Talk:Just cause eviction controls

Moving content
I'm moving the info here to Eviction. If you disagree, please let me know...I just didn't see anything here that wouldn't be better off over there. --UsaSatsui 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just glanced at what you did in eviction, but it looks like a serious effort, and one that was much needed. Thanks for engaging in this area.  The content in this article may be better off over in eviction, but content should be moved, not just removed.  You reduced it to one sentence, which is not enough.  Just cause eviction controls ("just cause") need to be explained, which is begun in this article.  This includes an explanation of how just cause ordinances work, what components they contain, what cities have adopted them, and what constitutes just cause.  This is all useful information.   That is a lot to cover in eviction, so I think it works better in a separate article.  If you can cover it over there, give it a shot, but I don't see it.   That said, thanks again for working on eviction, it needs your effort and will likely inspire others.  Cheers.  Castellanet 07:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...well, I just didn't think this was the right place for the info. Maybe one sentence is too little, but I think everything here could be covered under eviction or perhaps rent control.  How ordinances work should be worked in somewhere, but where they're in effect is something best left out I think, and what constitutes "just cause" I can slip back into eviction easy.  Any suggestions?  I just don't like this title, it annoys me for some reason.  --UsaSatsui 22:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

globalize and possible copyvio
Are there just cause ordinances in countries other than the US?

Another issue of concern is that the text of this article is copied almost exactly word for word from "Just Cause Eviction Controls", for which no permission has been explicitly granted for reproduction.--Rockero 23:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this as a copyvio. Superm401 - Talk 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? From what I can see, only the first sentence seems to be derived from it, and then maybe about half of it.  I don't see the copyvio.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think "half of it" is derived from the page I listed, that's a serious copyright infringement. Superm401 - Talk 05:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify: Half of the first sentence. The copyvio was cleared up months ago, from what I gathered.  Did you even look to compare the article to the supposed violation?  --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As UsaSatsui correctly notes, the original text from the Policylink article has been removed. Please compare the source article.  I have a professional relationship with Policylink, and am a source for some of their materials, though not this one.  There is no copyright violation here.  The original content here should be restored.  Castellanet (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did compare, and it's still a copyvio, most blatantly in the function and examples section. Castellanet, your professional relationship is irrelevant, unless you can get PolicyLink to release the page under the GFDL. Superm401 - Talk 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article will be deleted one week from the time of listing (4/14). You can help by contributing to Talk:Just cause eviction controls/Temp, which will become the main article. Superm401 - Talk 09:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy Vio / Fair Use
Please provide reasons to support a claim there is a copyright violation, and then let's fix the problem. I have edited the language noted regarding the function section.

Also, explained in the fair use section of Copyright_FAQ, the function of Policylink is relevant, they are making this information available for educational purposes. Based on my familiarity with the subject matter, and Policylink, Wikipedia will face no objection from this use. I appreciate the efforts to protect Wikipedia from such objection, but this isn't one of those occasions. Thanks. Castellanet (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's an issue either...however, if PolicyLink releases the text to the GDFL or the public domain, problem solved. --UsaSatsui (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if "they are making this information available for educational purposes". They haven't released the text under the GFDL and we can't use it.  Wikipedia does not use fair use for text (except direct quotes), because we can just write the text ourselves.


 * Castellanet, your first edit clearly shows you took the page verbatim from www.policylink.org/EDTK/JustCause/. It has remained a copyvio ever since then, despite people making partial efforts to correct this.  The solution is to delete it and start a new page with original writing.  Superm401 - Talk 11:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit to the temp page just made that page a copyvio too, so I had to revert. Please see Copyright infringement.  The text of the article must be original, not from somewhere else.  Superm401 - Talk 11:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, a merge into Eviction might be the answer (I did try that before). --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Copyvio text is no more welcome there than it is here.  Also, I think this subject does merit a separate article, just not a copyvio. Superm401 - Talk 18:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I deleted the old version of the article today because the text was lifted from Policylink, which holds the copyright. Superm401 is correct about text being ineligible for fair use and licensure under the GFDL. It's not about using their text "for Wikipedia" - it's about using it everywhere by anyone for any use, including commercial or for-profit purposes. Policylink has a copyright notice at the bottom of their home page, and since there were no untainted versions in the article's history, I had no choice but to delete it. Fortunately, someone started a new page as directed on the template, and that new stub was moved into the mainspace as a replacement. Everybody's free now to collaborate and cooperate and discuss the content for the stub, but do not add that text back into the article. If anyone has questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. Thanks. Krakatoa  Katie  01:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. I was unaware of the very tight view Wikipedia has on fair use for deliberately educational materials, thanks to Krakatoa  Katie  for the reference to that policy.  However, in light of this policy understood by other, the article was re-written, not by me.  I asked twice above to identify what portions of the article violate copyright in the view of the commentators, and got no response to this question.  The article contains six sentences and two bullet lists.  So I'll ask a third time why you think the re-writing is not sufficient?


 * The problem here is that the terms of these policies consist of language that does not vary that much. Regarding the suggestion to go to Policylink to get a GDFL license, I don't think it worth while for these six sentences.  Again, admins please respond.Castellanet (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with quoting from the actual laws and regulations. That is not what was occuring here.  Rather, text was copied without authorization or quoting, from PolicyLink.


 * Regarding "rewriting", this is not an acceptable option when the first version of an article is a copyvio. Superm401 - Talk 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"New Article"
The replacement article is in accurate and inadequate. It serves no one to post inaccurate information. As previously suggested, the article is now a redirect. No copyright violation was identified, none remained. The original text was attributed. This exercise was a waste of time, serving no identified interest. Castellanet (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)