Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:54, 12 December 2010

This is the talk page for discussing Copyright problems and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

General Motors

I am posting here as well as on the discussion page--please contribute to the discussion there. Help us handle this situation. The most recent version I could find that is clearly free of a systematic sequence of copyright violations and major destructive edits is 11:38, 13 November 2010. These edits were responsible for rewriting the article as a non-NPOV advertisement and eliminated substantial content. Reverting to 11:38, 13 November 2010 will destroy all constructive edits from the last two weeks. I personally feel that this is the most expedient way of eliminating the copyright violation and restoring the article. I and others can then proceed to merge more recent constructive edits with the copyvio-free source.byronshock (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ennui (sonnet)

The analysis section of the Ennui (sonnet) articthis pagele seem to be pulled from this review on the guardian .

"This is wonderfully taut and restless in a manner that recalls Robert Browning or William Empson. That first phrase is probably the best moment in the poem, relishing its own archness."

appears in both, for instance.

Capitol Reef National Park

This is more concern about plagiarism than copyright violation, but here goes:

Much of the history section of Capitol Reef National Park was taken directly from oficial National Park Service websites (it may have been one page when the edits were made in 13 July 2005, but are two now). As NPS sites, the text is public domain, but I'm not entirely comfortable with the present setup. I had put the copied text in quotation marks a while back, but another editor disliked that option. I have put an appropriate template on the talk page, and I'm wondering what if anything further should be done. J. Spencer (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the dleay in response; things have been a little crazy around here.:) According to Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism,verbatim duplication of text requires specific attribution on the face of the article. I'll add the appropriate template. --Moonriddengirl 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! J. Spencer (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dermatitis.jpg

This image is my work, uploaded and released under GFDL by myself in 2004. Some time between then and now, the attribution has been removed. No attribution = no license to use it. I'd not mind, but it's a picture of my own hand, and I was more than a little surprised to see it on a printed wall-chart in my local hospital the other day. Can someone kindly check and reinstate the original attribution please? - TB (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; that seems to have been a bit of oversight on the part of the deleting administrator. The bot that reviewed the duplicate correctly noted that you had not been given credit, but the image was deleted anyway. I don't myself do image transfers, so I'm not entirely sure how to repair this, but I'll talk to a commons admin about it. Meanwhile, I've restored your version on En:Wiki, since it should not have been deleted in the first place. --Moonriddengirl 17:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I have to confess, the whole business of commons bewilders me; doubly-so when bot-moves and licensing changes are added to the mix. Hopefully it's an isolated slip-up rather than the top of an iceberg. - TB (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Topbanana, I took care of this. While I have your attention, are you able and willing to supply a higher resolution version of the same image? This would be useful for (among other things) print versions and derivative works. If you can't that's fine. Thanks. :-) Dcoetzee 11:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The original upload would, I suspect, have been a 640x480 - not great, but such was the state of basic digital cameras in 2004. Both the camera it was taken with and PC used to upload it are long gone I'm afraid, I've no local copy to re-send. Sorry. - TB (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin - Platteville

Most of the history section of the article for the University of Wisconsin–Platteville seems to be taken word for word from UW-Platteville's history page, available at . I don't know if this kind of wholesale duplication is allowed or not. 99.139.200.46 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Thanks for bringing this up. I've located what seems to be the point of the problem, cautioned the contributor who copied it and rewrote the content which he had added. Unless other users have also copied, that should be the extent of it. --Moonriddengirl 14:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

M79 grenade launcher

Whole sections of M79 grenade launcher appear to be copy-pasted from this webpage. I had gone to improve the citations in the massive backlog of "MilHist articles with citation problems", and I found that sections "Design" and onward on M79 grenade launcher appear to be a copyvio of that webpage. How do I know whether they copied Misplaced Pages or whether the Misplaced Pages article is a copyvio? If it is, what should I do about it? Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your attention to this. :) What I do in this situation is try, first, to determine the age of the external website. If Wayback confirms that they had the content before we did, there's no more question. If they don't, that doesn't necessarily solve it, since Wayback can't know if the information was moved from another domain or a subpage within the domain. Then I'll generally check Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks to see if the website has a history of copying our content. If they don't and Wayback didn't prove anything, the next thing to do is to evaluate the history of the text. Was it entered in one chunk or incrementally? If incrementally, by one contributor or several? If entered in one chunk, the odds of our copyvio go up, obviously. What I do when that happens is, diff by diff, evaluate subsequent development of the article. If text changes take the article away from the source, that would make copyvio more likely. If they bring it closer to the source, it's more likely that they copied from us. If it was pasted in one chunk and has remained unchanged since then, the next thing I do is compare the reliability of the contributor and the reliability of the external site. Does the external site have copies of other Misplaced Pages content on other subpages? Has the contributor copied content before? If we can't determine finally which came first (or if it seems probable that they did), we presume they did and list the article for evaluation by replacing the content with {{copyvio}}. We notify the contributor to give him time to verify permission or to rewrite the content. (An exception: if the article qualifies for WP:CSD#G12, you might tag it for speedy deletion. If the content is not extensive, you might just remove it or rewrite it yourself.) If you have really good reason to believe that they copied it from us and if there's no mention of us on their page, you might tag the talk page of the article {{backwardscopyvio}} so that future reviewers don't have to go through all the work you've just done. :) Unless I think it's completely obvious, I usually add a section explaining why I conclude that the copying is reverse. --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I confirmed that gunnersden.com copied the Misplaced Pages article. This is the revision of M79 grenade launcher which has all the material in February 2007 (in slightly different format though). In October 2007, gunnersden showed up with an exact copy as shown here: after copy. The previous edition which did not have it is in Feruary 2007: before copy. Sometime between the two the[REDACTED] article was copyedited and the prose improved, and that edition is what got copied. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much for noting the concern, following up on it, and resolving it! :D --Moonriddengirl 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspected copyvio at The 3 Rooms of Melancholia

I posted my initial concern about the above article's possible copyvio issues at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film last week but no one has been able to provide additional input. I think the thread as I initially posted it at WT:FILM is explanatory enough so I will copy it, near-verbatim:

I suspect that material recently added to the above article is a cut-and-paste copy from another source but Google searches of selected sentences have not returned positive matches. User Oktavia29 (talk · contribs) created their account on November 17 and, within about 30 minutes, made four edits to the article (no other edits before or after). Three edits were minor formatting changes but this edit added a large amount of text. What makes me suspicious of copyright violation/cut-and-paste transfer is:

(1) - the large edit was made within one minute of the previous edit, making it unlikely that this was typed up in that amount of time and

(2) - the text contains, what appear to be, numbered footnotes at the end of some sentences. Examples: "The film grew from a project series initially based on the Ten Commandments which got cut short.13" and "The conflict remained unresolved and Honkasalo never saw the American producer again.16"

I posted a question on the user talk page of the editor who added the material asking what source they might have used. I haven't received a response and the editor has not made any edits since. I'm hesitant to remove the material when I have no solid proof that it's a copyvio (especially when this article could benefit from additional production information) but I have a hard time believing that that much text was typed that quickly by a new editor who, somehow, added numbers to sentences that look like numbered footnotes. Additional eyes and second and third opinions would be much appreciated.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your instincts are right on. It's possible that this is a student paper or similar construction pasted by its author, but it is far too lose with borrowing text from previously published sources. For a few examples, the edit included this text:

• "The Russian army captured and obliterated Grozny in 2000, retaking direct control of Chechnya. The two wars resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians, as shown in the documentary’s footage of camps in Ingushetia."
• "The Russian army captured the Chechen capital, Grozny, in 2000, after all but obliterating it, and retook direct control of Chechnya. The two wars resulted in tens of thousands of casualties and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians." (New York Times, October 2010)

• "A separatist movement--fueled by racism, jihad, and revenge--has evolved over the last decade into an Islamist insurgency responsible for almost daily attacks against law enforcement and government officials in the region."
• "A fierce separatist movement has evolved over the last decade into an Islamist insurgency responsible for almost daily attacks against law enforcement and government officials in the region. " (New York Times, October 2010)

• "An American producer approached Iikka Vehkalahti of the Finnish public broadcasting company YLE to suggest a suitable director for this project. Vehkalahti asked Pirjo Honkasalo to direct one part of the series. She chose the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour," sowing the seeds for The 3 Rooms of Melancholia."
• "An American producer...approached Iikka Vehkalahti of the Finnish public broadcasting company YLE to suggest a suitable director. Vehkalahti asked Pirjo Honkasalo to direct one part of the series. She chose the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour", and The 3 Rooms of Melancholia was born."(Production History)

• "A filmmaker of the European auteur tradition..she believed a film director cannot give up control over work for which she is artistically and morally responsible. She also wouldn’t allow a third party to take over her right to make the final judgement calls on how to use footage of the lives of people living in a war zone."
• "A staunch believer in the European "auteur" tradition, she felt that a film director must not relinquish control over a work for which she is artistically and morally responsible. Nor would she allow any third party to pre-empt her right to make the final judgement calls on how to use footage of the lives of people living in a war zone."(Production History)

• "the directors of the cadet school made it impossible to continue filming. They became increasingly nervous and suspicious, fearing bad repercussions. Kristiina Pervilä, the Finnish producer, contacted influential people in cultural, civil servant, military, and political circles, attempting to get hold of the constantly growing number of new, additional official filming permits. They managed to continue shooting, but the details had to stay confidential to avoid putting anyone at risk."
• "The directors of the cadet school began to make it impossible to continue filming. They became increasingly nervous and suspicious, fearing bad repercussions....Kristiina Pervilä, the Finnish producer, battled for the ever-increasing number of new, additional official filming permits, calling on influential contacts in the cultural sphere, in the military, in political circles - including the Duma (the lower chamber of the Russian Parliament) - and among civil servants responsible for the issuance of accreditation credentials to journalists in the Caucasus region. They did manage to continue shooting the film, but the details must remain confidential to avoid putting anyone at risk."(Production History)

While the content is good, it needs to be handled in accordance with Misplaced Pages's standards for use of non-free source material: with limited direct quotations and otherwise complete paraphrase. --Moonriddengirl 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for your efforts on this one. It's much appreciated. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Dolphinc.jpg

This sure seems like copyvio to me. The poster claims it as a "scan and modify," and the extent of the modification is a circle around the location in question. I've unfortunately seen the "copy it and change the image slightly and it's OK" attitude elsewhere, so I figure I should check first to make sure I'm on solid ground tagging items like this for deletion. Donlammers (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a good icon for a dropping jaw? Yes, that's a clear derivative work. For something that blatant, I would go with WP:CSD#F9 (and did; it's gone). I myself will often add a note of explanation below the tag. It may be non-standard, but I don't care. It works. :) For less clear-cut situations, I'd consider WP:PUF. --Moonriddengirl 13:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be a bit more bold in the future. I will also catch something blatant like this when it happens now, but I've only been watching these for about 6 months since I put all zoo articles on my watch list, and had never actually been to this article. Donlammers (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I really appreciate your bringing it up. :) It led me to some other images by the contributor about which I'm also concerned. --Moonriddengirl 15:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

U.S. Army Community Relations

This article appears to be a copyright violation of . Handschuh- 14:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for noting your concerns! Unless specified otherwise, pages hosted by the US Federal Government, including its miliary branches, is public domain. But the article was a problem under Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, as it did not properly indicate that content was copied. I've added the template necessary to the article. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mofet Institute

Most of the text for Mofet Institute appears to be from http://www.mofet.macam.ac.il/english/about/Pages/default.aspx 96.53.54.146 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

So it does. I've reverted to the last presumed clean. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl 18:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio by author of own material?

This is a heads up for the experts who lurk here: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Military history#Copyvio by author of own material?. -- PBS (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

See also: Contributions by Lecutas and Lecutas's addition to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2010 June 8 -- PBS (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Exploits Valley Salmon Festival

Exploits Valley Salmon Festival seems to be a very close paraphrase of . Does this fall into speedy deletion territory? shoy (reactions) 15:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Aquarium & Seattle Marine Aquarium image

I think this image has been deleted once. If you look at the version of Seattle Aquarium here (dated 2010-11-14T14:18:02) you can see the picture. However, if you look at the image here the date shows 2010-11-28T18:40:11. There was a point in time a few days ago (if I'm not going batty) when this image did not show in the article. I believe that it was deleted and simply added back, but I can't prove that. This makes me somewhat suspicious of , uploaded about the same time by the same user. Note that the photo would have needed to be taken prior to 1977 (when the aquarium was closed). This is obviously not impossible (I was taking photos back then), just suspicious. Donlammers (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've listed File:Seattle marine.jpg for review at today's WP:PUF. I agree that it seems unlikely to have been taken by this contributor, particularly given the clear violation at File:Namu01.JPG. You're right that it was deleted, but then reuploaded. --Moonriddengirl 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Debridement Article

The intro to the article Debridement appears to be a word-for-word copy from the website http://nursing-resource.com/debridement/ ; even though the source is cited at the bottom of the page (not in the intro where this occurs), if I understand[REDACTED] policy correctly then copy-and-pasting as in this example is not allowed.

I have not made any changes as I am not sure what the exact policy is and how to correctly address the problem. Instead I have come here, so that those with some experience dealing with these issues can help.

Thanks!

Spiral5800 (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

They copied from us. We already had that introduction on 20 november 2009 . I see Moonriddengirl already fixed the article talkpage and this is probably gonna edit conflict her. Yoenit (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only do they take our text and images without attribution, but somebody is substituting them for actual references! Check it out: . I don't know if the original reference is a good one, but I know that theirs is not. :/ Thanks, Spiral5800, for bringing this up. This looks like a widespread issue! These are the kinds of things that wind up consuming my day. :) I've got some mopping to do! --Moonriddengirl 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to copy & paste my own article

I would llike to start a new article entitled "Alexander Findlay Macdonald 1825-1903" a man notable for settling the Intermountain west, Arizona and northern Mexico. I own a web site, www.afmacdonald.org, with a short biography of this man and I would like to copy & paste it into the Misplaced Pages article. I am the author of the original biographical sketch as stated on my website. Can I have permission to copy & paste text & photos into Misplaced Pages? --Taylor Macdonald —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kintailparish (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to copy/paste your existing material you need to follow the steps listed at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. Please remember that any article will also need reliable sources to pass muster. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Colin Hansen (BC politician)

Hey folks. Could someone take a look at the above page re: this BC government copyrighted page:, which seems to be the direct source of the majority of the text? Thanks, The Interior(Talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thats a copyvio and the same user has done copyvios on Moira Stilwell and Ralph Sultan as well. Yoenit (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a leadership convention coming up, and both Hansen and Stilwell are candidates, so these pages might see a bit of activity in the next while. The Interior(Talk) 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Greenville Technical College plagiarism

The website for Greenville Technical College is a near plagiarism of this page and this page from the official website. The text was added by an editor named "Mannrmm" who disappeared after 2009. What should be done? Inkan1969 (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked it with {{subst:copyvio}} and listed it at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2010 December 6 so an admin will take a look at it and see what can salvaged from it in about a week. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Griffith Society

Regarding this article, I am fairly sure that the lede/first paragraph has been lifted entirely from a document authored or edited by John Stone in 1992/93. Stone was a founding member of the society. I would appreciate some advice on what to do about this. Thanks, Lovetinkle (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the offending material. While brief quotes are allowed, parroting the mission of the organization (even if it had been quoted) doesn't much benefit the article. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Listing pages tagged with {{copypaste}}

So when I proposed VWBot task for listing all of these new taggings I was under the impression that it would only be an average of one new article a day being added to the current workload here. As it turns out (for whatever reason) it's averaging more like 3 a day, most of which don't have sources listed unlike the blankings and close paraphrases, which makes them rather more difficult and time-consuming to handle. Since part of my motivation for automating the listing was so that the tagger would still be available to indicate why they tagged it, would there be support for having a bot leave a message for taggers who don't indicate the source (similar to ImageTaggingBot (talk · contribs) but only once a day like most of my other bot-tasks) and encourage them to:

1. adjust the template to indicate a source;
2. convert it to {{cv-unsure}} on the article's talk page; or
3. expand on their reasoning on the daily CP page?

Other ideas/suggestions/adjustments/comments welcome; I'm just trying to think of how to make this increased workload easier to handle. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

As the person who handles much of the workload, I think that would be a great idea. :) Especially 1 and 3. I have mixed feelings about 2, since I've several times found sources even though one was not identified. If they don't know but just have a gut feeling, it may be worthwhile having somebody else take a look. I've been converting them to {{cv-unsure}} if I can't find the source. --Moonriddengirl 20:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Galaxy Opal

The article Galaxy Opal seems to be copy-pasted, although I have been unable to find the source. It also contains numerous unfree images. Sppedy deletion candidate? --MoRsE (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Pawnee Indian Museum State Historic Site

In Pawnee Indian Museum State Historic Site, all but a brief first paragraph appears to be lifted verbatim from this Kansas Historical Society page. There is a copyright-2010 notice at the bottom of the KHS page. There is a citation at the end of the six copied paragraphs, but this doesn't strike me as sufficient to avoid copyright violation. Ammodramus (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What is 10%

At List of Primeval episodes an editor has included episode summaries are substantially lifted from a press release. He claims that "A few words do not constitute a copyright violation. The usual rule of thumb is at least 10% of the original "work"." While he hasn't included anywhere near 10% of the original work in the episode summaries, more than 80% of the episode summaries consists of unaltered text lifted straight from the press release. I've seen numerous such summaries removed as copyvios in the past, but where do we draw the line on something like this? --AussieLegend (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I dispute " lifted" as the word is prejudicial and implies theft. And your "80%" figure is false, it was in my original version and it certainly is now as I have munged the text, not because it needed it, but to keep you off my back. And the text we're talking about was a total of FOUR SENTENCES, (out of a press release 1960 words long) of which one, and only one sentence, was verbatim from the source. (It's not in the current version.) Not even the most rabid copyright protectionist would claim that was a copyright violation. Maybe you could have rewritten it yourself to remove the problem if you thought it was an issue, rather than simply trashing it? And if you want an authority other than Jimbo, how about Chicago University Press, who have considered this issue:

A new work will be considered to be within the bounds of fair use if:

1) It reproduces not more than 5,000 words, in the aggregate, from a given Source Work;

2) It reproduces not more than 5 percent, in the aggregate, of the Source Work, and no complete poems or other self-contained literary works;

3) It reproduces, in one place, not more than 300 consecutive words from the Source Work; and

Material reproduced from the Source Work makes up not more than 5 percent of the new work

— University of Chicago Press Guidelines for Fair Use of Our Publications

I see they use "5%" rather than 10%, well, their thumb is shorter than others'. (Of course, I suppose you'll delete this as a violation of their copyright.) Having worked in publishing myself for the last 20 years, I find the idea of objecting to quoting ONE SENTENCE to be extreme. Barsoomian (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello to both of you. :)There are some cases where content is clearly misappropriated in bad faith, but most of the time what we run into with "close paraphrasing" concerns is simply the application of different standards, in good faith. I think what we need to focus on here is the underlying principle of how non-free content is handled on Misplaced Pages: "where we draw the line".

First, there is no 10% rule under the U.S. law that governs Misplaced Pages. See , which clearly states that "There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances." Evaluating all the circumstances of fair use can be complex, obviously. Misplaced Pages has its own specific rules to make sure that our content not only meets fair use, but comfortably meets fair use. Since copyright infringement can only be determined (or ruled out) by a court of law, we don't push boundaries there. Accordingly, our policies require that when we copy any creative content from a non-free source, we follow the protocol spelled out in non-free content policy and guideline. Press releases are also governed by this (cf. our copyright FAQ). All creative content imported from previously published sources must be clearly marked as quotation and used transformatively.

Chicago UP's rules with regard to what they permit others to use of their publications really have no bearing here, but if they did we would have to note that they clearly state that "these guidelines deal with only the following traditional forms of scholarly use in publications" (emphasis added) and that each of the three cases they set out involve quotation, not incorporation of their content into a derivative work. They, too, require transformative use and, evidently, clear annotation of copying.

I haven't looked at the text in question here; content copied may very well be de minimis, but it's still a good idea to mark it as a quote or rewrite it from scratch. This is consistent with our policies, and also sets a good, clear standard for those cases where the content might not be clearly de minimis. When non-free text is used transparently, we and our reusers can easily verify the content and the context of its use, and we are more easily able to trust that there is not more substantial taking that has not been identified. --Moonriddengirl 13:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the the "10% rule" was a law, it's the rule of thumb used by most publishers. As you said it "depends on all the circumstances". These circumstances were ONE SINGLE SENTENCE from the source and there was a ref link to the original source to verify it. If you still think that's a problem, the appropriate action would be to flag it or rewrite it yourself, not simply delete it, as there is no objection or threat -- and never will be -- from anyone to make it a matter of urgency. And further, this was the first version of an new section, created a few hours earlier. The priority was to get the facts down and cited; I'd have no complaint if others polished it up, and AussieLegend did good work in formatting it earlier, but do object to it being erased for such trivial and easily remedied concerns. Barsoomian (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's get the facts right. There were three sentences, not one. One of the sentences was straight from the press release, another had only the last two words changed and another was more than 50% unaltered text. You're correct that the ""80%" figure is false", it was actually 81.1% but I didn't want to seem pedantic. As to your concern about "lifted", OK, how about "copied"? The point that Moonriddengirl made is a good one, it's best to rewrite from scratch. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

One complete sentence. You seem to be working on the "copied homework" principle. Or whether you can jigsaw the pieces around. Let me refer you to the above CUP quote: their rule is "300 CONSECUTIVE words". They're real publishers, they have a clue how this works in the real world. Where are you getting your rules from? And I have no idea how you calculate "81%". And I don't care, it's your own measure and quite meaningless. And that source is the one and only AUTHORITATIVE source anyone has found -- it took me a while to dig it up. Any article that uses it is going to be tainted by your rule. Anything that isn't closely based on it will be impossible. So tell you what: I give up. After editing that article for two years now. Keeping the idiots at bay with their made up stories. Now you insulting me, accusing me of plaigiarism or theft. You want to make the rules, you can do it all. I'm deleting my content, unwatching the article and leaving it to you. Do as you wish.Barsoomian (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As has already been stated, the CUP reference is really irrelevant to Misplaced Pages. However, regarding their "300 CONSECUTIVE words", as was stated here, and I have no reason to question the accuracy of the statement, in Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises 300 words out of 200,000 were found to be substantial given their content. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Ford case involved a large financial loss due to the excerpting; that obviously does not apply to a two-week-old PRESS RELEASE. And you are citing some random TALK page by a bunch of self-appointed bureaucrats as a source of policy, and complain that the stated policy of real publishers is "irrelevant"? Pretty much proving that there is no stated Misplaced Pages policy you are upholding, it's just what you and some likeminded buddies think it should be. Anyway, so far you've made me waste hours defending a 4 sentence edit, ten times as much as any troll cost me. It can only get worse from here on. So, really now, I'm out of here and out of the article in question for good. Barsoomian (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)