chionopappus, Ferreyranthus, Liabellum, Liabum, Microliabum, Oligactis, and Sinclairia; Paranepheliinae containing Paranephelius and Pseudonoseris; and Munnoziinae containing Chrysactinium, Erato, Munnozia, and Philoglossa.

The lists were clearly copy-pasted in, but what is perhaps most notable is that she missed two genera, saying there's fifteen, then listing thirteen. There was also a somewhat odd sentence that one of our reviewers caught and removed, though she editwarred somewhat for its inclusion: [10] [User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy pasting of a list of species belonging to a single taxon is different from copy pasting the detailed synonymy above. This list of species belonging to the tribe will be a part of the taxonomy of the tribe according to the authors and is available from multiple sources, precisely as it is presented in this article. In fact, to prevent errors, it should be copied and pasted, rather than typed in. --Blechnic (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it's awkward that she left out two genera, and I'd suggest that if you're stripping teh subtribes, you re alphebetise Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many of the copy-pastes are from unrelated topics, like the West African continental margin geology just flung across the whole continent. So, after everything is checked for plagiarism, it must all be checked for accuracy, because there appears to be a bigger issue with inaccuracies than even the plagiarisms. --Blechnic (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just read the article, her article is wrong, and has had the easily identified misinformation removed.[11] Problematically it continues to appear that she can't edit plant articles accurately, and source the actual information in the articles, and should not be adding new ones, until all of her old ones are factually straightened out. --Blechnic (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful if I list them here as they are completed? Also, I would like them to be removed from the list of articles that need reviewing when one of the Plant Project people has looked it over -- it is already a lot that they take the time from the articles they want to be working on to look over mine.
Also, I would not mind making another list of articles that have few or no citations that I am adding taxonomy information to (these articles have to do with the uploading of images than me authoring anything). Many of these articles lack citations and I don't feel like I have the time to try to find where they got the information from.
In summary, 1) should I list new articles here for you and 2) can I delete them from the list of needing review when a Plant Project person has reviewed them and 3) can I list here articles which were authored by others and need similar investigation or more -- like the sources be found and then reviewed for plagiarism or copyright.
A fourth and non-necessary (but nice for me) thing that I would like to do is to have someone ask me what I saw that was plagiarized from me here. -- carol (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand Pieter Pelser may now be the world's leading authority on the systematics of Senecioneae; on the other hand see the guidelines at WP:BIO.
Also, in the edit log for Liabeae, she cites me as agreeing that the Liabeae are native to the Neotropics. All I did was correct a spelling. I suspect the statement is correct, but I neither know it to be correct, nor have I verified it. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I remove the "bio" thing from the discussion page then it simply becomes an article about a botanist authority? -- carol (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Presence or absence of a label on the talk page does not change the substance of the matter; a rose by another name would smell as sweet. (BTW, being listed as the authority for a botanical name is IPNI is hardly proof of notability - for example, I'm in there.) I'm enough of an inclusionist to not be bothered hy the presence of this article (if all those obscure musicians and sportsmen qualify why not an obscure scientist), but you might convince me otherwise. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are! Is your species also listed on ING? (Not all of Pieters seem to be....) And, is your name a red link here? And, finally, is a rosid by any other name still a rosid? -- carol (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol, I'm afraid your lists would be about as accurate as your plant taxonomy: 100% misleading. So, no, thank you. Your biggest help would be to stop making mistakes, and in your case, this could be accomplished, it seems, by not writing any more articles. Please consider it. It took far more work, words, time and editors to correct the mess you made of the Liabeae, winding up with a single sentence stub, than it took for you to write it in the first place.

Your plant taxonomy was so misleading in that article that it now appears that just about every plant taxonomy sentence you have written should be removed from Wikiepdia. --Blechnic (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles touched by carol (talk)

  • Dichelostemma <--I did not dare to touch any of the words, I only added taxonomy references and the original publishing if I could find it. It would be nice if words that are there could be referenced so that I would have a guideline on how to write an article which uses sourced information but is not considered by the community to be plagiarism -- carol (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dichelostemma congestum <--I did not dare to touch any of the words, I only added taxonomy references and the original publishing if I could find it. It would be nice if words that are there could be referenced so that I would have a guideline on how to write an article which uses sourced information but is not considered by the community to be plagiarism -- carol (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now I have simply reverted both of these.
    It is simple to write articles that use botanical source information without plagiarizing and there are specific areas where most of botany will appear to have plagiarized from each other. Stop playing word games long enough to participate and you might learn how. There are plenty of editors who have said they would help or teach you. In addition, I have discussed the issue with you with examples, and you said you understood. As long as you claim to understand, but don't, and continue to prefer playing word games to writing an encyclopedia it is going to make learning hard. Learning usually requires and active engagement and willingness to learn on the part of the learner.
    If you don't intend to listen to the community, and instead intend to throw feces around when you should be taking the time to learn, no one will be able to help.
    Please cease adding any taxonomical information, including references, to articles. You simply do not understand what you are adding and you are creating bad articles by doing so. --Blechnic (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Senecioneae These edits also need checked. One of the plant editors is ticked off at me for simply reverting without checking, but the more checking that is done the more problems are found. It's not just plagiarism, and misinformation, and wrong information, and mixing up of information from one taxon to another, and from one mountain range and geological range to another a couple of hundred million years or more away, but also apparently there are issues with the images, copyright, and wrong images. --

--Blechnic (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Blechnic (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dendrosenecio Also this article, largely done by Carol, is the one in which she makes some Eastern/Central African mountains the Alps because of a nice description of some mountains of northwestern Africa, and probably needs every line checked. --Blechnic (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban template on user page

I question putting a ban template on the user page, and would like input from others at AN/I on this issue.[12] --Blechnic (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears"