User talk:Yobmod/Archive 1

Enormous Omelet Sandwich

From the third cited source (CNN):

That's a male 16 to 24 years old, says Bob Sandelman, a restaurant researcher. A core of young men eat fast food 20 times a month, he says. With the Enormous Omelet Sandwich, "Burger King is going 180 degrees away from politically correct food," he says. Many young males "like that attitude and couldn't care less about nutrition." They just want to fill up — cheap

Please read the entire article before making blanket declarations challenging fact.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation. I don't see how reading the "whole article" would have informed me any more - the sentence you quoted was not in the article, and still isn't. It was in a citation attributed to a different paragraph, which didn't mention the target age in any way. Adding a fact tag is a request for verification for a specific point, not "a blanket statement challenging fact". But thanks anyway.Yobmod (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

X in fiction articles

I noticed you on my watch list editing a few [X in fiction] type articles, and just in case you might be interested, I wanted to let you know about Wikipedia:WikiProject Popular Culture. Although that project seems to have a broader scope than the select few articles you've been improving, you might find yourself interested enough to join in some of our discussion and perhaps even consider joining the WikiProject. Regardless, thanks for the contribs and happy editing. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

List of games containing time travel

Hola. I checked your talk page history and wanted to thank you for starting the above article, which in my arrogant opinion was an impressive newcomer's effort and a good catch, and can be a valuable addition. Also thank you for sticking around after you met our local speciality, treating new articles like crap. (Sigh.)

I wish I could add that I will begin improving it immediately, but right now I'm as erratic as a ferret on amphetamines and couldn't guarantee that I would stick to schedule. I'll still step in if there's an attempt to get it deleted, and will endeavour to answer any questions you might have. --Kizor 18:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gopala Swami.Regarding your comments ".......Even reviews of his books from RS would be enough for me to change vote.. I found a new RS , in which he is mentioned.I have added the link in the External link. Please re-read the article and reconsider .-Bharatveer (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Taser controversy AfD

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SSP:Cupidcobra

Thanks for the vote of confidence! I was a little nervous about my first action under this account being the creation of a suspected sockpuppet page, and I tried to be as thorough and careful as I could be, but apparently for some it still isn't quite enough. In the meantime, it seems Cupidcobra has gotten the hint, though I'm afraid that if the case expires, he might start again ... I believe that invoking Checkuser is the next step, but I think I might catch even more flack for it if I'm the one to push things forward.

Also, I want to reiterate that I'm impressed by your contributions to Sexism in India, and your determination to not let information go to waste, even if it's from as biased a source as Cupidcobra. My initial inclination was that the article should be deleted, but you've shown me that the much harder road of all-inclusive consensus can be worth taking. It's too bad Cupidcobra isn't seeing it that way. Murmurer (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nokia 6500 slide

I've rescinded the multiple nomination on this AFD and am now suggesting that it runs on this one particular article with a view to gauging community thoughts on individual phone articles. I'll then use that as a basis to decide how to approach the other ones. You may wish to change or add to your contributions here as the basis of the AFD is changed - this is a courtesy notice to allow you to do so if you wish. Exxolon (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright law

Sorry, but I'm not convinced you have a very good grasp of copyright law. Please look up "substantial similarity." Furthermore, plagiarism is a distinct problem that overlaps copyright violation, but the two are not identical. Either one is unwelcome here. --Amble (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand enough that "substantial similarity", like "obscenity", is for the court to decide for each particular case. The changes i suggested would make the similarity non-substantial IMO. And unless you are an American judge, your opinion means no more than mine. Plagarism is allowed on wikipedia, as long as it is not breaching copyright, and the source is cited - hence copyvio is the problem needed tacklingYobmod (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Plagarism [sic] is allowed on wikipedia"? Unbelievable. --Amble (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Believable to those that actually read the guide-lines (Wikipedia:Plagiarism): "Material that is plagiarised but which does not violate copyright does not need to be removed from Wikipedia if it can be properly sourced." Yobmod (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't say that plagiarism is allowed, as you seem to believe. That would be absurd. It does say that plagiarism may sometimes be remedied without deletion. In this case, it's apparent that some of the material was plagiarized from offline sources that most of us don't have access to. Finding (let alone fixing) the full extent of the plagiarism would require a careful comparison of the text in question to every one of those sources. If you'd like to volunteer, be my guest. --Amble (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, read the article. If the copied work does not have copyright, plagariam has no legal meaning. Which is beside the point. You brought plagarism up, i was talking about copyright.Yobmod (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have read it, and it clearly states that all examples of plagiarism need to be corrected, even when the original sources are in the public domain. In the very sentence that you quoted, the operative clause is "if it can be properly sourced." Once it's properly sourced (if that's possible), it's no longer plagiarism. "Plagiarism is allowed on wikipedia" is absurd. --Amble (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Copying of uncopyrighted material is legal everywhere, including wikipedia. I can write out the whole text of Hamlet and it is plagarism, but not copyright infringment. I can even misrepresent it and sell it. It is also allowed without citing Shakespeare, although it is recomended to do so in wikipedia articles. A conditional clause appended onto a statement doesn't invalidate the statement, it just clarifies it.

Plagiarism of uncopyrighted material is obviously not a copyright violation, but it's still forbidden by Wikipedia policy. The conditional clause doesn't invalidate anything, but it does qualify the preceding. If an example of plagiarism can be properly attributed (so that it's no longer plagiarism) then it doesn't need to be removed. If it can't (so that it remains plagiarism) then it must be removed. Either way, plagiarism can't remain, because it's against our standards. I'm quite disappointed by the apparently widespread attitude that anything we probably won't get sued over is fine. Surely our standards are higher than that. --Amble (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And if you do in fact understand "substantial similarity" to some degree or another, why have you been insisting that only literal copying of every word is an infringement? Have you actually looked at any of the examples I gave, in the context you were responding to, where the copying was blatant? --Amble (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In the context i was responding to, i said the words should be re-arranged and replaced with synonyms. "Substantial" is a weasel word, put into the law to allow Judges to make their own decisions. If none of the original words remain, then it is not substantial. The copy-pasted text should of course be changed Yobmod (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Copyright infringement suits have been won against paraphrases that use none of the original words. --Amble (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which cases?Yobmod (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Salinger v. Random House, for example. Make sure to read the appellate court decision. --Amble (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! WP is suspiciously bad at giving examples in this area.Yobmod (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Diverse Harmony article rewritten

Hi, I've rewritten the article and invite you to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diverse Harmony to see if your concerns have been addressed. Banjeboi 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - voted keep now :-).Yobmod (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Banjeboi 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)