Comment: How can it be considered plagiarizing, for the New York Times to use material from Wikipedia, when Wikipedia's never made any secret of the fact that its content is free? It sounds as if people are going coming down on this journalist for having a day of mental tiredness. Who said, 'Gracious! Goodness! Oh gimini!'... (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be free, but it does require acknowledgement of the source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That phrase, "going down on"... I do not think it means what you think it means. 166.170.50.146 (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! Boy, that only made the situation sound even worse... hopefully the modification hasn't brought another unsavoury twist to it. :{ Who said, 'Gracious! Goodness! Oh gimini!'... (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the issue of the monkey pic came up, I asked one of the lawyers of my company (we're based in New York). He laughed at the question, and said he's been using that picture for three years in his class on copyright where--in answer to the question "Who owns the copyright under U.S. law?"--the majority of students provide the incorrect answer. The correct answer is that it's clear from the U.S. Constitution that only a human entity can make a copyright claim, thus the pic is public domain. -- kosboot (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am glad that somebody has acknowledged, neutrally, my block of the IP responsible for the Amelia Bedelia hoax. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section on famous/not famous people struggling with their pages reminds me on internet personality JonTron, who lamented his page getting deleted and disrupted the AfD for it by tweeting the page. He even called out a Wikipedia administrator for deleting the page beforehand. GamerPro64 21:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
