Inline videos. See also:Category: Articles with embedded Videos..

Biocrawler:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation/Archive1

From Biocrawler, the free encyclopedia.

This archive has had personal details removed (real names, email addresses and telephone numbers) so they do not remain searchable by Google. See the page history of Biocrawler:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation for the original poster's details.

Contents

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Catholic_Church

Hello,

I've noticed information on Biocrawler (and on other sites that acknowledge Biocrawler as a source) that I have written, but for which I have not given permission to be copied. Information (but not the entire text) in the following pages has been taken from my page: http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Catholic_Church and http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_juris (and there might be others that I haven't discovered yet).

My page is located at http://www.stanford.edu/~aneroth/syro-mal.html .

Unfortunately, I very recently updated that particular page on 27 Dec. '03. However, the information that I wrote and that is now in Biocrawler was available online between 1 Sep. '01 and 27 Dec. '03. Luckily, the old page is still available in Google's cache: http://216.239.53.104/search?q=cache:http://www.stanford.edu/~aneroth/syro-mal.html I don't know how long the old version will remain in the cache, so please act quickly!

Actually, I don't mind so much that what I wrote is posted on Biocrawler, but if it is here, then I _insist_ that I be acknowledged. Moreover, if information that I wrote is quoted directly, then I insist that direct quotation be indicated.

Than you in advance. I very much appreciate your cooperation. If needed, you can contact me at ---


Sincerely, Alex ---

Pages blanked. I've sent you an email regarding this issue. --mav 09:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Pages deleted. --mav 03:53, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Someone restored this page 18 March of this year. I have reverted to the non-infringing stub, but the new version needs to be removed from the history. -- llywrch 06:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Brianism

The founder of Brianism has requested the article's immediate deletion. See An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism (http://www.brianism.org/wikipedia.htm). Posted here for comments. Secretlondon 14:39, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a copyvio... Morwen 14:51, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
It's not - but this is the only immediate takedown page we have. Do you know of anywhere better to stick this? Secretlondon 14:57, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I only scanned it, but I don't see anything in the letter requiring immediate takedown, so shouldn't we just let it run its course on VfD? Morwen 15:01, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
Anjouli said that they had requested immediate take down. However they seem to have requested only take down.

"6) We would prefer it if the article on Brianism were removed from Biocrawler, as it is easily subject to the malicious insertion of disinformation to the detriment of our movement. It also seems to have sparked the recent attacks mentioned above. The present article carries inaccurate information. The version last week was misspelled, inaccurate and offensive. Biocrawler undoubtedly provides much amusement and intellectual stimulation to the many editors, but it is not totally reliable as a research tool. Currently, there is no guarantee that any page consulted has not been maliciously seeded with false information. This is not to say that we disapprove of the concept of Biocrawler. We wish you well and hope you will resolve the reliability challenge.". I guess this can just go through the VfD process. Secretlondon 15:07, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation. It is not within the scope of this page. — Alex756 17:14, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Alex. There's no infringment in the article - the quote is easy fair use in this context. It's also off VfD now and has been significantly rewritten. Hopefully those who object to this faith will show more religious tolerance than that which prompted this open letter. Jamesday 01:56, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Dundee and related entries

While I am a great supporter of the concept of Biocrawler, I must ask that materials are immediately removed which contain considerable plagiarised sections take from the 'Gazetteer for Scotland'.

The text:

"Dundee Law, or Law Hill, the highest point in the city of Dundee, 174m (571 feet), takes its name from an old Scots word for a hill. An Iron Age hill fort once occupied the site on which now stands a memorial to the dead of World War I, erected in 1923. "

comes from:

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/features/featurefirst125.html


"D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd, established by David Couper Thomson in 1905, is a Dundee based publishing company. D.C. Thomson produces more than 200 million magazines, newspapers and comics each year from offices in Dundee, Glasgow, Manchester and London.

The company was notable for its conservatism. Indeed, Thompson strenuously resisted the introduction of trade unions into his work-force and he refused to employ people of the Roman Catholic faith.

The company currently employs around 2,000 workers."

comes from:

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/people/famousfirst437.html

"Newport-on-Tay is a town in the north east of Fife in Scotland. It is situated between the Tay Rail Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge. The town owes its existence to a ferry which has been crossing the Tay there since at least the 12th century.

Newport enjoyed a great expansion during the 19th century. Thomas Telford constructed a new harbour in the 1820s, and the prosperous Dundee jute manufacturers established their fashionable residences there; they called Newport "New Dundee"."

comes from:

http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/scotgaz/towns/townfirst123.html

While these sections are the ones I have identified, I would ask the editors / maintainers to take appropriate action to check that other material on Scottish locations is not plagiarised from the same source.

Sorry to be a nuisance. I support the free distribution of material created for that purpose, but it cannot be fair to substantially 'rip off' the work of others and present it as your own.

Best Wishes

---

I've removed the infringing material from Dundee and D. C. Thomson & Co. Ltd, and listed Newport-on-Tay for deletion as the whole article appeared to be infringing. Thank you for bringing these to our attention. I will also check the contributions of Dduck who as far as I can tell was the user who submitted this information. Angela. 01:42, Jan 24, 2004 (UTC)
I could only find a single sentence that was copied (the sentence starting: "An Iron Age hill fort..."). I rewrote that and even the other parts you cited in order to remove the possible plagiarism (in terms of using the same words in a different order). Now there are new words standing in for the old ones and the phrases have been reworked. I also added references to the above links. Just a note: Information cannot be copyrighted - only the unique expression of that information in prose. --mav 02:21, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for acting over these and I am generally happy with the actions undertaken. Thanks too for the reminder about what is copyright-able, but we are well aware of that. There is a grey area here, in that it is very easy to create reference content by taking work published elsewhere and changing a few words or re-arranging a few sentences. This however is both unfair and unreasonable, as well as not adding to the intellectual value of the work by introducing new facts, views or interpretations. Experienced reference editors will draw information from a variety of sources, integrating these with new information where possible, to increase the value of the result. Copying and changing words is the activity of the weak student and should not be part of a fine project such as Wikipaedia in an poor attempt to rapidly add content. Recycling information from one place on the web to another doesn't help increase the value of the web overall or the value of Wikipaedia. -- Bruce --- 14:05, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You are operating under the dead tree/static webpage notion that content is authored by a single individual. We are a wiki so I see nothing wrong with user X using source A to add information to an article and then user Y using source B for adding more information to the article. The end result is an article that uses two different sources. In time more people will draw on more sources and add that content. We are really only concerned about the overall result, not what any particular user does. That is, IMO, one of the great strengths of our content-generation model - no one edit needs to be perfect. --mav
Sorry no dead trees here. The delivery mechanism is irrelevant. What is relevant is that your editors do not copy material from others, change the odd word and claim it is something new. That is a waste of everyone's time. Granted you have a great model for evolving content, but its pointless and unfair to publish things at ANY STAGE which are ripped off from elsewhere. -- Bruce.
I agree, and that is why I rewrote the content as described above and added references. My last comment was in reference to that not to what the original author did (which was borderline plagiarism). --mav


Uncredited material on Indo-European religion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_religion

This site contains the following material that was written by me:

  • Ghosti is a PIE word which means "one with whom one has a reciprocal obligation of hospitality." Our words guest and host both come from this root.
  • Artus is the pattern of the universe. It comes from the root *ar-, meaning "to fit together, particularly according to a pleasing pattern." Artus is the root of the Vedic rta, and is similarly in operation to the early Germanic wyrd.

Order, allowed to remain unfed, becomes brittle and dead. Chaos is dangerous and not capable of supporting life. It is only through the interplay of these two, in a sort of *ghosti-principle way, that the cosmos can live.

It has been taken from my website http://www.ceisiwrserith.com/pier/whatwasreligion.htm

That it was cut and pasted is shown pretty clearly by the typo of "similarly" for "similar."

I have no objections to being quoted; I have strong objections to being plagiarized. If this material is properly cited, with direct quotations marked, and with a link to my website where it was found, it may be used. Otherwise, I must insist that it be removed.

Followup questions can be addressed to me at CeiSerith@aol.com.

Thank you.

Ceisiwr ---

Thank you for the note. I've added a reference and a link to your webpage and have informed the main author of the Biocrawler article and have explained the situation. --mav 06:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Update: It looks like the offending text has been removed. If not, then please say so. --mav 07:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Photo

Hello,

The photo of the Pittsburgh skyline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pittsburgh_skyline_daytime.jpg) which appears on the main Pittsburgh page is protected by my copyright and used without my permission. Can you please remove this photo from Biocrawler since, by placing it there, it now appears that the photo is in the public domain.

The picture appears on the About Pittsburgh Web site (http://pittsburgh.about.com) where it quite clearly states the copyright date of 2002 and that the photo is NOT in the public domain: http://pittsburgh.about.com/library/wallpaper/bl_pittsburgh-2.htm

Thank you so much for your attention to this matter,

Kimberly ---

This photo was deleted after being listed here for two weeks with no objections. Angela. 14:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of Pantheists

Third dynasty of Egypt

Robert Priddy / Talk:Robert Priddy

Night and Fog Copyright Infringement

Personal tools
Google Search
Google
Web
biocrawler.com