Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007-02-13

[edit]
edit

Articles

  • Wisconsin Energy Corporation (history · last edit) from [1]. Just one section appears copyvio. Midnightcomm 00:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WDOQ (history · last edit) from [2]. BuddingJournalist 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WGGG (history · last edit) from [3]. BuddingJournalist 01:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purasaiwalkam (history · last edit) from [4]. Alex Bakharev 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard L. Walker (history · last edit) from [5]. Chappedbawit 01:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second Chance (novel) (history · last edit) from [6]. Addere 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeepThinka Records (history · last edit) from [7]. Author claims ownership. ColourBurst 02:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Michael Botean (history · last edit) from [8]. TMLutas has asserted permission but repeatedly evaded my requests to say what the permission is, so bringing it here. —xyzzyn 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evasion my foot, it was granted permission by the chancellor in a telephone conversation, I used less than 20% of the site which makes it fair use anyway, and my modified version that was actually posted is certainly under GFDL. xyzzy has made no effort to actually ascertain copyright by contacting the relevant representative as per Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. He is not following the guideline and admits as much in the talk discussion held on our account pages. TMLutas 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • …Also an apparent lack of understading of ‘fair use’, ‘derivative work’ and ‘GFDL’. —xyzzyn 14:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The guidelines ask for good faith assumption. It's clearly lacking in this case. What's being copied and modified is the bishop's official CV which isn't really available outside of this page on the website. So, no effort to confirm copyright claims, no good faith, plenty of snark and mistrust shortly after a recent past run in on a completely different subject. Would *somebody* please just follow the guidelines? They are not being followed currently as per xyzzy's message timestamped 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC) which says in part "As for procedure, no, I’m not following any guidelines;". It also says in part that I should have been following Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission which, when I read it, I discovered I loosely was. That's because the guidelines are general, common sense and xyzzy is showing little of it right now. I've no faith that if I did get an email (which, as a pure text file, is entirely forgeable) and sent it to him that this would settle things with him. Had he just initiated a contact (as the guideline which he suggested I follow but he would not) the permission would either have been granted immediately or after consultation (most likely with me). TMLutas 15:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just to comment, it's incumbent upon the person asserting permission to provide the required confirmation as clearly stated at this page. It is neither appropriate nor IMHO reasonable for a copier to expect others to confirm that the copier has permission to copy.
            • From the link above "It sometimes happens that users post text from other websites claiming to have permission to do so. Sometimes, images from other websites are uploaded and claimed to be under a free license (GFDL, public domain, {{No rights reserved}}, or others.) If the external website does not have any indication that such claims are well-founded, it sometimes is a good idea to try to verify such claims by contacting a representative of that website directly. You should, however, basically assume good faith and judge for yourself whether a claim made appears credible or indeed does warrant following up with an attempt to have it confirmed." The two choices given are assume good faith or check it out. Don't check it out and just slap a copy violation tag on the article isn't on the list. But the lister explicitly said he wasn't following guidelines so this is a larger problem. It's a process problem. My position is that guidelines should be followed by listing admins. If they care enough to list, they should care enough to do it following the guidelines which means that Fr. Ovi should have gotten an email or a phone call by now by the lister as per the guideline referenced above and quoted in this comment. This started being a very little thing, my not crossing all my "t"s on the permission. It's not the end of the world and Bishop Botean is going to get an article no matter what the decision on this review. Admins thinking that they don't have to follow guidelines, don't have to assume good faith, don't have to check for permission as per the guideline, *is* a big deal, at least a much bigger deal than this one article being irregularly permissioned. TMLutas 19:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk-in (history · last edit) The article on Walk-ins was copyvio-tagged by someone named Metaspheres who not only did not follow the instructions to post a notice here saying he had done so, but has not responded to my requests to discuss the situation.

I am one of the people who did most of the work on that article, and I've been working on it for a couple of years. A website called Crystalinks lifted the entire text of the article and reprinted it, with a link to Wikipedia at the bottom. Apparently Metaspheres thought it was that the other way around; that the article had originally appeared on Crystalinks and that the editors of the Wikipedia article had copied from Crystalinks.

I believe Metaspheres is a relatively new user and may not be familiar with the usual etiquettes or procedures, since he (or she) also didn't post anything to the Walk-in article's talk page, asking or inquiring about this situation, before simply placing the copyvio tag.

Now I can't take it off without bringing it to the attention of an admin; Metaspheres has not responded to my requests to discuss what happened; I am posting this notice here to fulfill the requirements of the tag, and I will be contacting a mediator. Thank you, --Bluejay Young 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer an issue, voluntarily removed by editor. -- Donald Albury 17:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Images

Reasoning: I found this and this image elsewhere on the Net, which is clearly from the same photoshoot. The images I found have a tag on the top saying www.latexlair.com, which is Bianca's site. I believe the photo uploaded to Wikipedia had the tag cropped off. Tabercil 03:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_February_13&oldid=107693309"