User talk:Megnoah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hi Megnoah! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Love of Corey (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Megnoah! Your additions to Bridget Radcliffe, Countess of Sussex have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dianna,
As the text was paraphrased, and only a small portion of the entirety, and it was also attributed properly to the original source compiler, it is NOT plagiarized.
Please see the author's intent of her work as it is shared only in digital format (link below):
'I write all the entries in A Who's Who of Tudor Women myself. I don't mind sharing this information. In fact, I'm happy to have it reach the widest audience possible. But I would appreciate being identified as the author of individual mini-biographies appearing on other websites, preferably with a link to this webpage, when my words appear in substantially the same form as they do here. All text included in this Who's Who is ©2008-14 by Kathy Lynn Emerson (all rights reserved).'
I included link to webpage and identified her as the source, as she has requested in her compilation.
Index to A Who's Who of Tudor Women by Kathy Lynn Emerson (archive.org)
https://web.archive.org/web/20141228064029/http://www.kateemersonhistoricals.com/TudorWomenIndex.htm
Honestly, I'm disgusted by the people, like you, who don't even bother to research the sources and links provided. You are creating unnecessary work for contributors when you delete without cause, as you have done here. Another editor deleted a date of death gathered from a tombstone as being an unreliable source. Why are you doing this? Do you hate history being preserved? This history was completely, and appropriately, attributed.
Sincerely,
Meg Noah Megnoah (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement on the website is not adequate for our purposes, as the author specifies "All text included in this Who's Who is ©2008-14 by Kathy Lynn Emerson (all rights reserved)." So it's not okay to copy it to Wikipedia; in fact it is a violation of our copyright policy to do so. — Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Dianaa,
I did not 'copy' the material. It was paraphrased and its source was identified. It was treated as requested by the author's guidelines and within wikipedia's paraphrasing guidelines cited above.
Sincerely,
Meg Noah Megnoah (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Below is Kathy's latest reply about paraphrasing her material. According to her, what I did by paraphrasing and citing the source is completely allowed under the law. The important copyright law to note from Kathy's reply is: 'the personal history of a historical figure cannot be copyrighted.'
From Kathy:
I suggest you research copyright law. Your information (and possibly Wikipedia's) is incorrect. The personal history of a historical figure cannot be copyrighted, only the text of a book published on the subject. Further, one of my mini-biographies is only a tiny part of the entire book and quoting or paraphrasing it is definitely allowed under the law. End of discussion.
On Apr 13, 2024, at 4:28 PM, Noah, Meg A wrote:

Hi Kathy,
Thank you for the reply. I did paraphrase the section from your material, but because you have a copyright on it, it can't be included on Wikipedia. As such, Bridget Morison's personal history has been made as your own personal property. The Wikipedia won't allow it on their site. Now, people who want to learn about Tudor women will not be able to. They can learn about the men, but not the women, because the men's world is well-established. But as any paraphrase of your material, due to its brevity in your paragraphs, will seem a copyright violation, the world is now denied knowing about them. Meaning, someone interested in Lute music and how it came to be, can't know about one of its patrons and how a rival plotted to murder her.
Only you can fix this. The world is at your mercy.
V/R,
Meg Noah Megnoah (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dianna,
Here's an email exchange with the author. Clearly, I was within Wikipedia's standards of paraphrasing and hers. There is a real problem with just deleting entries as you have done. The work was referenced and solid. It followed Wiki's standard of paraphrasing: Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate. Please restore the content or rewrite it as it would fit your requirements.
-------------------------------
Dear Ms. Noah,
There is a simple solution--paraphrase from the published book. That's copyrighted too, but I've never heard of a problem with either quoting or paraphrasing short sections of books, as long as the material is attributed. I replaced the webpage with an ebook several years ago, which may be why the links to the website have been deleted, rather than it being an issue of copyright. Copies of the ebook version of A WHO'S WHO OF TUDOR WOMEN are readily available through any online bookseller.
Incidentally, I did not copyright "old stuff." I copyrighted the result of decades of research on my part, to prevent others from illegally claiming it as their own.
Sincerely,
Kathy Lynn Emerson
www.KathyLynnEmerson.com
On Apr 13, 2024, at 2:45 PM, Noah, Meg A wrote:

Hi Kathy Lynn Emerson,
Long story short, I created a wikipedia page for Bridget Radcliffe, Countess of Sussex, and started populating it with details about her life. This is because I have been studying ancient music, and was researching a lute tablature by Barley that has dedications to her.
Bridget Radcliffe, Countess of Sussex - Wikipedia
I had paraphrased some information from your online
Index to A Who's Who of Tudor Women by Kathy Lynn Emerson (archive.org)
about her.
It in included attribution to yourself and your webpage, and the fact that your webpage is copyrighted.
All that rich history was deleted because you copyrighted it and now it can't be used in the public domain.
So now, people can't know about the Tudor women, because you have claimed complete ownership of that portion of history.
This is why I put my music information as CC0 and Public Domain Dedication.
When you copyright old stuff, you ruin for everyone else. There are people on Wikipedia who simply delete any information also cited from you as a result. Now, women of the Tudor period can't have their stories told in factual sense, because you copyrighted that information and it's hidden in a 'wayback' archive soon to be lost to time.
V/R,
Meg Noah Megnoah (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have documentation that shows the copyright holders have given permission for the material to be copied to this website. Wikipedia has procedures in place for this purpose. Posting a series of emails here on this talk page is not a proper release. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for an explanation of how to do it. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna,
We both know that my contribution was a paraphrase, and not a copy. And we both know that paraphrasing is allowed. Why do you continue to deny Bridget Morison Radcliff the ability to have her story shared, when her husband's is so celebrated? 
V/R,
Meg Noah Megnoah (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the added content was okay, but a couple of sentences had to be removed, because they were identical to the source. "Frances plotted to poison Bridget but failed"; "According to Charlotte Merton's "The Women who served Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth", Frances offered one Mathias Evans £50/annum if he would use witchcraft, backed up by poison, to dispose of the countess of Sussex and two others." — Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences in your quote are identical. My sentences, which you deleted, were not identical. I had reworded them to not say 'countess of Sussex', etc. it was a paraphrased content. Megnoah (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I removed: "Frances plotted to poison Bridget but failed. According to Charlotte Merton's The Women who served Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, Frances offered one Mathias Evans £50/annum if he would use witchcraft, backed up by poison, to dispose of Bridget and two other people." Click on this link to check my edit: Check my edit
The source says: "Frances plotted to poison Bridget but failed"; " According to Charlotte Merton's The Women who served Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth, Frances offered one Mathias Evans £50/annum if he would use witchcraft, backed up by poison, to dispose of the countess of Sussex and two others." There's only one word that is different. — Diannaa (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dianna,
Please stop lying. That's not I wrote, and you know it.
I had a larger paraphrase that:
  • did not use the word 'dispose' - it said murder or kill
  • included the fact that Frances also threated to kill Robert if he reconciled with Bridget
  • did not use the verbiage 'Countess of Sussex' as that is ambiguous, and
  • included the fact that Bridget had brought charges against Frances, but Frances was never arrested.
What you are doing is absolutely reprehensible. You are lying about what I wrote that you have deleted. You did not consider that it was a proper paraphrase and cited the original source. And you're destroying the foundation of Wikipedia by removing history in a person's biography. The purpose here is to be able to share information, and this information is not inherently copyrightable. 
And you're doing this dirty work under the cloak of anonymity. I, on the other hand, am using my real name. And people know I do not plagiarize! 
Either restore the original text, write your own, or let your anonymous legacy be one of destroying, rather than preserving, history.
I know what I wrote was within the guidelines of Wikipedia and well within acceptable fair use. I'm not going to be browbeaten into re-doing good work. I'm too busy in lute tabulations to try to preserve history for future generations.
This is your mistake and your nasty game. Fix it or don't. I can't help you.
V/R,
Meg Noah Megnoah (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
check this edit; this is where you added it. — Diannaa (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dianna,
I don't understand your game, but that's not what I had submitted. What I submitted included the fact that Frances had also threatened to kill Robert if he reconciled and the weapon that she threatened him with, and that was all part of new wording and paraphrasing. The verbiage I submitted was completely different to what you have there. Notice how that's now missing? That because what you put there is not what I submitted. There were no sentences copied verbatim in my submission. 
You obviously are now just making stuff up, because I know for a fact that was not what I submitted.
If you want to change the text, feel free. If you want to delete as you have, I can't stop you. 
V/R,
Meg Noah Megnoah (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megnoah&oldid=1218842660"