User talk:Madman: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:::Now I understand better why the article was deleted, though I'm seeing a lot of statements that are in conflict. You were referencing [http://www.nic.in/terms-use the National Informatics Centre's Terms of Use] whereas I'm now referencing [http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/newdisclaimer.htm the Legislative Department Web Site's Terms of Use]. The latter has less restrictions but is still restricted. {{tlx|PD-India}} says laws, judicial opinions, and reports are in the public domain, but that conflicts with the Legislative Department Web Site's Terms of Use, the [http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html Handbook of Copyright Law], and a simple reading of [http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf the Indian Copyright Act of 1957], all of which state that the government holds copyright for sixty years. Unless I'm missing something, I think {{tlx|PD-India}} needs to be changed. — <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 17:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I've brought this up on {{user|Magog the Ogre}}'s talk page. — <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 17:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::Now I understand better why the article was deleted, though I'm seeing a lot of statements that are in conflict. You were referencing [http://www.nic.in/terms-use the National Informatics Centre's Terms of Use] whereas I'm now referencing [http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/newdisclaimer.htm the Legislative Department Web Site's Terms of Use]. The latter has less restrictions but is still restricted. {{tlx|PD-India}} says laws, judicial opinions, and reports are in the public domain, but that conflicts with the Legislative Department Web Site's Terms of Use, the [http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/handbook.html Handbook of Copyright Law], and a simple reading of [http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf the Indian Copyright Act of 1957], all of which state that the government holds copyright for sixty years. Unless I'm missing something, I think {{tlx|PD-India}} needs to be changed. — <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 17:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I've brought this up on {{user|Magog the Ogre}}'s talk page. — <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 17:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::''(ec)'' ::::I was working on the .nic.in terms, because the site cited is lawmin.nic.in, and I felt sure that a restriction on the base site carried over onto the subsidiary sites - unless a disclaimer was shown on the subsidiary site (and I couldn't find a status notice at lawmin). The Government probably do hold the copyright but allow free and unmodified copying. This would mean I could copy it onto my website as it stood after mailing them, and there's be no problem. But copying to a site licensed under CC-BY-SA would not comply as future copiers (all those mirrors...) would fail to mail or prevent modification. Someone more expert than me needs to investigate, anyway. I'm going back to wood chopping - easier to understand and I must get it done... [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
::::''(ec)'' ::::I was working on the .nic.in terms, because the site cited is lawmin.nic.in, and I felt sure that a restriction on the base site carried over onto the subsidiary sites - unless a disclaimer was shown on the subsidiary site (and I couldn't find a status notice at lawmin). The Government probably do hold the copyright but allow free and unmodified copying. This would mean I could copy it onto my website as it stood after mailing them, and there's be no problem. But copying to a site licensed under CC-BY-SA would not comply as future copiers (all those mirrors...) would fail to mail or prevent modification. Someone more expert than me needs to investigate, anyway. I'm going back to wood chopping - easier to understand and I must get it done... [[User:Peridon|Peridon]] ([[User talk:Peridon|talk]]) 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
Hey! I'm sorry I'm new to Wikipedia articles and I was actually just testing this :S |
|||
I mainly wanted to gather all the information from other sources and organize them accordingly and then I would give the proper citations in the end. Actually Dr. Shameel is my grandfather and my mom told me to make a Wikipedia article with all the information already posted from his friends about him. But I don't know if I can do that... can I? :/ |
|||
But thanks for your remarks! |
|||
Revision as of 02:03, 29 August 2013
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Some nuts and bolts for you!
|
Some nuts and bolts for you! |
| Thanks for all the copyvio detection! I didn't think bots like kittens or food, but I thought some of these might be appreciated ;) TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 05:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
- Thanks!
— madman 04:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I just created this page, to split up the previous page Critical realism. The bot immediately posted a copyright infringement notice. I've removed this, as the blog post postdates http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_realism&oldid=114533618: so the blog copied WP --- in fact it cites it --- not the other way around. Omicron18 (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. My apologies for the false positive. — madman 04:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Dear Wikipedia User, your bot has tagged Kingdragon (band) for speedy deletion because it thinks I am using copyright text from website [[1]] . I'm the general manager of the band and I think you should remove that problem cause I am the (owner/publisher/copyright holder) of my bands belongings... And I have right to do any thing I want with my own materials... thanks! Chris Siloma 16:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you wish to contribute material to Wikipedia that has previously been published elsewhere, please follow the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This process is necessary to protect your intellectual property rights. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, — madman 14:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello ! Part Two of the Constitution of India is not copied from http://www.thisweekbangalore.com/law-made-easy-p7.html. Its copied from http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss(5).pdf. Which is not copyright protected ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) 17:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, looks like laws, judicial opinions, and reports are indeed in the public domain. So your article was deleted in error. However, you might find that Wikisource is a better repository for such material; it's not really encyclopedic. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, — madman 04:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- I posted an explanation on their talk page - the material is free to copy but restricted (and I quoted the actual wording from the site). It is not available for modification or use in derogatory contexts, which puts it in conflict with CC-BY-SA to my mind. It is only available for copying by sending them a mail, as well. They blanked the talk page a few minutes later, whereupon SwisterTwister posted a welcome. I'm not sure about WikiSource - is that CC-BY-SA like Wikipedia? If so, I don't think this would be suitable there either. Peridon (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Now I understand better why the article was deleted, though I'm seeing a lot of statements that are in conflict. You were referencing the National Informatics Centre's Terms of Use whereas I'm now referencing the Legislative Department Web Site's Terms of Use. The latter has less restrictions but is still restricted.
{{PD-India}}says laws, judicial opinions, and reports are in the public domain, but that conflicts with the Legislative Department Web Site's Terms of Use, the Handbook of Copyright Law, and a simple reading of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, all of which state that the government holds copyright for sixty years. Unless I'm missing something, I think{{PD-India}}needs to be changed. — madman 17:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I've brought this up on Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)'s talk page. — madman 17:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)- (ec) ::::I was working on the .nic.in terms, because the site cited is lawmin.nic.in, and I felt sure that a restriction on the base site carried over onto the subsidiary sites - unless a disclaimer was shown on the subsidiary site (and I couldn't find a status notice at lawmin). The Government probably do hold the copyright but allow free and unmodified copying. This would mean I could copy it onto my website as it stood after mailing them, and there's be no problem. But copying to a site licensed under CC-BY-SA would not comply as future copiers (all those mirrors...) would fail to mail or prevent modification. Someone more expert than me needs to investigate, anyway. I'm going back to wood chopping - easier to understand and I must get it done... Peridon (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
- Now I understand better why the article was deleted, though I'm seeing a lot of statements that are in conflict. You were referencing the National Informatics Centre's Terms of Use whereas I'm now referencing the Legislative Department Web Site's Terms of Use. The latter has less restrictions but is still restricted.
- I posted an explanation on their talk page - the material is free to copy but restricted (and I quoted the actual wording from the site). It is not available for modification or use in derogatory contexts, which puts it in conflict with CC-BY-SA to my mind. It is only available for copying by sending them a mail, as well. They blanked the talk page a few minutes later, whereupon SwisterTwister posted a welcome. I'm not sure about WikiSource - is that CC-BY-SA like Wikipedia? If so, I don't think this would be suitable there either. Peridon (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)