![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm afraid that this article follows too closely on the language of its sources. The most obvious examples of copyright concerns that I see are in the first two sentences:
Only one word has been changed here.
A quote has been moved into the middle of this sentence and the words "in fact" added, but otherwise the sentence is the same.
Other material also follows closely. Consider the following, from the article:
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, material that follows too closely on these sources should be rewritten. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".
Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me know if your concerns were addressed.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
This article was created simply to add POV negative information. Ridernyc ( talk) 00:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. You have failed to provide a valid response. Ignoring your inappropriate and untrue ad hominem remarks, this article is not at all a coatrack. It fairly reflects coverage of the mosque, its leadership, members, and employees, as reflected in RSs, in proportion to such representation. You have completely failed to demonstrate otherwise. You have to make a valid point for the tags to remain, which you have certainly failed to do. Simply throwing around wiki-terms such as coatrack without there being anything supporting your claim is not enough -- otherwise, you could traipse around wikipedia making untrue assertions and tagging articles willy nilly with nothing more to support your view than you have evidenced here. Btw, please do not improperly tag my talkpage, as you just did. That is not appropriate, and is a second error by you in a very few minutes, which at minimum is uncivil. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Wje -- are you wikihounding me again?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I see that this thread has been inactive for over one month. Any time a tag is slapped on an article to invite community discussion, it doesn’t seem that there is really much interest in discussing anything if those responsible for putting the tag and raising the issue in the first place don’t even bother to discuss the issue for over a month. So…
To Ridernyc (or WJE): There seems to be a guideline governing just about everything on Wikipedia. I suggest that if you have a concern, please A) cite not only the blue-linked guideline but, B) also quote the relevant text supporting your position and also, C) precisely lay out your logic explaining how the cited policy applies in this case—just like I did in my 17:38, March 26, 2010 (UTC) post on Talk:Lloyd R. Woodson. As I mentioned in that venue, it would save the rest of the community a great deal of time (and result in much less wikidrama) if those who slapped tags on articles over various concerns were quite a bit better versed in Wikipedia policy than the rest of us. Greg L ( talk) 00:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic Association of Long Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic Association of Long Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)