|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 22:41, 3 October 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
I went to the RAF Merryfield article to try to add some references and found much of the text is very similar to this site. It was added to wp in 2007 (diff) but I have no idea whether wp or the other site had the text first - should I add a copyvio label?— Rod talk 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) A quick search suggests that website is rather new ([1]), but that's not definitive, because it could have come from somewhere else (meaning the website - they do sometimes move. :D). Their "About Us" page suggests that may be the case, as they claim to have been around since 2001. Given that, I want to take a look at the evolution of the content to see if I can tell which came first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, typo at insertion point ("to he built") suggests it was either transcribed from a book or developed here naturally. That error is not on the external site. Excellent sign minutes later with small changes such as camp->airfield and August 24->24 August. The external site uses both of them. The "Ahhot" typo is a little concerning, though, as that kind of thing usually indicates a poorly digitized source - the scanner misreads the lower line of the "b". Also note "2$" for 26 and "September &" for "September 6". Here's more of that: "Ramshury" instead of "Ramsbury". But again a change is made ("with Merryfield" becomes "with the station"). I think the source you spotted copied from us, but if I could get inside of it, I'd be looking at UK Airfields of the Ninth, the source, for matches. :/ I don't suppose you have a copy of that book, do you? I'd love to eliminate that concern. Unfortunately, the contributor who added the article does have an early history of issues (see 1 and 2, for instance. There are other CSB notices, but I'm not checking those, having verified these two). I need to make sure that the content was not copied and that, if it was, the content is PD and properly attributed per current plagiarism guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking. I don't have the UK Airfields of the Ninth book but did get the Berryman one out of the library - which prompted my interest in the article. Your expertise and tenaciousness in these queries is brilliant.— Rod talk 13:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've had a lot of practice. :D I guess I'll start with WP:REX. They can sometimes help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check back at REX, me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just nominated File:FrederickForsyth TheDayOfTheJackal.jpg for deletion. I rarely do this because I find the procedures on deleting files at Wikipedia to be difficult to follow (Commons is easy). So, my questions are: (1) did I do it right? (2) could I have done it differently? and (3) could I have done it better? Thanks, as always.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure wherever you are you're having more fun than I am. If you read the deletion "discussion", you'll see that I am the devil incarnate. I'd really forgotten how joyless deletion discussions are. If I were to guess, I think the image will be kept, not because it complies with policy but because policy and practice don't match. Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Sorry. :/ (I was not much on this weekend, as I was helping my nephew move. Strangely, when I was online, I was on Commons!) You did everything right. :) As to whether you could have done it differently, possibly. Until April 6, that article used the first edition cover. On April 18, User:Centpacrr overwrote the first edition with the anniversary edition, for some reason. Several days earlier, he had uploaded the first US cover. Wikipedia:WikiProject Books says "If using an image of the book cover art, try to select the cover of the book's first edition." Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Images says, "First edition covers are preferred." Alternatively, you might have restored the first edition for the infobox (as per established guideline consensus) and nominated the US version Centpacrr uploaded for review at WP:NFCR. NFCR is a very slow forum, but it is visited by those who are familiar with NFC and discussion there tends to gravitate less towards "I like it" and more towards "Is this appropriate?" Matters may not be resolved for months, however. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) For what its worth you could have fleshed out the nomination rationale a bit for those who don't get the shorthand and can't click links. Mentioning that it wasn't in an infobox as identification in your rationale would have helped too; I honestly doubt some of these commentors are checking the article itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, thanks to both of you for your comments here and particularly for your comments at the deletion discussion. Unless there's something compelling, I don't intend to comment any more at the deletion page. The two of you are handling things admirably. That said, I would like to clear up a few points because I want to understand better about how this works for the future. So, as usual, I have questions:
- Does having a non-free book cover image in a book article infobox (let's assume no other images anywhere else in the article) comply with policy? I haven't done much work on book articles, so I've never paid attention, but I have seen a lot of theatrical posters in film articles in infoboxes (just about all of them), and I don't see why they comply with policy. If it's just a matter of convention/practice, I can live with that, but it seems to me there should be a change to the policy to conform to the practice. I saw Moonriddengirl's salient comment about Virgin Killer. Now, there's something I could live with because the commentary is truly about the image itself, and the image assists in understanding the commentary. But my assumption is, just like film posters, there's generally no discussion about the book cover.
- Before Centpacrr's changes to the article, there was only one image, and it was in the infobox. In my view, it did not comply with policy. Then, he added the other image to the body along with the commentary. I objected to that, as you know, but, frankly, I would have objected to the one in the infobox, Crisco, but, as is often the case, there's a back story. Centpacrr added the image and the commentary to the Forsythe article first, and I reverted, partly because I thought the whole discussion about the book was undue in that article and because of the image. Then, he threw a hissy fit and added it to the book article, so I followed him there. As the book article now stands, at a minimum, shouldn't the image in the body be removed?
Anyway, some of this is more commentary than questions, but, as I said, what I'm after here is not to resolve this particular case but to understand better how all of this fits together so I handle this "better" next time, if I'm ever foolish enough to handle it at all. Thanks again for all your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two for the price of one.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in because I have this on my watch and was concerned to see a big chunk of text removed. First, MRG, wow, are you speedy! The article had one image when I opened the edit window and another (I confess to say the one I prefer) when I saved! To Bbb23 - yes, book articles show the cover art in the infobox and unless published earlier than 1923 needs a FUR. As for adding book covers to the text - and sometimes the art is important or the artist - again, unless the book was published before 1923, then no, we can't. I removed the images of the book cover from the text of a number of articles for this reason. If you have questions MRG Is the expert, but I too do a lot of work with book articles. Anyway, my thoughts. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need your help
I need a small held on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._P._Yohannan . I had added a section controversies over there a few days back and based on some reputed media published articles. Some people are continuously removing that section. What should I do remove it ?
Hi Moonriddengirl, I wondered if you could take a look at an article I'm currently looking into for copyright concerns. I'd appreciate a second opinion. The article is State Board of Technical Education and Training and the copyvio URL is http://sbtetap.gov.in/view/History.aspx?Band=L&LinkId=History. In its present form the article only matches the source in paraphrasing (the article was copyedited from its original form), but if you look at the article in its original state [2] it was a blatant violation. I have two questions: 1) Do you feel the current version is sufficiently distinct to say no violation or attributable legal issue exists? 2)Do you think there is any revdel action that can, or should, be taken here? Pol430 talk to me 20:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! Well, in my opinion the major rewrite undertaken by Myrtlegroggins save this. But, yes, I've revdeleted the history. I also ran the CCI software and am greatly relieved to see that this user hasn't added much text, and that you've already cleaned up. Thank you so much for finding this and following up on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome! Thanks for your assistance and thank you very much for the barnstar :) Pol430 talk to me 18:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Categories as currently implemented are a worthless pain in the ass".[3] You got that right. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. Hi. :) The header isn't actually mine - I think categories as currently implemented are sometimes worthwhile, and sometimes a pain in the ass. :) They're just not reliable enough for in-depth research, but if they were evenly applied, maybe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry to misattribute you. Let me just say then that I think that categories as currently implemented are a worthless pain in the ass, and that any reasonably intelligent 14-year-old could quite easily come up with something more fit for purpose. Assuming everyone could agree on what that purpose actually is of course. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I use them a lot on Commons, anyway. :) They may be incomplete, but at least they generally have some stuff I'm looking for. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only use them to avoid the annoying uncategorised tagging. The problem with categories is that they're a hierarchy unrelated to what most people are searching for, and they ought not to be a hierarchy at all. Try typing "19th century american female novelists" into the search box and see if the results make any sense to you. Readers don't make use of categories, and neither do I. But it would be quite easy to develop a rational solution if only there were any rational developers around. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I have made changes per your notes. I am eager to get this up as the current J. Ralph site is woefully lacking. I would like to add more, but this is a good starting point that can be built upon. Please get this approved and let me update the page soon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eldorado74/sandbox
Thank you,
Charles Riggens
Eldorado74 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I just wanted to leave a comment and apology for the way things were handled on the KP Yohannan talk page.
I wasn't part of the group, but I did get the email that asked people to comment on the page.
It wasn't a malicious attempt to abuse wikipedia, but a misguided attempt to help get the controversies section removed.
That wasn't the right way to do things, and we're sorry it happened that way.
Also, I request that you please look at LoveYourNeighbor1's account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LoveYourNeighbor1
He was not associated with the group, has a history with wikipedia, and was making constructive progress on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#K._P._Yohannan
His account was blocked, and his unblock request declined, but I believe that to be an error. We'd be sad if a legitimate user took the rap for this.
Thank you. We appreciate the work you are doing on this.
If I can do anything to help, please let me know.
HappyPmachine (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand that things can grow heated in the moment. I'm very sorry if User:LoveYourNeighbor1 was mistakenly identified in the cleanup of the issue in that page. From where I'm sitting, though, it's hard to imagine that LoverYourNeighbor1 was not involved in some way, since at the time the "request for comment" was opened there were only two people really involved in the conversation. Somebody had to initiate that email. :/ What I would recommend is that User:LoveYourNeighbor1 wait a couple of days and request unblocking again, explaining that she or he is familiar with WP:Consensus and WP:SOCK (two important policies) and will abide by them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave well alone. The other website had copied from Wiki - not the other way around. So called super editors like you are a pain in the proverbal. If you wish then contribute to the Wiki but do not go around deleting things. OK.
For goodness sake. Ned Hanlan. The race listings were all verified and referenced. How about being useful and leaving things alone that you don't know any thing about. Is it any wonder that contributors loke me get pissed of with people loke you and want to give up on contributing anything to Wiki when it justs get cut by people who think they know more than the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flags33 (talk • contribs) 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you believe you've been unfairly accused of copyright issues, the thing to do is explain that - not remove the template.
- In this case, you would have had to do quite some convincing to make your case. It is highly unlikely that the Dictionary of Canadian Biography copied from you first because they are the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and second because they have been used as a reference in that article since 2007, several years before your edit. Beyond that, you carried over their indentation scheme, which breaks on Wikipedia and which you had to immediately fix because copy-pasting here does not always work well. You then set about making changes to the text that immediately transformed it away from that source.
- If you want content to remain, don't copy-paste from your sources without following WP:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I've just noticed that a new account has been set up as User:PlumMarketing. This account has edited Birds of a Feather today as a first contribution. The user name could have COI as it seems to be associated with the company that is marketing Birds of a Feather - see here. Nothing too outrageous has been added but the connection looks a bit cheesy and like a role account. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another one that you might like to look at : [Theaxholmeinformer] who seems to add its own web site to articles. Acabashi (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've blocked both with instruction to make new account. Theaxholmeinformer hasn't been around for over half a year. PlumMarketing may return, but edits don't seem to have been promotional. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heya MRG - I hope you don't mind my asking you this, as you're very knowledgeable about copyright. I posted on a media help talk page, but didn't get any responses.
- Can anyone help me figure out whether a sound recording is in the public domain? I'd really like to include a vocal recording at Barcarolle (Offenbach) rather than the synthesized version currently included, but am having trouble figuring out whether this recording, for instance, is in the public domain due to its age. The piece itself is of course public domain.
Thanks!
–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The bad news is that no sound recording will have fallen into the US public domain because of its age until 2067. Sound recordings made before 1972 are not protected by federal copyright, but for those recordings federal law explicitly does not pre-empt state and local protections. If you can find a Barcarolle recording on the Edison label, that would be okay as the products of Edison Records are considered to be PD because of Edison's donations to the US Government. Good luck, and here's hoping that one day we have a bit of sanity in US sound recordings copyright. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like that one is Victor; I guess that isn't PD? :( (There are Edison recordings of the Barcarolle out there - but none that I can find are S/A, which is what I'm looking for, since if I can't find that I may as well leave the synth instrumental version that's currently present in the article.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Boy, User:ReverendWayne, I'm glad you were here. :) I've had very little dealing with sound files. I'm sorry, User:Roscelese, that I wouldn't have been really able to answer your question without research. I'm glad somebody else happened along. I wonder if we have any musicians on Wikipedia? Surely we can do better than that. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! I know both parts, so maybe I should team up with someone and/or record both to a PD orchestral file! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another option to consider, if it's acceptable for a Wikipedia article, is linking to the National Jukebox at the Library of Congress. LOC has an arrangement with Sony to offer streaming of old recordings in their catalogues. They offer mostly Victors to start with, but they'll be adding more Columbias in future. Here is the recording by Gluck and Homer, or you could go for this one by Lucy Isabelle Marsh and Marguerite Dunlap on Victor's cheaper purple label, sung in English but a bit better in sound quality. ReverendWayne (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! A link is nice even if an on-wiki recording would be better. Perhaps I really should record it :P –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably a rookie point (and I'm happy to be stepped by anyone who knows anything about copyright), but what about these two. I thought archive only kept free media? - SchroCat (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking around at Internet Archive but I haven't found, in their FAQs or forums, any explicit rules on what's acceptable to be uploaded there. Maybe it's something like YouTube, where they'll take it down if requested by someone who claims the rights? It's free (as in free beer) because no one objects, but it's not free from copyright. (This pertains to the old records and old time radio files at Internet Archive; they have other sound files that have been donated to the public domain, or released under a Creative Commons license.) Here's a good reference on how sound recordings copyright works in the US, and how maybe we could make it work better. ReverendWayne (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From the [Terms of Use]: “Some of the content available through the Archive may be governed by local, national, and/or international laws and regulations, and your use of such content is solely at your own risk. You agree to abide by all applicable laws and regulations, including intellectual property laws, in connection with your use of the Archive. In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and will be limited to noninfringing or fair use under copyright law.…” This apparently places on users the onus of respecting any copyright applicable to its materials—but regardless, no non-commercial licence is compatible with Wikipedia’s, as we can‘t Share Alike under such terms.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew it would be a rookie point! Thanks to both for your clarifications. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question about an image I would like to use and know that you have been involved in uploading similar images before. I have only a rudimentary grasp of copyright law (and only as it relates to the UK, not US), so any help you can give would be good. I am surrently updating the Terry-Thomas article and have come across this image, which carries details of the Baltimore Sun on the reverse (or possibly this one or this one). Are either of these OK to upload to Commons, based on what you can see from the image? If not, if there a rule of thumb about what information must be present on the reverse to be happily considered "free"? Many thanks for any help or advice - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on my understanding, I think that one would be okay due to lack of copyright notice, but I myself would run it past WP:MCQ first. Images have never really been my area, and those people are likely to know if there are exceptions that might raise red flags. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That's even better! I'll have a play around with this one, which I think should also be free to upload to Commons? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratched - it's a UK film, so possibly published in the UK first. I'll continue the seach! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Many, many thanks for all of this. - SchroCat (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Italian one seems to have a copyright notice; based on Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights it would also have been copyrighted when the URAA passed in 1996. The others seem okay, although whoever uploaded it certainly knew how to make recreation difficult. You could try looking for the same image, hosted elsewhere. For instance, the How to Murder Your Wife image is available here (at smaller resolution) as well. You'd have to upload the eBay listing (front and back) to show there is no copyright notice, then upload the smaller image over it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stupid of me to miss the fact that one of those is Italian! I've dropped the How to murder your wife one into commons and I think I've done it OK. I'll have a little play on the side with the Where Were You... one and see what I can do, although I may just buy the damned thing if I can't get it to work peoperly! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've started a bit with "Where were you" (about halfway done). If you want to give it a go, though, I certainly wouldn't mind. (No need to buy it! After all, we're "volunteers". Why pay when you can get it legally and free?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Only because the original front-and-back image was saved (accidentally) as a png. When I went to reload the full version I couldn't because of Commons won't let the format change, so it was stuck with png, rather than jpeg. Basically my own idiocy and inability, rather than a conscious decision! - SchroCat (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See User talk:Dougweller#Substantiating Political Correctness, pt. 2.. I have twice trimeed a huge quotation (see my latest diff[4] which has resulted in the post on my talk page (which also accuses me of various nefarious activities). The editor has restored the copyvio. Could someone else fix this (I think my version conveys what he is trying to convey) and make it clear that it isn't just me saying he will be blocked if he continues to add copyvio? I'm off to bed now. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have used the {{copyvio}} section on the article to permit another administrator to evaluate it or to allow time for the material to be properly summarized with brief explicit quotation. Please feel free to expand on my rationale at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 April 27. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After he removed the template and against restored the content, I have blocked for 24 hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, mrg, me yet AGAIN! Could I ask you, or someone who watches this page, to take a quick look at Antoine Seilern? I've tagged it as a close paraphrase, and advised the contributor; but I'm having doubts, and would appreciate a more expert opinion. Thanks once again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be extensive, but I think there is some close following.
| Source |
Article
|
| At the height of the War, Seilern made one of his finest acquisitions, "The Entombment with Donor and the Resurrection" by the Master of Flémalle, which he purchased in 1942 as a work attributed to Adriaen Isenbrandt. |
It was at the height of the War that Seilern purchased one of his finest acquisitions, The Entombment with Donor and the Resurrection by the Master of Flémalle, which he bought as a work attributed to Adriaen Isenbrandt in 1942.
|
- --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, many thanks for your answer. As all too often, I wasn't clear: I think there is a LOT of close following (I posted a longish example at User talk:Stephen Conrad); my doubt was really whether it should have been tagged as an out-and-out copyvio. Now you've seen it, and that doubt is allayed. Thanks once again, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
My observations are about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties- in general this page is not too good.
I am a professional visual artist and have a particular interest in the section on Artist resale royaltys ( I have done a bit of editing on this part of the page, in the past) The entry starts with a statement that is hardly a encyclopedia style definition:
"Gone – or almost gone – is the time when the art collector was the focal point of a painting. The artist is now not satisfied with recognition by the value his/her artwork gets by increasing value but wants to receive a part of that resale of increase- known as droit de suite – whilst alive or for his heirs, thus obtaining a moral right implied by the copyright claim otherwise legal in a musical creation or in the sale of a book."
Of the many problems with this statement this one really stands out :
" a moral right implied by the copyright claim otherwise legal in a musical creation or in the sale of a book"
Moral rights are not economic rights. The statements formulation of a Moral right as a economic right to further payments on the resale of things that were sold in full - is a definition of a 'moral right' that is neither a Copyright or a Moral right.(actually ARR is more Goods and Chattels than anything else)
I did not in the past try to remove that much from the Artist resale royaltys section(thought it would simply start a 'edit' war) , so mainly I just inserted facts. Consequently the section currently has a slightly 'odd' syntax? flavor?.
I hadn't looked at wiki/Royalties for quite a while , I am a bit surprised that its obvious faults and weaknesses have not had much attention, for some time. Copyright and royaltys are fairly important subjects these days Pedestrian1957 (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yours john r walker
- Hi. :) The article is certainly in sad shape and needs some attention. Unfortunately, my only contribution to the article has been to clean up some copyright issues that it contained itself; I don't really have any insight into it. If you have an interest and have time, it would be lovely if you'd like to work on it! I'm placing a "welcome mat" on your talk page that has some very useful links in it that could help you get started. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I will have a go at the art resale part... when I have a bit of time :-)
Hello! I am in a doubt regarding copyvio of quotations. On the article Huma Qureshi (actress), i have noticed that many quotations are being used. They are ditto copies and are present in quotation marks. So we are attributing them properly and not trying to present as if they are ours. They are also not taken for one certain source but are from varying various sources. But is this okay to have 1/3rd of the article full of copy-paste stuff from various copyrighted materials? One actually shouldn't be judging from the number "1/3rd" but should look into how big the article actually is. You should take a look at it and give your opinion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think the actual question is whether the quotes are being used in accordance with WP:NFC. It looks to me like they are, as they are primarily quotes from critics expressing their viewpoints. In this case, if there was too much from any one source, I might be concerned anyway, but I think it's okay. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was reading the history for the Wikipedia page for Graham Fuller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Fuller), and couldn't help but notice you posted the original article back in 2009. I guess I was wondering how you got that information, if it's not too much to ask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.252.236 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not too much to ask, but it's been a long time. :) My general approach to article writing at that point was to use Google search - especially Google news & Google books. Once I assemble enough sources, I would try to summarize the main points they make about a subject in presenting a general overview of it. I have access to a few more search engines now, so I can search those as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_Crisco_restoration.jpg){kind=link}
