Talk:Visual looming syndrome
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Help completing copyvio investigation submission[edit]
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please complete the copyvio listing on the article page. More specifically, I have tagged the article for a copyright violation investigation, but cannot complete listing it because it requires creation of a page that I cannot create—that is it requires that Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2018 December 25 be created and that the text below be added there, but I cannot do so as an IP.
* {{subst:article-cv|:Visual looming syndrome}} from https://books.google.com/books?id=ax62oPBxVTsC&pg=PA114 https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:59Amm3ZNw9cJ:https://www.lookformedical.com/faq.php%3Fq%3DPresbyopia%2520affects%26lang%3D1+&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-ab. ~~~~
See the instructions in the copyvio template on the article page for clarity. Thanks--100.2.221.12 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi 100.2.221.12, I have created the page and copied your request. Please continue with the instructions by notifying the user now. Thanks
~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- And I added the expected date header to the file and looked more closely at the supposed copyright violations. The second URL leads to a page where a couple of lines are copied from and credited to wikipedia, so not a copyright violation. I'm not sure what the overlap may be in the first URL since the copyvio detector isn't able to look at the requested page any more. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- The first link is live and goes to a Google Books scan where there seems to be all of one or two short sentences copied out of a multi-page scientific paper, which is surely minimal enough to include in quotes with a citation - certainly when I've been writing academic documents that's been considered acceptable. The second link is currently dead, so it's impossible to tell what may or may not have been copied (and it could be WP is now the only place that has an online copy of the text), but in any case the entire article is barely twenty lines long so it may still fall under the usual fair use limits so long as it's properly marked out as a cited quote... Besides which it feels like it wouldn't take more than five minutes for someone with a better grounding in the subject to rewrite what's here in their own words and save the article from being deleted outright. 146.199.76.161 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- There was some foundational copyright issues, but I've redirected to looming, because unsourced medical content is not what we are looking for. Google search finds nothing but Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, so this may not actually be a topic we should be covering. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The first link is live and goes to a Google Books scan where there seems to be all of one or two short sentences copied out of a multi-page scientific paper, which is surely minimal enough to include in quotes with a citation - certainly when I've been writing academic documents that's been considered acceptable. The second link is currently dead, so it's impossible to tell what may or may not have been copied (and it could be WP is now the only place that has an online copy of the text), but in any case the entire article is barely twenty lines long so it may still fall under the usual fair use limits so long as it's properly marked out as a cited quote... Besides which it feels like it wouldn't take more than five minutes for someone with a better grounding in the subject to rewrite what's here in their own words and save the article from being deleted outright. 146.199.76.161 (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)