User talk:Bhuna71

Supernova Legacy Survey
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Supernova Legacy Survey, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Megaprime
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Megaprime, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci
With regards to that page, the length is stretched to absolute maximum capacity, to a point where users are complaining. Please don't add any information that isn't really vital to understanding the man.

The sort of information that we have about Leonardo includes his appearance, his physical strength and agility, his vegetarianism, his buying caged birds and releasing them, his attitude to death and burial, the type of clothes he wore etc etc etc. Basically, the article could incorporate everything ever written or even speculated. But we need to keep it down. That's why the article Leonardo da Vinci's personal life and Cultural depictions of Leonardo da Vinci were created. Any more info about his birth, family etc needs to go there. Please expand these pages, but try to avoid fights over his sexuality.


 * I've incorporated his father's full name, but it's gone down to the biographical paragraph, because the intro has been criticised for it's length, and it's really not very significant information. As for the surname of Caterina, it is redundant. The matter of surnames is mentioned in the text. She may not have had a surname. Typical case is Piero della Francesca, who, also illegitimate, because his first name was common, took his mother's name to identify himself.


 * I've incorporated the hour (which I recall is stated by his Grandfather, but I had omitted as being not worth the extra line.)
 * An explanation as to what the 3rd hour mmeans doesn't belong on thhe text when the reader is trying to get at succinct information. That is "footnote" stuff, so I've turned it into one. The problem is that I nnow need edit abbout 30 footnotes that fall beneath it.
 * Brackets. Please don't bracket information if you can avoid it. If you look at the style of the article you'll realise that it's main editor has an abhorrence of bbracketted material. I like whole sentences, and incidental or explanatory stuff consigned to footnotes.
 * The sort of things which get bracketted are things like The boy was known as "Salaino" (Little Devil).

The other thing is, I am about to put that article up as a Featured Article Candidate again. I have in the last few weeks spent multiple hours searching for the sources of information that people have included without citation.

I notice that you added a book to the Bibliography. Is that the book from which the information that you included came? Under the presumtion that this was the case, I cited it as your source, but if, in fact, Leonardo's father's full name and the details of his birth came from some other place, I've got to change the citation immediately so please let me know ASAP.

While I realise I seem to be nitpicky, the aim of the exercise is to get this recognised as one of the best articles on wikipedia. If info is added without citation, or in places where it spoils the flow of the written language, it's a case of "bigger is not necessarily better".

Amandajm 08:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2008
Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What copyrighted material do you allege I used? I quoted legal definitions: there is no other way of accurately communicating a legal term other than quoting the definition. --Bhuna71 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd copied and pasted the whole page from http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule3b-4.html.


 * You're wrong, there are other ways to accurately communicate a legal term other than with copy and paste. Even if there weren't, using copyrighted text without permission is still illegal.  If you want help learning how to use material from the internet to write wikipedia articles, WP:Editor assistance may be of help to you.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 19:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I had not copied and pasted anything. If you read my wording you'll realise that it I had paraphrased and reworded from the Rules and Regs themselves as far as I thought possible without losing the (very precise) meaning of the original, deliberately in order to avoid copyright infringement.


 * I'm sorry, I should have said "In some cases, there is no other way...", and I considered this to be one of those cases. If you can always convey very precise legal meanings by other means, why do lawyers find it necessary to use direct quotes from legislation and case law so frequently? Where the definition has to be precise, introducing new words introduces new meanings and confusion. In any case, I believe direct quotation of small portions of legislation is legal and constitutes fair use. Using a small portion of legislation, which is available for all in any case, for non-profit educational purposes, and having no effect whatsoever on the market for the original, is more or less the exact definition of fair use. I accept that I should have specified that that was the basis on which I used it, but there are any number of journals (print and online) which do the same every day without stating the basis. Are they all in breach of copyright? --Bhuna71 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've moved both parts of your last edit together, to make it clear in what order this discussion occurred.


 * The article has been deleted now, so it isn't possible to link to it to make clear what I mean - not without getting an administrator involved, anyway. Nevertheless, except for the first line, the entire article was identical to the page at law.uc.edu.  This is not just my view - Alexf clearly agreed, otherwise he would not have deleted it as a blatant copyright infringement.


 * It's always possible to summarise the information in an external source, and cite that source as a reference. Occasionally it's necessary for clarity (and legal, under fair use) to quote a sentence, or part of a sentence, but that's different from copying and pasting several lines of text.  Please see WP:Copyrights and WP:Non-free content.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)