User talk:Tomlovesfar

Some problems

There are some obvious problems with your approach, in relation to your trying to duplicate article text in Wikiversity:

1) You created an article in Wikiversity (first at Cookie Encryption and then at Enhancing Web Browser Security through Cookie Encryption) that was a copy from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391195563_Securing_and_Enhancing_Web_Browser_Security_through_Cookie_Encryption, and there was no license at RG at that point. It therefore looked like a copyright violation. (I still do not see any license at RG; I do not know what the problem is.) (You created these pages under anonymous IP accounts.)

2) You knew the text was already published elsewhere, but you did not indicate as much in any way in the Wikiversity page of the article. That seems to be problematic from academic ethics standpoint.

3) In discussions on my talk page, you repeatedly used overt GenAI slop to talk to me.

4) In the Colloquium discussion, you stated "I am the Author and I do have the documents to prove it", but as per RG, there are multiple authors.

5) In the Colloquium discussion, you stated "Wikiversity already hosts Wikipedia mirrors (which are available publicly elsewhere), proving that “duplicate existence” is not disqualifying": I have no idea what you mean. Wikiversity does not mirror Wikipedia.

6) In the Colloquium discussion, you stated '"The article in ResearchGate is fully publicly accessible and Google finds its word sequences (unless broken by a newline)." No this isn't true' and then 'The article in ResearchGate is fully publicly accessible and Google finds its word sequences (unless broken by a newline).' Then which it is? A contradiction.

7) As for your "Wikiversity is a collaborative space, and whether something is valuable should be determined by community consensus, not unilateral action": yes, and that is why I went to Colloquium to collect input from others. A point of your incoherence.

8) You interacted from an anonymous IP account despite having a user account. That reduces my (I am a curator) confidence I am dealing with the same person (although in this case, this seems very likely).

There are more problems. I ask you to avoid using GenAI to write responses. If your English is not good enough to interact productively with curators and custodians in the English Wikiversity, further cooperation is going to be difficult. The question is then how did you even manage to write the article you are trying to place into the English Wikiversity. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

1) Although the license was not visible at ResearchGate at first, It was already visible at Zenodo (Which was linked to DOI as a hyper link at research gate) as CC BY 4.0 (Now it's CC BY SA 4.0). Both of the licenses are fully compatible with Wikiversity. Therefore You could have at least asked me, or looked into it properly before deleting it right away. A simple query at discussion page would have been sufficient.

2) Zenodo DOI publicly establishes authorship and license. The Wikiversity version was meant to ensure accessibility in open format.

3) I used GenAI so that I can elaborately explain and help you understand.

4)Yes, that is true: the article has multiple authors. Let me rephrase that.

5) What I meant is that you can find so many articles here that are basically summaries of the Wikipedia page itself.

6) Those words written in italics were supposed to quote your statement, and you were the one to say that.

8) The user account was created very recently, and I keep forgetting to log in before replying to you; that is the reason you are getting replies from the IP.

Please do address other problems; I am willing to address them all. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 04:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

9) In this edit, you changed the text of your post without changing the time stamp of your post or indicating in any way that the post was edited by you. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

10) In "Yes, That is true the article has multiple authors", "That" is wrongly capitalized and should be "that"; moreover, there are multiple statements connected by no punctuation, whether comma, semicolon or colon. It should perhaps be this: "Yes, that is true: the article has multiple authors." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

11) As for "Those words written in Italics was suppose to quote your statement [...]": "Italics" should not be capitalized: it is a common noun used in the middle of a sentence, nor part of a title, etc. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

With housekeeping covered, can we return to the core issues? Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

12) In this edit, you again changed a post already made, with no change in time stamp or any indication that a change was made. And I see almost no admission of doing anything wrong on your part at all, like entering text in a page, where the text is the same as another text online where the other text had no proper license indicated there. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan — I won’t retro-edit posted comments going forward.

I also acknowledge that at the time of your first action, the ResearchGate page did not visibly show a license. For clarity, the work has been under CC BY 4.0 on the Zenodo DOI (linked from RG) since before I created the Wikiversity page. I should have referenced Zenodo earlier, My oversight. But you could have checked out Zenodo as RG was clearly linked to it via DOI

I have made following changes yesterday:

1. Changed the License from CC BY 4.0 to CC BY-SA 4.0
2. Added the same license to RG
3. Added an explicit consent in the bottom of my userpage allowing wikiversity to use anything I have uploaded here

Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Tomlovesfar/sandbox

I noticed your User:Tomlovesfar/sandbox just created. I will wait longer before I delete the page; user space is not indexed by Google. But even there, copyright is a concern in principle. If the text on the page stems from another page (as it seems to), you should immediately indicate on the page where else the text is available and what the authors are.

Oops. You already did, but at the end. The authors should be listed at the beginning, as is the usual academic practice. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:06, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added the following statement to the paper’s description on ResearchGate:

“License: CC BY-SA 4.0. The authors have provided consent for this work to be hosted and redistributed via Wikiversity under the same license.”

Ensures full clarity and compliance regarding copyright.

It’s a bit ironic that I had to formalize consent for my own co-authored work, even after repeatedly confirming that I am indeed Tom Joe James but I hope this finally resolves any remaining concern. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 08:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you now move the authors to the top by editing User:Tomlovesfar/sandbox? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I suspect your response above was written with the help of GenAI. I am also starting to suspect that the article was written in part with the help of GenAI. From what I understand, ResearchGate allows non-peer-reviewed articles to be uploaded. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The text in User:Tomlovesfar/sandbox is not identical to https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391195563_Securing_and_Enhancing_Web_Browser_Security_through_Cookie_Encryption; some sections are missing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The sandbox is my user space, meant specifically for drafts, experimentation, or formatting, and it is not subject to the same level of scrutiny as mainspace pages.

Regarding your comment that “some sections are missing”

As one of the article’s authors, I have every right to adapt, omit, or restructure sections when preparing a version for Wikiversity. The purpose of a sandbox is precisely to refine content before it’s moved to mainspace, not to mirror another site word-for-word.

The current version fully attributes the authors, links to the original publication, and carries a valid CC BY SA 4.0 license.

That should be more than sufficient. Tomlovesfar (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

The top now says: "Authors & References is in the bottom". The bottom says: "Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391195563_Securing_and_Enhancing_Web_Browser_Security_through_Cookie_Encryption", which I would naively interpret as "This text is available from: LOC".

I think you are a major waste of time and attention. I will stop interacting with you for one, two or several days; perhaps some other custodian or curator wants to pick up the slack. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)