Talk:Chan Ka-kui

Copyrighted text is not allowed here without a proper license
I recently deleted several plot summaries because they were a mix of pure copies of content from another web site or minor paraphrasing of the same. There was no indication on the other web site that the content was either in the public domain or licensed under a Wikipedia-compatible license.

If you are the author of that content and have released the content under a Wikipedia-compatible license, please say so on the web site where the content originally was, or provide a link to an even older site that has the content along with a suitable license statement.

All editors are encouraged to read the original content and write their own plot summaries. If you do, make sure your version isn't too close to the original. It's far better if you watched the movie or read the screenplay yourself and are writing a summary from it than to try to make a summary from someone else's work. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  14:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Uncertain origin of quite a bit of text
On Nov. 26, I removed several large blocks of text on the grounds they were lifted from source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, and source 5.

An anonymous editor reverted this change without explanation, which I reverted back.

The same anonymous editor reverted again, with the edit summary "Undid revision 328045610 by Davidwr (talk) The article on that site has been taken from Wiki, not vice-versa."

This may be the case, but the evidence points toward the sources being there first.

All 5 sources are "Posted by: jackiechan11  on Oct 10, 2009."

The Wikipedia article was created at 16:37, 1 November 2009.

Unless there is evidence that suggests the source material was updated after 16:37 November 1, or offers an explanation for the apparent copyright violation, it's reasonable to err on the side of caution and assume the material is not original.

Before restoring the material please provide some evidence that it was posted to Wikipedia properly in the first place or have WölffReik explain his side of the story. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the articles on those web pages have been taken from Wikipedia. Therefore they have enfriged on Wikipedia's rights, rather than vice-versa. - 14:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)