Talk:Ivan Kotliarevsky: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:14, 22 October 2005

Copyright problem

Andrew, if you hold the copyright to this material, or if you have permission to use this material under the terms of our license, please indicate so on this page's talk page and under the article's listing on Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

Please indicate exactly, who from wumag.kiev.ua have you contacted with and what type of permission they have given you.

Contacted: author, type of permission granted: publish free with the reference to the author --Andrew Alexander 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate it on the article's talk page and on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you do not do it today, I will have to blank the article again.

Sorry, but in the event of a lawsuit from wumag.kiev.ua, it would not be you but the Wikipedia who will pay the damage abakharev 04:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue

Permission to publish with reference to the author is not enough. You need the release under GFDL from the copyright holder to publish it here. I replaced the article that consisted of copied and pasted Britannica and WUmag text for the stub version, I wrote, that will be hopefully expanded.

The articles you used to plagiarize the text are now listed in references and everyone get still read them in original form, not the pieces you selcted. It is against the wikipolicy to insert copyrighted text, even with permission. BTW, the author doesn't own the copyright of this. The magazine WUmag is the owner. --Irpen 00:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you misunderstand or intentionally misinterpret the wikipolicy. Read it again, carefully. The text is copied from a free web site, with the permission of the author. The web site does not claim the copyright of the article. The only reasonable holder of the copyright is the author herself. Further deletions without a proper reason will be considered a vandalism. --Andrew Alexander 03:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read copyright yourslef. The site doesn't have to claim copyright. Anything written is considered copyrighted by default. Unless wel have a GFDL release, we can't have it. --Irpen 04:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat: "Note that speedy deletion applies only to articles, that is text; and only when the source is a commercial content provider, that is someone engaged in directly making money off the content." Stop playing a copyright specialist you are not.

P.S. OK, this above you might not have known but how could you possibly plagiarize Britannica and say that it's OK too? Write something yourself. Your English seems better than mine. --Irpen 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Read copyright yourslef. The site doesn't have to claim copyright. Anything written is considered copyrighted by default. Unless wel have a [[GFDL]] release, we can't have it. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 04:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
+: I'll repeat: "Note that speedy deletion applies only to articles, that is text; and '''[[only]]''' when the source is '''a commercial content provider, that is someone engaged in directly making money off the content'''." Stop playing a copyright specialist you are not.
 P.S. OK, this above you might not have known but how could you possibly plagiarize Britannica and say that it's OK too? Write something yourself. Your English seems better than mine. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 04:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)