Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/mstrassburg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Case Filed On: 22:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedian filing request:
- mstrassburg (talk · contribs)
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
Wikipedia pages this pertains to:
Contents |
[edit] Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
- Answer: Yes I have read the FAQs
How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)
- Answer: Policy Violation
What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.
- Answer: I have explained in the Discussion section for this article that it was not a copywright violation
What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
- Answer:
Restore the removed article
[edit] Summary:
Article on Jonathan Fielding was removed as was all history of my contributions to it
[edit] Discussion:
Someone indicated that it was a copywright violation, which I explained that the materials used both on the Wikipedia web site and elsewhere on the web were from Dr. Fieldings standard bio and resume, thus there is some duplication of words used to describe him, but no copyright violations.
It now appears that User:Garion96 is trying to delete another of my contributions in Wikipedia which I wrote for the world famous epidemiologist Dr. Ciro de Quadros. I think the issue here is that he thinks that using standard Bio information (generated by the authors themselves) is a copyright violation. Clearly in writing biographies some of the mateials used are likely to be shared directly from their standard bio sections which they (or their staff) write themselves, and they frequently use when someone requests background info. This is very typical for famous and prestigious public health professionals like Drs Fielding and de Quadros, as they are on many committees and receive many awards. I would think that the usage of such bio information does not violate copyright, which I have now indicated under the Discussion and to user:Garion96 who seems to be a bit trigger happy as a Wikipedia Administrator. Dr. Strassburg
Here is additional communication with Garion96 --- must be nice to be so knowledgable regarding copyright law. Dr. S.
- There was not much in the article which was not copied & pasted. I put it below here. The fact that they release their bio for press releases and such does not mean they release it under public domain or the GFDL. Everything one writes is automatically copyrighted, for Wikipedia that person has to explicit give permission to license it under the GFDL or public domain. This might seem too strict, but we have to be careful regarding copyright. Also, people give press releases but they don't automatically want their text to be modified, and that is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, that other people can modify the text you submit. Garion96 (talk) 11:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Garion96: I believe your personal interpretation of what should be allowed regarding bios and from resumes appears to be very restrictive indeed. Are you saying one should not cut and paste from a list of publications of the author?? If one followed your guidelines here I would imagine that many notable persons included responsibly in Wikipedea would be removed. What I am saying is that; 1. I am using materials directly provided by Dr. Fielding with regards to his Bio and Resume 2. I have his full permission to use these materials and he approves of the article. 3. That these materials were developed by Dr. Fielding himself. Not sure what more you could possibly want in this sort of article.
A similar situation exists for the other article I authored for Ciro de Quadros. Despite the common elements elsewhere I have spent considerable time organizing and editing these entries so that it is appropriate for Wikipeadia.
Dr. Strassburg
Would you please indicate the article in question? Please take care to fill this request out properly. Thanks. —Pilotguy (go around) 00:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Might as well fix that, it is/was Jonathan Fielding and Ciro de Quadros. Garion96 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm guessing you're the other party this pertains to then. I'll take a look at this case and try to sort everything out starting tomorrow or Friday at the latest. —Pilotguy (go around) 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Further Discussion
I'll note that the Jonathan Fielding article was created, deleted as a copyright violation, then re-created, so Garion did have authority to delete the article, not just as a copyright violation, but as a re-creation. Articles should not be copied and pasted from other sources, they should instead be re-written in your own words. Articles can always be created and edited in userspace before going to article space. —Pilotguy (go around) 20:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You indicate that articles should not be copied and pasted from other sources. Actually I used Dr. Fielding's material to cut and paste this article. Those materials were created by Dr. Fiedling so that bio information about him could be accurately stated. I am not sure what you maean by "re-written in your own words" as this article is not a copyright violation and to the point. Mstrassburg
- As explained many times, Fielding supposedly is the copyright owner of the material you copy & pasted from. Therefore he can release it under the GFDL, if that happens the article can get undeleted. Just sent or have him sent an e-mail to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org. Or just write the article from scratch in your own words. Garion96 (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If you'd like to request permission from the copyright owner to use his work on Wikipedia, follow the instructions here. If you've already gotten permission, see the "When Permission is Confirmed" section section on how to proceed. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 12:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Both Dr. Fielding and myself have been trying to figure out the correct method of obtaining permissions, including emails from both. How do we get the article restored? Thanks ~~mstrassburg
[edit] Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
- Answer:
Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
- Answer:
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
- Answer:
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
- Answer:
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
- Answer:
If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
- Answer:
If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
- Answer:
[edit] AMA Information
Case Status: open
Advocate Status:
