Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proponent
Blatant dictdef.-- malathion talk 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Copyvio? CanadianCaesar 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It could be transwikied, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that wiktionary already has this. -R. fiend 01:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, or if not already on Wikitionary, transwiki. and CanadianCaesar: err.. what exactly is it a copyvio from? Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Just reading it, it looks like a copyvio, and in fact, it is. [1] CanadianCaesar 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- After re-reading the article (the "the dictionary definition of..." is a dead giveaway) and a bit of googling, I have come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, a copyvio. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Just reading it, it looks like a copyvio, and in fact, it is. [1] CanadianCaesar 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete the dic def and leave the space open for anyone who wants to write a real article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- move it to dictionaryDemodike 08:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wiktionary already has proponent, and had it for 4 months before this copyright violation even existed. Please check Wiktionary before nominating things to be transwikied there. Uncle G 15:51:46, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
- how do you know this is a copyvio? Is it a copy from a dictionary? What dictionary? Is this considered a copyvio too? If yes, then why they have no legal problems for caching copyrighted documents, and wikipedia has? Demodike 10:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- We know that it is a copyvio from the discussion immediately above. As for your final question, please read the prominent bold notice that is below the text entry field on every edit page, and our copyright policy. Wikipedia is not a "cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents". Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Uncle G 16:33:19, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
- I have read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not carefully. It is NOT mentioned there that Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. I think you are not authorized to tell what wikipedia is not, only "Wikipedia_is_not" official policy is. So either "Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents, like search engines are." quote must be added to the official policy, or otherwise wikipedia may be consider by some wikipedians, among other things, also as a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. Of course cached copyrighted documents must be locked with the help of an admin, to protect the copyright and prevent changes to the document, similar to what all internet search engines are doing to their cached copyright documents (search engines readers are not allowed to edit cached copyrighted document). On the other hand, discussion on a cached copyrighted document must be allowed. Cached copyrighted documents may be considered encyclopaedic too, so they also have a place to a free encyclopaedia. Am I wrong somewhere? Demodike 17:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I refer you a second time to our official copyright policy, adding that our copyright stance is a foundation issue (unlike WP:WIN, which only applies to Wikipedia alone) and non-negotiable. Uncle G 18:51:45, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
- Wikipedia seems to be a free encyclopedia, NOT an encyclopedia enslaved to GFDL license. Thats why other licenses are also allowed here, although, most of the times, not in the main articles space but in users' pages. The existence of other licenses in many users pages is against the foundation issue argument of yours, which is supposed to apply to all Wikimedia projects and not to wikipedia specifically. Wikipedia, having many different types of licenses in many user pages, seems to be an exception of the GFDL foundation issue. For example, have a look at the homepage of a wikipedia administrator which agree with Dual Licensing instead of having a single GFDL.
- I refer you a second time to our official copyright policy, adding that our copyright stance is a foundation issue (unlike WP:WIN, which only applies to Wikipedia alone) and non-negotiable. Uncle G 18:51:45, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
- I have read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not carefully. It is NOT mentioned there that Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. I think you are not authorized to tell what wikipedia is not, only "Wikipedia_is_not" official policy is. So either "Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents, like search engines are." quote must be added to the official policy, or otherwise wikipedia may be consider by some wikipedians, among other things, also as a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. Of course cached copyrighted documents must be locked with the help of an admin, to protect the copyright and prevent changes to the document, similar to what all internet search engines are doing to their cached copyright documents (search engines readers are not allowed to edit cached copyrighted document). On the other hand, discussion on a cached copyrighted document must be allowed. Cached copyrighted documents may be considered encyclopaedic too, so they also have a place to a free encyclopaedia. Am I wrong somewhere? Demodike 17:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- We know that it is a copyvio from the discussion immediately above. As for your final question, please read the prominent bold notice that is below the text entry field on every edit page, and our copyright policy. Wikipedia is not a "cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents". Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Uncle G 16:33:19, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
- how do you know this is a copyvio? Is it a copy from a dictionary? What dictionary? Is this considered a copyvio too? If yes, then why they have no legal problems for caching copyrighted documents, and wikipedia has? Demodike 10:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Wiktionary already has proponent, and had it for 4 months before this copyright violation even existed. Please check Wiktionary before nominating things to be transwikied there. Uncle G 15:51:46, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
Could you also please tell us what is the exact copyright violation here? You accuse that there is a copyvio here, without pointing to the exact copyrighted document! If it is a dictionary copyvio, please tell us its name and its ISBN number. Accusing a text of beeing copyvio without pointing to the exact copyrighted document, this gives everybody the right and the reason to revert your copyvio accusation.Demodike 19:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)