| Revision as of 08:43, 20 January 2007 editMichael B. Trausch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users992 edits →excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?: typo← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:46, 20 January 2007 edit undoNateland (talk | contribs)695 editsm here's some more copyright infoNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| {{helpme}} | {{helpme}} | ||
| Please see the information on this talk page (“excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?”) and the ], ], and ] pages, as well—I would love to be corrected if I am wrong. I see no information on the that releases any of its content from copyright restrictions. —Mike Trausch (], ]) 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | Please see the information on this talk page (“excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?”) and the ], ], and ] pages, as well—I would love to be corrected if I am wrong. I see no information on the that releases any of its content from copyright restrictions. —Mike Trausch (], ]) 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == here's some more copyright info == | |||
| The study data which I added IS from the public domain or is granted for educational use I am pretty sure, if you want me to paraphrase it then tell me so and I will, just don't suddenly revert it, | |||
| If the centers for disease control publishes data then it is AUTOMATICALLY in the public domain, the siecus website just has a brief summary of the data STRAIGHT from those study reports. | |||
| And the KFF data i am fairly sure is usable under fair use, that should be the only thing i would have to paraphrase. | |||
| check the links on http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html | |||
| ] 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| http://www.kff.org/newsroom/howtocite.cfm here is the KFF copying guidelines, however online reprinting is not mentioned, but linking is allowed, So i think that paraphrasing would be alright. | |||
Revision as of 08:46, 20 January 2007
| This is Michael B. Trausch's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
Welcome!
Hello, there, and welcome to my talk page. I only have one thing to ask here: Please “thread” messages here when one is after another. You can use the colon (“:”) at the beginning of a line to indent it one level. Thanks a million, and I look forward to reading your comments! —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Rrtrent500
Hi, just wondering what that final warning template was for? The user created an article about a non-notable web site; I speedied it. And he made one unconstructive edit to Microsoft. Was there something else that I'm not seeing, like more nonsense articles? -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Based on the user’s history log, there were two bot reversions and one manual one. That’s three reversions by my count, and the fact that they all happened in a extremely short time indicates (to me) lack of good-faith editing—in addition to the account being less than two days old, that seems like a red-flag. That’s what the final warning template was for. :-/ —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Except that the bot edits don't count...the bot was upset by the URLs that he was adding to his article about a web site, so it reverted them as possible spam. When you discount the bot edits, that leaves one unconstructive edit, to Microsoft, plus an article about a non-notable web site...but I believe that the article was arguably a good faith edit. Could you remove that warning, please? -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I have removed the warning and will give bots a lighter “weight” in the future when considering what warning(s) to give a user. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed, thanks. :-) I've got the option set to auto-watch a page every time I edit it, and I saw your revert of the warning message. Yeah, you can't always count bot edits, because bots are basically idiots. Useful idiots, and pretty accurate overall...but you have to look at what the bot reverted to make sure that it was actually vandalism. And for the article, there's a strong possibility that it was a good faith effort to contribute to the project. So really just one vandalism...and he's already got the warning for it. -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Alright. Thanks for “checking” me. :-) —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed, thanks. :-) I've got the option set to auto-watch a page every time I edit it, and I saw your revert of the warning message. Yeah, you can't always count bot edits, because bots are basically idiots. Useful idiots, and pretty accurate overall...but you have to look at what the bot reverted to make sure that it was actually vandalism. And for the article, there's a strong possibility that it was a good faith effort to contribute to the project. So really just one vandalism...and he's already got the warning for it. -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I have removed the warning and will give bots a lighter “weight” in the future when considering what warning(s) to give a user. —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Except that the bot edits don't count...the bot was upset by the URLs that he was adding to his article about a web site, so it reverted them as possible spam. When you discount the bot edits, that leaves one unconstructive edit, to Microsoft, plus an article about a non-notable web site...but I believe that the article was arguably a good faith edit. Could you remove that warning, please? -- Jim Douglas (contribs) 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?
You sent me a message about violating copyright... but i have no recollection of doing so.
I don't think i have even UPLOADED any images before.
Could you please clarify this?
Nateland 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Images are not the only copyrighted material—text is, as well. You do not need to upload an image to violate copyright. The web site you copied from is Copyright © 1996-2004 SIECUS. Please restate the information in your own words before including it in the article. Thanks! Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- please see the discussion on adolescent sexuality, the page contains PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA, from the CDC and the Kaiser family Foundation, this is being used PURELY for informational purposes and represents a LARGE addition i made to the article on adolescent sexuality to cut down on the POV, and make it include more data from reputable sources. Nateland 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I have already been there. However, the copyright notice on the web site is “Copyright © 1996-2004 SIECUS.” Remember, we’re all here for the same goal—to create a wonderful encyclopedia that is available to everyone. Just remember that your contributions to Misplaced Pages are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License—which means that you cannot copy from a web site where the content is copyrighted, as in the case of the SIECUS web site. Their web site makes no mention of the data being public domain.
- please see the discussion on adolescent sexuality, the page contains PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA, from the CDC and the Kaiser family Foundation, this is being used PURELY for informational purposes and represents a LARGE addition i made to the article on adolescent sexuality to cut down on the POV, and make it include more data from reputable sources. Nateland 08:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Can I have an administrator’s help on this one, please? —Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 08:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 | I am looking for help! Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse. Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Misplaced Pages's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Misplaced Pages-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry. Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}} |
Please see the information on this talk page (“excuse me but... how did i 'violate' copyright?”) and the Adolescent sexuality, Talk:Adolescent sexuality, and User talk:Nateland pages, as well—I would love to be corrected if I am wrong. I see no information on the
here's some more copyright info
The study data which I added IS from the public domain or is granted for educational use I am pretty sure, if you want me to paraphrase it then tell me so and I will, just don't suddenly revert it,
If the centers for disease control publishes data then it is AUTOMATICALLY in the public domain, the siecus website just has a brief summary of the data STRAIGHT from those study reports.
And the KFF data i am fairly sure is usable under fair use, that should be the only thing i would have to paraphrase.
check the links on http://www.siecus.org/pubs/fact/fact0020.html Nateland 08:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.kff.org/newsroom/howtocite.cfm here is the KFF copying guidelines, however online reprinting is not mentioned, but linking is allowed, So i think that paraphrasing would be alright.
Category: