User talk:Afaprof01/Archives/2010/April/3

Copyright infringements
I've uncovered several passages in which cut and pasted material was inserted in Creation myth, five of them copyrighted materials which appear to be added by you., Cut and past material of copyrighted materials is rarely allowed at Wikipedia. Please review the policies at Copyright violations. The essay at Copy-paste helps explain further. Superficial changes (Close_paraphrasing) are not sufficient to avoid copyright restrictions. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I continue to find edits of yours strewn about articles here which contain clear cut-pastes of copyrighted materials. I urge you to go back and find all the rest which may be out there, and clean each up yourself rather than leaving it to other editors to fix. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Prof M. Thank you for your courteous challenge of my use of some copyrighted material. I will carefully review each of those to which you have referred. I already concur with the EB quote in ¶1 of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_myth&diff=prev&oldid=350915675. Originally I had cited it, but then was criticized for the citation and acceded. Please identify for me the paragraph(s) to which you refer in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_myth&diff=prev&oldid=350919520. Is this issue the paragraphs that have citations? As you know, not even the Wiki guidance to which you referred solves the problem of fair use of copyrighted material.

•	Non-commercial use is often fair use. Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. •	Benefit to the public may be fair use. A commercial motive doesn't always disqualify someone from claiming a fair use. A use that benefits the public can qualify as a fair use, even if it makes money for the user.

Some Fair Use notes to which I often refer: WHEN IS A USE A "FAIR USE"?


 * There are five basic rules to keep in mind when deciding whether or not a particular use of an author's work is a fair use:

Rule 1: Are You Creating Something New or Just Copying?


 * The purpose and character of your intended use of the material involved is the single most important factor in determining whether a use is a fair use. The question to ask here is whether you are merely copying someone else's work verbatim or instead using it to help create something new.

Rule 2: Are Your Competing with the Source You're Copying From?


 * Without consent, you ordinarily cannot use another person's protected expression in a way that impairs (or even potentially impairs) the market for his or her work.

Rule 3: Giving the Author Credit Doesn't Let You Off the Hook


 * Some people mistakenly believe that they can use any material as long as they properly give the author credit. Not true. Giving credit and fair use are completely separate concepts. Either you have the right to use another author's material under the fair use rule or you don't. The fact that you attribute the material to the other author doesn't change that.

Rule 4: The More You Take, the Less Fair Your Use Is Likely to Be


 * The more material you take, the less likely it is that your use will be a fair use. As a general rule, never: quote more than a few successive paragraphs from a book or article, take more than one chart or diagram, include an illustration or other artwork in a book or newsletter without the artist's permission, or quote more than one or two lines from a poem.


 * Contrary to what many people believe, there is no absolute word limit on fair use. For example, copying 200 words from a work of 300 words wouldn't be fair use. However, copying 2000 words from a work of 500,000 words might be fair. It all depends on the circumstances.


 * To preserve the free flow of information, authors have more leeway in using material from factual works (scholarly, technical, and scientific works) than to works of fancy such as novels, poems, and plays.

Rule 5: The Quality of the Material Used Is as Important as the Quantity


 * The more important the material is to the original work, the less likely your use of it will be considered a fair use.

In consideration of the Fair Use rules, please tell me specifically what, in your opinion, would be the proper solutions for the examples you have flagged as infringements. That will help me understand if we are "on the same page" and I have overlooked the obvious, or whether we have any fundamental disagreement of interpretation. Thanks again for taking your valuable time to write me about this important matter. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:FAIR USE for a fuller description. The entire purpose of the project here is to offer content that can be freely reused under the conditions put forth in CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses. Fair use isn't reusable-it defeats the purpose of the project to use non-free copyrighted content in place of content contributed by authors/editors under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. And there is no justification in the copy-paste examples I found of yours.  These passages I've brought to your attention are not even marked as quotations. Fair Use is not an easy "out"-there is no Fair Use defense for cases where one is simply taking the work to be relieved the cumbersome task of writing a text in their own words. We cite texts at wikipedia, we don't copy paste the articles together from non-free use content. And this link maybe useful as well explaining how to avoid plagiarizing. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for taking the time / effort to explain your position. I completely agree with the error of not marking as quotations copy&paste examples. Those were originally footnoted, as one may see from the previous version, and with the chaos in progress I apparently neglected to re-mark as quoted. Clearly an error. I also have had similar things happen due to timing of edit conflicts and using WikEd. In no way does that excuse any oversights on my part.
 * I do understand the Fair Use code, and will make every effort to comply with it, including its interpretation in WP:FAIRUSE's sections relative to text.
 * As far as corrections go, I will either paraphrase or indicate direct quoting as I notice it or as it comes to my attention, and will include the appropriate citation in either case.─AFA Prof01 (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis
Dear Sir,

I noticed you changed your position regarding Creation in Genesis. I don't really mind, of course, but on reflection it occurred to me that if people were linking from article text, rather than doing a search, they'd be much more likely to be using a phrase like "genesis creation account/narrative/story/myth". As a title I like the simplicity, but I can see other angles. I was just curious because you changed your opinion without documenting it on the talk page, which is good, saves clutter, and allows me to ask you personally. I'm jolly tempted to downgrade my own support, because now I think I'm missing something. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you have so openly shared your age in your wonderful and touching personal testimony, I feel dinosaurian by a factor of 1.6364, but I won't tell my age:-) I must confess that I had seriously underestimated your chronology based on your mature wisdom and spirituality, breadth and depth of knowledge, and such rarely seen patience and diplomatic skills that in my expectations would typically suggest a few more years in one's dossier. No slam intended on the younger set, for I have very successful adult 'children' in your bracket. I just find your particular set of gifts to be extraordinarily unique, valuable, and...awesome. "Well read and articulate" are just the beginning. Should your pastoral oversight committee benefit from my unimpeachable estimation just point them my way. Seriously, I know that you know I have no ulterior motive other than to affirm and encourage a colleague--something I've found happens all too rarely.


 * Now to your question. When I first "voted," there were no "strong" or "weak" modifiers, so I tried to prioritize my preferences. When the modifiers began appearing, I decided to conduct a straw poll among some respected colleagues, asking them to role-play their search for an ency. article on "creation" and "Genesis." Of course, theirs were"off the top", and nothing really new and improved surfaced, so we decided to discuss the ones on the opinion matrix.


 * The unanimous bad guys were GCM and Biblical creation myth. Besides the anticipated reaction to "myth" for a general population not schooled in the technical definition of "myth," as a group they felt it had a disrespectful (new thought to me) as well as a misleading tone. "Biblical creation" was rated vague and ambiguous. The two favorites were "Genesis creation narrative" and "Creation according to Genesis" in that order. As you know, I had liked "Creation in Genesis." My colleagues considered it ambiguous and not so clear as "according to." They also thought it would be more difficult to create parallelism with other creation stories: Creation in ____ would almost require there to be a well-known document or -ism, while "according to" might fit the name of a people, a book, a well-known story/narrative/account, etc. So I felt persuaded to change my vote on Creation in Genesis.


 * Let me hasten to say that I have no philosophical or theological objection to CIG, and should things turn out that way, I wouldn't be overly disappointed. Perhaps I should have labeled it "Weak oppose" and will be glad to change it to that or even to support should we get that close and a tie-breaker is needed.


 * Thanks for asking. Your "elder" colleague and frater...(It's called amigo around here)─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Sir, thank you so much for your kind words. We all need encouragement, and as I am maturing I am learning the humility of accepting it. I will keep striving to uphold and improve upon things so I can live up to your kind, encouraging words. But as you well know, anything good is always a gift, so I guess I'm saying I'll keep looking for the Giver to keep giving. :)
 * I was perfectly serious when I said above that I'd be willing to change my poll response if your reasoning made sense to me.
 * It does, and I shall. At the very least, I will downgrade my support for my own proposal from Strong Support to Support.
 * I'm actually rather delighted that Lisa's proposal seems to be the one with most support. I think it would be the most delightful thing if Lisa, who is in many ways the person in the discussion closest to the text, by family tradition and also in her heart, was actually the one whose proposal was ultimately adopted. How nice would that be! Almost 100 hard-nosed editors with strong and diverse opinions, and the Jewish lady provides the best solution! Bravo!
 * I'm off to change my vote, and look forward to our next meeting. God bless you Sir, my brother. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GAR
Hi, I've requested a GA review of an article you listed. See here. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 08:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Mk5384
I just wanted to clarify that I did not mean to imply that the use of the word "myth" was unacceptable anywhere within the article. I just meant to stress that care should be taken, when negotiating with these people. They did what they did in a whirlwind of secrecy, and since, have gone to such ridiculous lengths as requesting discussion bans, and editor topic bans. All of this, of course, to protect something that they had no right whatsoever, to do in the first place. These people are zealots, equal to the worst kinds of religious fundamentalists. They were entirely in the wrong to do this, and careful pause should be given before granting any concessions to the ones who should have requested that concessions be made to them. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You state this very well. I had not thought of the comparison with the far right, but it tracks. Without doubt, it has been my most unpleasant Wiki experience. There were times when I thought I should step away from it for health reasons, but for whatever reason I felt I couldn't cave in and asked for more personal stick-to-it-ive-ness. I have met the very same cadre on every Genesis article. For the longest time, it seemed there was no opposition to the mythers. But PTL for courageous and principled users like you who have become real "difference-makers." Thank you for the stand you have taken, and for being an encourager. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comments warm my heart. All the best-Mk5384 (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)