User talk:Lemnaminor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 29 October 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

Gary Thomas Copyright[edit]

Dear Editor,

I have no idea about how to prove this, but you couldn't be more wrong about this copyright. I wrote, 2 years ago, all of that Wikipedia page word for word, on my own. Unless it is a quote and then it is quotationed. Other areas are paraphrased in concordance with standard academic rules.

The Family Life Today author bio which you have mentioned was taken directly FROM the Wikipedia page. They copied the Wikipedia page, not the other way around. I can contact them and ask them to remove it if necessary.

I have no idea how to prove when their article was published, but I can guarantee that the Wikipedia article is the original and their's is a copy. Can you please inspect the time of published on their site. Can you also please remove the tag from the Gary Thomas page? I respect you, but please do more DUE DILIGENCE before making these accusations and drastic edits.

Brookspowell629 (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629

Hi Brookspowell629, the page footer claims copyright on the text: "© Copyright 2014 FamilyLife®. All Rights Reserved." Please don't take this personally - it's just that there are two conflicting claims of copyright, one from WP and one from FamilyLife. I did not see any indication that the wiki page was published before the FamilyLife page. An admin will now investigate what happened and if s/he finds that FamilyLife copied Wikipedia's text it will be restored and the template removed. See WP:CP, especially section #2 and #5 on how to assist: I am sure that your help as page creator would be very useful and much appreciated. Thanks for your contributions and again, I am assuming good faith. This is merely a request for somebody to look into it. The templates probably make it sound worse than it is. --Lemnaminor (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Lemnaminor,
In many ways it feels that it was not in good faith because you followed me from another page and then the benefit on the doubt is for the article because it can easily be seen that the Wikipedia page was written in 2013--not to mention you had to do a backsearch on why the article may be wrong. It definitely was not a randomized check.
Can you please speed up the rate at which the tag is removed? I would like if we had a professional relationship on Wikipedia, but it seems right now that you have it out for me and are being ad hominem.
Brookspowell629 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Brookspowell629
I certainly do not have it out for you. Copyright is a serious issue for Wikipedia though, and maybe you can see where I am coming from: why would an organization like FamilyLife copy content from Wikipedia? It seemed better to mark the paragraph as problematic and have somebody with more experience in these matters check it out. According to WP:CP, it takes 5 days or so for them to handle the case. You need to present your evidence there, as the guidelines allow only admins and some other users to remove the tag.--Lemnaminor (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That paragraph is not gone, by the way: it will remain in the history of the page until a decision has been made. It's very easy to restore it if it turns out that FamilyLife copied Wikipedia and not the other way round. --Lemnaminor (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)