Talk:Parsytec

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I have already taken care of the section in question. It no longer is as was -- VictorVautier (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adapted and recovered some of the formerly deleted info. Akolyth (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because I have substantially changed the paragraphs which I had taken from the source. Should there be any further objections please let me know. However, it would help if the objections were specific. --Akolyth (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrase and cut-and-past writing

I was asking by Kudpung to take a look at this, as I frequently work on sourcing questions. Unfortunately, there remains substantial close paraphrase of the various sources, and the recent efforts to fix it have not been anywhere near sufficient--checking several of the references, I find that parts of them are used at various places in this article. We have a general explanation about about what constitutes excessively close paraphrase: WP:Close paraphrase. To use my own wording for this, as it applies to this particular article, close paraphrase is not fixed by substituting words or phrases. It consists not just of the words used, but the arrangement, the sequence of ideas. A Wikipedia article cannot be written just by taking sections out of preexisting documents, changing the words a little, and combining them into an article--what we call copypaste. Rather, the sources must be used to create something new, written without reliance on the way others have said it, but relying instead on the information content of the sources. This is more difficult with technical material: there is often no way of presenting, for example, a list of specifications using different words, when the words are the standard terms used in the field, and there are no exact synonyms, and the same information must be presented. What can be done then is to use a different manner of presentation, or a different sequence. For example, sometimes things presented separately in the original can be put together as comparisons. Sometimes things common to a set of models and repeated for each of them in the original can be separated out, and said only once. I will take a look back at this in a week or so.

Sometimes I will rewrite articles in cases like this, where the subject is clearly notable, as this is. I am reluctant to do so here--though I have the usual knowledge of computers, and know what the words mean, and what things are important, this subject is not my specialty, and someone whose specialty it actually is, can do it much more easily. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE FOLLWING IS A DUPLICATION OF A COMMENT AT Ironholds (talk)'s TALK PAGE (date adapted):

I was quite busy this week which is why it has taken me until now to re-word the paragraphs in question. I have used the tool that you and DGG ( talk ) have recommended this and I think that the issue of paraphrasing should now be closed. There are still 8 matches left, but when one has a close look at their nature one will find out that they should be acceptable. Firstly, two are (alphebetical) enumerations which cannot seriously be considered as genuine work. Secondly, one should be aware that technical language very often makes use of compound words which the aforesaid tool considers duplications (e.g. transputer-based parallel system). Thirdly, it is customary to use terms power supply and cooling precisely in this order. I have no explanation for this. It might be because us engineers consider power and cooling as less fascinating (irrespective of the fact that thermodynamics is one of the hardest subjects at university). To sum up, I think that the question of close paraphrasing should be had another look into, and I would like to invite you to erase the tag "close paraphrasing". And as DGG ( talk ) was the nominator, I very much would like to learn about his views on the revision. Regards, Akolyth (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After a week I now understand that no one has objections anymore and accepts the changes I have made. Thus, I have deleted the box "close paraphrasing" Akolyth (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]