User talk:49.183.7.42

March 2023

Your edit to Maryanne Demasi has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is NO copyright material used. The text as inserted is entirely original and reflects a true and proper description of the situation regarding the accusations (proven false) of duplication in her work. the article should stand as is. 49.183.149.227 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No is copied from here, you can quote it or write it yourself but don't copy it. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is not a quote, it is a summary of the article, the words are mine, they are summarising the article for brevity and conciseness, please restore the words as i wrote them, there is NO copying of text. 49.183.149.227 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You added: However, an administrative tribunal hearing on the matter, conducted by the University of Adelaide, exonerated Demasi of all allegations. In response to three allegations, the "duplication" represented the ‘baseline’ value for time course experiments and they were intended to indicate there is only one baseline for both the normoxia and hypoxia treatments. The expert witnesses at the hearing, and the panel agreed this was acceptable practice at the time, circa 2002, and did not constitute a breach in any code. The panel ruled that it could not substantiate any of the allegations made by the complainant.

The source says: They represented the ‘baseline’ value for time course experiments and they were intended to indicate there is only one baseline for both the normoxia and hypoxia treatments. The expert witnesses and the panel agreed this was acceptable practice at the time, circa 2002, and did not constitute a breach in any code. The panel found no evidence of duplication for the remainder of the specific allegations where the respondent had denied duplication. The panel ruled that it could not substantiate any of the allegations made.

The green parts are the same in article and source. Can you really say the words are yours, when three out of four sentences are the same as the source? 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 1AmNobody24 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---