Talk:Newmark family of Southern California

Copyright
These articles have been modified and paraphrased, and use of similar wording is within Fair Use. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's copyright policy is not concerned only with verbatim copying, and I respectfully disagree about the quantity of similar wording that you've used falling within the bounds of fair use. What you have created is a derivative work of the original and so still subject to it's copyright protection. I suggest you read Close paraphrasing which focuses on this particular aspect of the copyright policy. The material should be written entirely from scratch if you wish to include it in the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I will work on this later at the temporary page you provided. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really sure what I should do now. I've edited the page at its temporary location, and what remains are simply the facts, and, as you know, facts cannot be copyrighted. Thank you so much. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You have changed very little of the problematic text. You didn't touch the brief bio for Harris Newmark, although I imagine that to be less of an issue since you can freely paraphrase text from Harris Newmark as it appears to have no copyright issues. Even where you have changed the text around for Joseph Newmark's bio it still very closely resembles the source. On the temporary page, you wrote:
 * where the source says:
 * The dates have swapped places with the organization names, but that remains a close paraphrase and thus a problem. As I mentioned above, the material needs to be written entirely from scratch. Modifying it from the source by changing words here and there is rarely going to result in a usable article. If you were only paraphrasing a single, short, factual sentence this wouldn't be a problem but at the moment you are paraphrasing effectively two entire paragraphs of creative content. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The dates have swapped places with the organization names, but that remains a close paraphrase and thus a problem. As I mentioned above, the material needs to be written entirely from scratch. Modifying it from the source by changing words here and there is rarely going to result in a usable article. If you were only paraphrasing a single, short, factual sentence this wouldn't be a problem but at the moment you are paraphrasing effectively two entire paragraphs of creative content. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The dates have swapped places with the organization names, but that remains a close paraphrase and thus a problem. As I mentioned above, the material needs to be written entirely from scratch. Modifying it from the source by changing words here and there is rarely going to result in a usable article. If you were only paraphrasing a single, short, factual sentence this wouldn't be a problem but at the moment you are paraphrasing effectively two entire paragraphs of creative content. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I totally disagree with you, so to whom can I appeal? Thank you so much for your attention to this article. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You can always ask another admin--there's a handful of us who are willing to regularly handle copyright situations. This article is listed at Copyright problems/2012 August 25 and you can leave comments there. It will come up for review in a few days, although there's a fairly large backlog so I can't guarantee exactly when someone else will look at it. You can also ask another admin directly if you absolutely require a prompt reply and can find one who is both familiar with and willing to handle copyright cleanup. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: I've had a look at this as a Copyright problems board clerk. I see that GeorgeLouis went ahead and restored his revised version and removed the copyvio tag despite the fact that the tag quite clearly states:
 * Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent.
 * Please do not do something like that again, especially if you are the one who introduced the close paraphrasing in the first place. If you are impatient, leave a note for another administrator or at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. I agree with Verno that some of the paraphrasing remained too close and have since rectified it. I'm recording this as resolved now. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention, although I didn't care much for the superior attitude and lecturing. Please do not do something like that again. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)