Talk:Civilian Technical Corps

Untitled
Please note that not only does my article appear here: http://home.comcast.net/~w4fok/brown.ctc.paper.htm. It was also published prior to this. The fact the wikipedia article is a copy of the webpage can be seen be the fact that the text is almost identical and where it has been changed or added to has introduced factual errors. also the photo of 'Tex' Woodall is clearly the same photocopy as appears in the above webpage, rather than from an original photo which I have in my possession. Neither of the photos on the Wikipedia page have come from the RAF, Imperial War Museum or any other official source and are NOT Crown Copyright. I know where they came from because I have prints of the originals.

I have flagged this page up as a breach of copyright but recieved neither acknowledgement nor any word of investigation or agreement that it does breach my copyright. In view of the lack of action in this regard, I have delted the page and will continue to do so if it is reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizard99 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To 21stCenturyGreenstuff:

Rewording an article does not change the fact that it infringes my copyright. It does not change the fact that the article is based on my research but this is not clear. Referencing the article suggests that was a source, not that you have simply changed a few words here and there. It certainly does not change the fact that you did not have permission to use the photographs. It does not change the fact that you did not contact me to ask permission to write the article.

I appreciate your point about the memory of the men who served in the CTC. However, if you Google the CTC, my article is the first hit, so even without it being included in Wikipedia, anyone who wants to can find out about it. I have recevied several enquiries as a result. And at least people can contact me for further information via my article, which certainly won't happen with Wikpedia. Furthermore, I'm currently working on a full history of the CTC which I intend to publish. This will do far more to honour these men than your rewording of my article. Incidentally, the few changes you have made have resulted in several errors - another reason why the article should be deleted and anyone interested in the subject should read my original work, not your copyright infringement.

Tizard99


 * That is fine. Your prerogative. However, you may not be aware that I did not originate the CTC article. I have only done some editing expansion and additions to what was already there and by researching other sources in addition to yours. No great shakes though, but could I ask that you consider some form of Wikipedia article in the future for the benefit of Wiki users?.....seems a pity to have a blank space where an article once was. All the very best with your book...let me know when it is published, I would like a copy for my World War Two historical collection. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 23:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

21st Century Greenstuff: I have looked at the article history and am aware that you did not create it. However, you did massively expand it. I realise the stub article originally consisted of three sentences, but at least the second and subsequent versions had a direct link to my article, and not simply listed it as a single source reference. I am aware that there are a few other refrences out there, including a couple of websites from former CTC men. However, I've been in touch with most, if not all, of them directly and have included information about them either in my article or in my book. If you've used these other sources, why was this not referenced in your article? Although you did not originate the CTC Wikipedia article, you certainly based it on my own work and that is plaigiarism because the source of the information is not made clear. I still do not see the need for a Wikipedia article on the subject, when my own article gets more Google hits, and Goggle is vastly more widely used than Wikipedia. It is people like you infringing the copyright of others that contribute to the poor reputation of Wikipedia and I certainly don't feel like supporting Wikipedia by writing an article on the subject. Tizard99 (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you are obviously distressed and I can only offer my most sincere apologies. I had the best of intentions in honouring the memory of the CTC cadre. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 11:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I find this very hard to believe. The two photos you used are the only two that appear in my article. They are exactly the same file size and definition, one of which is much lower resolution(even thought I have the original print). The only place you could possibly have obtained these images is from my article. I know this to be a fact. However, despite this, you claimed they were "RAF Photographic Branch and Imperial War Museum. Crown Copyright" We both know this is not true, but you put this in to try and get away with using images that you knew you had lifted from someone else's website. That does not sound like "the best of intentions" to me! Tizard99 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)