Talk:Anthony Paulet

Copyright violation
I wrote the original article on my own site here. Leo cited ME, and then I cited him as well. That's not a copyright violation.Wjhonson (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I ask where your site is to take a look?&mdash; Rod talk 19:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is CountyHistorian I am unable to find any pages including the name Paulet.&mdash; Rod talk 20:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you examine once again the page on Leo's site, you will see his sources are "Wikipedia Website, Reference: bio by Will Johnson". That is... this very article here is what he means.  I wrote this biography from scratch.  Leo cited me and copied it.  If there is a cv, it's his against us, not mine against him.  Do you understand now? Wjhonson (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00198908&tree=LEO indeed names wikipedia and specifically Will Johnson as the source for the information. This is clearly not a copyright violation, so I have removed the tag. Yoenit (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK presumably the same applies to Amias Paulet? It should not be then used as reference to support the information, so do you have any other references which can be used as citations?&mdash; Rod talk 13:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's forks can be neither used as citations nor, per WP:ELNO and Mirrors and forks, included in a list of external links. I've removed it accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to Genealogics, it is not a fork of Wikipedia. Leo does his own research. I told him he could copy this information if he cited it, which he did. I cited his page in order to gain the family tree information which he has and we do not. I'm putting it back into this article.Wjhonson (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also the mere fact that someone cites Wikipedia as *a* source, does not make them unreliable. If anything it makes them more reliable. He also cites, there on that same page, the complete peerage I believe. Which is perhaps the most reliable source for this time period, bar none.Wjhonson (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a reliable source. People who cite Wikipedia and who copy from Wikipedia are not reliable sources. A "fork" is a page that takes Wikipedia's content and develops it further. To quote from WP:MIRROR:

"Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are sites that mirror and fork Wikipedia. Many correctly follow the licensing terms; however, many others fail to put the notice accidentally or intentionally. Such pages are listed below in alphabetical order. If you find such links, make sure you add them there. Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." If the Complete Peerage is a reliable source, you may use and cite it, but you may not use a self-published website that copies from Wikipedia per WP:EL and per WP:Mirrors and forks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary here is rather confusing: "The fact that it cites Wikipedia does not indicate it is an automatic copy." You say yourself that they copied us. Did they not? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the link as an EL. Genealogics is not a mirror and it is not a fork. It is a site, created mostly from scratch. In addition to the biography section, it has many other components which are clearly not copies from us. The biographies on that site, are not copies from us, although a few of them are, such as this one. The fact that a site with a million pages, copies two pages from Wikipedia, does not make that site a mirror, nor does it make it a fork. The EL has a very specific purpose, which is to show the ancestry and descendants of this person, as well as perhaps other details, which we are not showing. That is why it is important and useful as an EL at the least.Wjhonson (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And I have removed it again. This page copies and cites Wikipedia; hence, it is a fork. But I have requested further feebdack at WP:ELN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This page does not copy Wikipedia. It is not a fork. You however are inciting the situation further by your actions. That is highly inappropriate.Wjhonson (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is highly inappropriate is for you to leave a conversation for a month where two editors have objected to the use of a link and restore it without any effort to first seek consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)