Talk:Dirinaria confusa

Fungi: Lichens Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, I'm not sure how it violates copyright (even the report shows it's clean, only detected bits are just bibliography/reference. But I've made some adjustments furthermore.
Note: When dealing with nomenclature articles, one can only rewrite too much, in lieu of mentioning/stating the facts and data. I can't just assert Original Research for the sake of uniqueness. The article drastically differs from the sources with headings, formats, etc, (I used multiple sources, and the facts are the same so it'd appear closely paraphrased to one or more particular sources). --X (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from talkpage)

Or rather, you gave the appearance of using multiple sources, when those sources weren't actually used. To wit: in the Dirinaria confusa article, the source Gasparyan et al. (doi:10.1017/S0024282917000226) is used as a "source" twice in the article. I checked this source, it does not even name the titled species anywhere in the article. So I suppose that example is more "citation fraud" then copyvio. Esculenta (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I currently see no cause for a copyvio CSD. The actual terms of art necessarily should be used, but usage has been sufficiently rephrased. If you have other issues with the referencing, I suggest addressing those without slapping a copyvio tag on the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when there's copyvio in an article (which there clearly was before the editor changed it), you suggest not "slapping" a copyvio tag on the article? Perhaps template:Copyvio-revdel is more appropriate, because the copyvio still remains in article history? Esculenta (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta, even when you tagged there were no vehement copyright violations. X (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to provide a line-by-line analysis, if it will help you to understand where the line is drawn on copyvio/close paraphrasing. Esculenta (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta If you're so keen on getting the revision deleted, please request so to an admin and let them decide. I'd rather like to put my energy into my further contributions. X (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that some of your "further contributions" have similar issues. I could point these specific issues at those articles, but I guess it will been seen as "harassment", so I'll bow out now and just leave this documentation for others. Esculenta (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Esculenta Wow, I'm flattered. That's great. Cheers buddy. (¬_¬") X (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(from my talkpage)

Consortium of Lichen Herbaria is generally considered a reliable source so I did not suspect they'd have linked to unrelated citations. I copied and pasted it and it auto-links to that Cambridge source. You're appreciated for pointing that out. But first, you accuse of copyvio, then drift to "citation fraud". We both are trying to do build and contribute to the encyclopedia. The pointed issue is a human error and calling me citation "fraud" is unwarranted and offensive. Anyway, I've now removed that source from this article along with 1-2 others I've used in. X (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]