Talk:Siderodromophobia

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I just fixed copyvio issues. I did it by replacing those with my own words and flow. --PlanetStar 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope - a close paraphrase can still be a copyright violation. I suggest you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Frankly though, given the sourcing for this article, rewriting it will be a waste of time anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. The actual source is "American Psychiatric Association. (1994).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author." which I imagine meets WP:MEDRS. Is it in the latest edition though? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Siderodromophobia (copy of dicussion at User talk:NearEMPTiness)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I wonder if you are aware of the prior history of this article? It was originally created by User:PlanetStar, and then deleted as a copyright violation of this: [1] It appears that PlanetStar translated the English-language version of the article to German, and you have translated it back - leaving us with an article which is still closely derived from the original source, and thus possibly still a copyright violation. There are also issues with the sourcing and general appropriateness concerning articles on phobias created by PlanetStar, as discussed here [2] and here [3]. It is possible that these articles may be deleted en masse, and you may wish to comment before this happens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I came here to say some of the same things, except, NearEMPTiness, it appears that you also did the German translation! My curiosity was piqued when I noticed that the earliest edit imported by Xaosflux contained an English edit summary. (I'm not sure I would've checked this myself, either, because you are one of the more reliable requesters at Requests for page importation). Could you comment on what's going on? Does the German Wikipedia have similar policies about copyright violations to the English one? Graham87 03:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Graham, I really only checked for overlapping edits, and made sure to only maintain the post-deleted enwiki edits. Note, I just restored the prior speedy-deleted talk page (Talk:Siderodromophobia) should it be relevant to this ongoing discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was not aware of the intended mass deletion of phobia articles at all, and I personally think that re-writing would be better than deleting. I fully agree to the Wikipedia principle that we should not tolerate copyright infringements. However, in the specific case of siderodromophobia, I think by translating the siderodromophobia to German and then re-translating it back to English the wording has changed sufficiently that it cannot be seen as a copyright infringement anymore. I think that this version should be acceptable because the content cannot be changed further, and the author of the original is mentioned in the article. I have also added links and pictures. In summary, I do not see any reason for deleting this article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I start seeing the dilemma now: By importing the old English versions, which might contain copyright infringemens we have run a full circle. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Also, unauthorized translations of copyrighted works are also copyright infringements. That's why it's illegal to translate, say, a Brockhaus Enzyklopädie entry into English and post it here; if the Wikipedia entry was re-translated into German, I'm pretty sure the original publishers would not be impressed. Graham87 15:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to RevDeletion of old reversions that are copyvios brought back via the import process, will that suffice to resolve this? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't translate my original article to German Wikipedia as I don't know the German language. I think the reason why people are talking about this is because somebody may have copied the original siderodromophobia article to German wikipedia, then German editors edited the article to get out of copyright infringement, and then after siderodromophobia was first deleted, xaosflux recreated article through copying and translation from German. PlanetStar 00:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, @Xaosflux:. @AndyTheGrump:, what do you think? Graham87 08:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've deleted the english language revisions that came back from dewiki via the import process (which had previously been deleted here on enwiki). If all the issues are settled now, I HIGHLY suggest this discussion be copied to Talk:Siderodromophobia. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

about.com written by unknown people of unknown expertise is not a valid source for wikipedia. Not to say that the link actually redirects to some suspicious "verywell.com" content spammer.

The sources which speak about specific phobias do not belong here because they do not speak about siderodromophobia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)