Talk:Blackbeard (miniseries)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blackbeard (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823144031/http://in.hallmarkchannel.tv/programme.aspx?ID=210234 to http://in.hallmarkchannel.tv/programme.aspx?ID=210234&From=Genres
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922200447/http://bztv.typepad.com:80/newsviews/2005/08/blackbeard_sail.html to http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2005/08/blackbeard_sail.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Blackbeard (2006 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/2005/08/blackbeard_sail.html
- Added archive https://archive.is/20160308162912/http://www.fayobserver.com/elite/travel/out-to-sea/article_4f3210cd-21fb-501d-b4a3-6d65e237cd65.html to http://www.fayobserver.com/elite/travel/out-to-sea/article_4f3210cd-21fb-501d-b4a3-6d65e237cd65.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Heinz Duthel edit
Paul_012, I am a bit puzzled by this edit. Your summary for it was “Removing bad citation to fake book source by known Wikipedia plagiarizer. Cc: User:Moonraker”. The citation, which I added, is “Heinz Duthel, Duthel Thailand Guide II: Education in Thailand (16th Edition, 2015), p. 467”. Are you saying Heinz Duthel is notoriously unreliable? If so, do you have a source for that please? Moonraker (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can see for yourself. If you look inside his self-published "books", you'll find that most of them consist entirely of blatant plagiarism of Wikipedia articles. "BOD - Books on Demand" is a vanity press that allows anyone to self-publish anything. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- PS I previously explained a bit more at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 334#Heinz Duthel. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Paul_012, thank you for explaining. I take it you do not have a source for what you are claiming, but you make some interesting points, and on balance I can agree with not relying on this citation. Still, your criticisms are a bit extreme. No one can plagiarize Wikipedia, which is all free for re-use anywhere, and I do not see that Duthel is acting in bad faith. Self-published works can be relied on here to some extent, but they are generally not deemed to be reliable sources. The only serious issue seems to be the risk that Wikipedia could be relying on its own content which has been recycled, which of course needs to be avoided. Moonraker (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is plagiarism and a violation of the GFDL/CC licences if one copies from Wikipedia without attribution, claiming the work as their own, and that is exactly what Duthel does. I have zero doubt that he is acting in bad faith, doing it for self-promotion and to scam people into purchasing the items he puts on sale. My previous attempts at reporting his items to Amazon have proven as much. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Paul_012 it seems to me you are joining a lot of dots. The usual reason why people publish books is to make money, and that is not vanity publishing. Duthel may or may not be self-publishing all his books and acting as his own legal advisor. Do you have any source that says anyone except you has raised any concerns about him? And just as a matter of interest, let’s take this Duthel Thailand Guide II: Education in Thailand, can you point to anything in it that is taken verbatim from Wikipedia? Moonraker (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sigh. Why are you wasting time defending his BS when it's this blindingly obvious? Yes, the issue has been raised by others on Wikipedia; see Talk:The Black Duchess#removed reference Heinz Duthel, Talk:Grand Palace#Copyright violation and Talk:Secretariat of Intelligence#Plagiarism, the last of which links to an article on heise.de explicitly calling out the fact, since 2010. The fact that he's acting in bad faith is evidenced by the way he claims innocence and plays the victim here. Google Books no longer shows a preview for your linked volume where I am, but it's obviously clear just looking just at the book description that it's a list of random Wikipedia articles related to Thailand. Anyway, I went to the trouble of using a proxy to check, and the entire page 467 from the removed citation is directly lifted from List of films shot in Thailand. Surely you could've check this yourself. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Paul_012 it seems to me you are joining a lot of dots. The usual reason why people publish books is to make money, and that is not vanity publishing. Duthel may or may not be self-publishing all his books and acting as his own legal advisor. Do you have any source that says anyone except you has raised any concerns about him? And just as a matter of interest, let’s take this Duthel Thailand Guide II: Education in Thailand, can you point to anything in it that is taken verbatim from Wikipedia? Moonraker (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is plagiarism and a violation of the GFDL/CC licences if one copies from Wikipedia without attribution, claiming the work as their own, and that is exactly what Duthel does. I have zero doubt that he is acting in bad faith, doing it for self-promotion and to scam people into purchasing the items he puts on sale. My previous attempts at reporting his items to Amazon have proven as much. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Paul_012, thank you for explaining. I take it you do not have a source for what you are claiming, but you make some interesting points, and on balance I can agree with not relying on this citation. Still, your criticisms are a bit extreme. No one can plagiarize Wikipedia, which is all free for re-use anywhere, and I do not see that Duthel is acting in bad faith. Self-published works can be relied on here to some extent, but they are generally not deemed to be reliable sources. The only serious issue seems to be the risk that Wikipedia could be relying on its own content which has been recycled, which of course needs to be avoided. Moonraker (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)