User talk:Bpetrichco

Laura J Woods
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Laura J Woods, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.senatorlaurawoods.com/about-me/.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Laura J Woods


A tag has been placed on Laura J Woods requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.senatorlaurawoods.com/about-me/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. BiH (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Laura J Woods


The article Laura J Woods has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Laura J Woods
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Laura J Woods, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.senatorlaurawoods.com/about-me/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Laura J Woods and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Laura J Woods, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Laura J Woods. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Laura J Woods with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Laura J Woods saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright and the threshold of creativity
Hello, Bpetrichco, and sorry for the complication you have encountered here. Wikipedia is pretty vigilant about copyright; this is meant in large part to protect both the copyright holders and our downstream reusers. Once content is published on Wikipedia, it typically spreads quickly to other sites and can be very difficult to contain. We ask that content built from information in copyrighted sources be put in your own words and structure, except for brief and clearly marked quotations. If content is changed, but not enough, it creates a "derivative work". You can read more about this at Close paraphrasing.

With respect to your question about the public domain, if you read further down Public domain, you'll see that the example given of purely factual information is a telephone directory. To quote a little from the landmark copyright case, Feist v. Rural: "The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer). To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be. Id., § 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying."

Taking a look at one passage:

The bolding has been added to precise duplication to help make the pattern more clear. What we wind up with at the beginning of that passage is a very close paraphrase where much of the language and structure of the original has been retained.

There are two ways, basically, to resolve such issues. First, you can write the content in your own language and structure, using limited and clearly marked quotations where necessary to illustrate a point of view, for instance. Second, you can obtain license from the source. All that's needed there is for the Woods campaign to put a notice on the source site indicating that the content is compatibly licensed or released into the public domain. If you take a look at Donating copyrighted materials, there's an example of the language that would serve:
 * The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

If this release is added to the page, then we have verification that the copyright holder does not object, and the content can be restored.

So far as I can see, there are no issues in the Senate campaign and Senator Woods sections, so I've restored those. The other sections seem to have some close paraphrasing scattered throughout, so they've been removed. They can be restored if licensing permission is provided. Alternatively, the information can be added again if the content is rewritten in original language.

As a final note of advice, as you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, the article as written focuses very heavily on what Wood says about herself. This is not Wikipedia's purpose. Our goal is to summarize what reliable sources that are not connected to the senator say about her and to accurately reflect their tone. See our verifiability policy and our neutral point of view policy. Rather than constructing her biography out of her official page, you could construct a stronger Wikipedia profile by accessing news sources that discuss her, like, , and  - there's generally no shortage of news coverage of politicians from which to draw. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)