|
Removed childish graffitti
|
Second thoughts: a bit more tinkering to make the original comment a bit clearer (at least, as I understood it)
|
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Given the author of the page and of the reference, this comes close to [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 18:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
Given the author of the page and of the reference, this comes close to [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 18:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
I agree it looks funny, but actually that text is pretty much standard stuff. Nothing new. It looks like a synopsis of erosion prediction one would put in an introduction to a PhD thesis |
I agree it looks funny, but actually that text is pretty much standard stuff. Nothing new. It looks like a synopsis of erosion prediction that one would put in an introduction to a PhD thesis, a synopsis which is not original research. I wouldn't complain about the content, although the reference is not the most useful. I'll be adding to this page with more conventional wisdom in due course. [[User:Daniel Collins|Daniel Collins]] 21:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Text copied from website == |
== Text copied from website == |
||
 | Soil Start‑class Mid‑importance  | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Given the author of the page and of the reference, this comes close to original research --Henrygb 18:13, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree it looks funny, but actually that text is pretty much standard stuff. Nothing new. It looks like a synopsis of erosion prediction that one would put in an introduction to a PhD thesis, a synopsis which is not original research. I wouldn't complain about the content, although the reference is not the most useful. I'll be adding to this page with more conventional wisdom in due course. Daniel Collins 21:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've just made some minor corrections, and in the search for links found that the text in Erosion prediction#Wind Erosion Models appears verbatim on this site. I suppose this would be a license violation...--StevenDH (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.weru.ksu.edu/new_weru/simmodels/simmodels.shtml and this book. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentencesorphrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators willbeblocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- ascidian | talk-to-me 16:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
