- It would be good to include an article on this woman. Why do all my discussions keep getting deleted? Isn't this an open forum for discussion? 22.214.171.124 18:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)zarahemlite (but not signed in--at work).
- For the record, your writing had tone issues so severe (it was more of a gushy essay than anything remotely looking like an encyclopedia article) it was almost impossible to do anything with it. Circeus 00:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I am the author of the blog entry mentioned above, and I have reinstated Sonia Green's entry based on the research I did for that blog post. A few sentences are taken directly from it, and are used with permission. Contact me if you have any questions. Thanks. AnnaleeNewitz 16:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Formatting changes, including moving the post by AnnaleeNewitz into chronological order at the bottom. It's freaky to see later posts on top of older edits. - BanyanTree 08:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Sorry to freak you out with my formatting. Won't happen again. AnnaleeNewitz 21:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
"with permission" isn't sufficient ... the text has to be placed under GFDL. You can read more about this at WP:Copyright. For now, I'm leaving those two sentences alone, as it's possible they can be rewritten to avoid the copyright problem or perhaps the wired article can be placed under GFDL. The sentences are: "Unlike many women of her era, Greene was independently middle-class.". This is directly from the Wired article. Perhaps a rewrite such as "Greene was independently middle class, unusual for women of that time". The second sentence is "She worked as a milliner -- a hat-designer -- at a posh department store and frequently traveled for her job" and actually isn't word-for-word anymore as "a hat-designer" has been replaced by a link to the milliner article, so I don't know if it's strictyl speaking a copyvio or not, but more of a rewrite would be better. I think there's a problem of WP:OR as well. I don't believe that Wired Blogs count as published, so this would be unpublished original research. In that case, both sentence when rewritten (or placed under GFDL) should have citations to published articles that support them. Brian 07:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)btball
- Brian is confused about and misstates WP:Copyright. "With permission" is certainly sufficient for copyright-holders under WP:Copyright; it says so in the first paragraph:
- If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either you hold the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or; you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.
- AnnaleeNewitz clearly stated that she was the author of the blog post; therefore assumed to be the copyright-holder unless there is evidence to the contrary; and therefore she can "grant permission".
- Moreover, I would point out that a single phrase or sentence would be a difficult copyright case to make, and if it were possible to make out a case on a single phrase or sentence then the minor alterations that Brian suggests wouldn't really help. (That's not an argument for not copying sentences; it merely points out that Brian's representation of copyright law is inaccurate.)
- Secondly, it's confusing to mix the WP:OR and the WP:Copyright comments about publication in the same complaint. Blogs certainly qualify as "published" for purposes of WP:Copyright. WP:OR is more about peer review, verification, etc., and that's why self-publication is discouraged. However, citing to a blog doesn't indicate that the research is WP:OR; it just indicates that there needs to be a better citation -- to published articles or biographies, which certainly exist. I fixed those refs in the article. --lquilter 15:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I was browsing the Amazon comments on the Necronomicon, which are always good for a laugh, and found this:
1 of 14 people found the following review helpful: 5.0 out of 5 stars Some of you could do with alittle research, November 23, 2004 By S. Stanton "sargonarcane" Concidering with alittle research done one would learn that H.P. Lovecraft met with Sonia Greene who dated the poet and magician Aleister Crowley. Crowley by all accounts had seen Dee's translation. So it is not hard to see how Lovecraft could have learned of it from her... also you could take into account Lovevraft was merely a liar.
as there's no mention of Crowley in the article, I was wondering if it's true. The fact that the writer says Lovecraft only met Greene when he in fact married her--and the spelling errors--don't fill fill me with confidence about the truth of it, but if it is true, it should be mentioned here.--Yoyogod (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)