User talk:Grochim

Sehr geehrter Herr Grochowski,

ich würde gerne für die Weihnachtskarte unseres Unternehmens Ihr Bild "Lichtbogen_3000V_jpg" verwenden. Könnten Sie mir das Bild in hoher Auflösung zukommen lassen? Gerne bin ich bereit, hierfür einen Unkostenbeitrag zu entrichten. Bitte melden Sie sich kurz unter michael.haeffner(at)web.de.

Besten Dank und viele Grüße Michael Häffner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.92.9.187 (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Swine Flu
Hi, I made two articles, on swine flu in New Zealand, and 1 on swine flue in Israel. Can you edit the link in the break out table? thanks Stevie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikbenstevie (talk • contribs) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Grochim (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Weiterleitung
Hi Grochim Du hast bei Wikibooks eine Weiterleitung von Benutzer:Achgro eingerichtet. Du hättest dich auch von John N. auf seiner Diskussionsseite umbenennen lassen können Wenn du Benutzer:Achgro nicht mehr benötigst kann der Name gelöscht werden. InselAX(talk)10:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ganz herzlichen Dank

 * Hallo Grochim, ganz herzlichen Dank für Deine ausgezeichnete Übersetzungsarbeit!


 * Ich bin Dir sehr, sehr dankbar!


 * Möge Gott Dich segnen.!


 * Falls Du deinen Lieblingsartikel gerne in das Chinesische übersetzt haben möchtest, würde ich Dir dabei gerne helfen.


 * Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --Jose77 (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Schwäbisch Test-Wikipedia
Hallo Grochim,

Wärst du so nett und würdest mir bitte helfen, diesen Artikel ins Schwäbisch zu übersetzen?

Hier ist der Artikeltext:


 * Schwäbisch Test-Wikipedia

Ich wäre dir sehr dankbar für deine Hilfe. Herzlichen Dank. --Jose77 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Stakeholder in-ex.png
Hello, ich habe deine Grafik gesehen und würde dich gern fragen, mit welchem Tool/Programm du sie erstellst hast... Sieht gut aus =) cya --81.210.182.215 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hallo, ich arbeite mit MS Visio. Falls du das auch willst und schon eine Lizenz dafür hast, kannst du klicken. Wenn du keine Lizenz hast, darfst du natürlich nix loaden, claro ;-D

File:Stakeholder (en).png
Hi Grochim,

I just noticed above image of yours and quite like it (Judging from the message above, I'm not the only one). I was just curious why you placed shareholders under the Internal Stakeholders, since most academics (I know) - like Savage - consider them external. If there's no global consensus about that it might be worth including in the article. Thanks in advantage, nl:User Talk:Mwpnl. Mwpnl (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry that I'm answering that late. You are completely right, the term 'shareholder' should be considererd rather as an external stakeholder. I firstly wanted to write 'ownerships' instead of 'shareholder', because ownerships can be shareholder, but not must be. It depends of the corporate form; if you have a private company, the owner (shareholder) is of course an internal stakeholder. In the other hand, if it is a capital company (and that's where the expression 'shareholder' is mostly referred to), the shareholder can be considered of course as an extensive stakeholder.
 * As soon as I have time, I will fix this. -- Grochim (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Grochim, thanks for your reply! and for the notification on my home-wiki . I'm glad you agree and are willing to adapt the illustration, especially since the illustration is such an enrichment to the article.  Thanks! Mwpnl (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mariana Bridi da Costa
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mariana Bridi da Costa, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Mariana Bridi da Costa. Thank you. Hektor (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for image
Hey Grochim, just wanted to thank you for the great job you did with File:Short_(finance).png for short selling, very professional-looking. I was wondering if I could persuade you to also consider making a similar image for naked short selling. Regardless, thank you! Dcoetzee ( talk ) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Google Censorship image
This morning I was searching some reliable sources for the Iraq unemployment rate on Google, when I found a interesting pdf file. Unfortunately, the pdf file wasn't available anymore, so I opened the Google cache where at least the text of the document is still accessible. When I opened the cache, I rarely could trust my eyes. It seems that there is a algorithm that cuts the sentences and lying upon each other so that it's hard possible to read the lines. I don't know if this is a new feature of Google (let's call it Google censorship service ;-). Well I think it would be better if Google would take the cache completely out of public access instead of deflecting the original content. Grochim (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC) -- moved from main page by Grochim (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a bug of Google Chrome Webbrowser. looks normal/readable in Firefox 3.0.8 and Internet Explorer 7. --MBq (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes and in the moment it looks normal in the same version of Google Chrome Webbrowser, too, maybe because the pdf file is online again. I'm completely sure that the source-code was changed in a weird way. Unfortunately I haven't saved the source file, only a screen shot. Furthermore, the document wasn't accessible that time (22th February 2009) and the new document is dated on 02.03.2009. I just was annoyed because I couldn't read the Google Cache of the old file. To get sure we would need another broken link. -- Grochim (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Influenza-2009-cases.png
Thanks for the work :], advice: add your source. bye & thks Yug (talk)  14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, the source file (Excel 2007 sheet) is available here. -- Grochim (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Flu charts
Although I strongly dispute the accuracy and meaningfulness of the charts at this early stage, I have no doubts about your intentions or good faith. Unfortunately, unlike face-to-face conversations in real life, on wikipedia it is sometimes difficult to tell apart an explanation, from a critical-review, or a berating. Hope my comments didn't sound too harsh, or in the least bit personal. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is ok. In fact you are right with your points. It's an early stage and the confirmed cases does not necessarily fit to the virus spread, because there is a time gap in the analysis. I agree that we should be careful with the information. We could also wait until there are more reliable sources available. In any case, the data series and sources are saved in Wikipedia's history and we still have the possibility to use them later when the things are cleared up. It must also be said that especially Mexico didn't published the cases reliable on time. So I agree that we should await the further development. Greetings! -- Grochim (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cobra effect
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cobra effect, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable term. Google returns few hits. most of them unrelated.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I added some sources. -- Grochim (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The editor probably doesnt have your page watched, so you will get no response. I would mention these additions on Articles for deletion/Cobra effect. hopefully the below helps too, let me know if I can help you in any way, message me on my talk page. Ikip (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created: Cobra effect may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether the article you created should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Cobra effect.

The faster you respond on this page, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of the article you created is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for Cobra effect: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1. List the page on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2. At any time, you can ask any administrator to move your article to a special page. (Called userfication)


 * 3. You can request a mentor to help you: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 4. When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. These acronyms don't need to intimidate you. Here is a list of acronyms you can use yourself: Deletion debate acronyms, which will help you argue that the article should be kept.

If the page you created is deleted, you also have many options available. Good luck! Ikip (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Multinational corporation
A section you added to the article Multinational corporation has been blanked for copyright concerns, as it includes close paraphrasing and text duplicated verbatim from a copyrighted source. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material except in the limited circumstances set out at non-free content. Such additions will be deleted. You may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Please see the article's talk page for more detail. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that's why I changed the text. It is not forbidden to quote from books word by word or sentence for sentence. Let me see specific rules for the limit of quoted sections. Furthermore I changed the first two sections so that they aren't copyrighted longer. Please restore them, and if you have time, change the other sections, too, so that we can use it on Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Grochim (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume you have not yet read the article's talk page, which includes quotations of specific problem areas beyond the section you revised. The entire section is a problem, not just the passage that you altered. Too, your alterations constitute a derivative work. Note, for instance, your version: "By contrast, the insight of transaction costs theories of the MNEs, simultaneously and independently developed in the 1970s by McManus (1972), Buckley and Casson (1976), Brown (1976) and Hennart (1977, 1982), is that market imperfections are inherent attributes of markets, and MNEs are institutions to bypass these imperfections." The source says: "By contrast, the insight of transaction costs theories of the MNE, simultaneously and independently developed in the 1970s by McManus (1972), Buckey and Casson (1976), Brown (1976) and Hennart (1977, 1982), is that 'market imperfections' are inherent attributes of markets, and MNEs are institutions to bypass these imperfections." The text cannot be restored as is, either in the section you revised or the text around it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes but the text is sourced. According to the law (at least in Germany) it is allowed to quote from books if you source it. I can quote one sentence, or two, or even more. Is there a limit? Please let me know. Let me see the number of sentences I'm allowed to quote. Or is the literally quotation of sentences forbidden? I don't think so. If it is not allowed to provide text from verifiable sources (Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.), it won't be impossible to improve the article. --
 * Quoting from our non-free content guidelines:
 * Quotations are properly formatted with quotation marks that clearly delineate the protected text from non-protected text, and these must be reproduced exactly. For example, if it were necessary to quote the duplicated sentence above, you could not change the first MNE to MNEs without noting that you had done so, and you would not remove the marks from around 'market imperfections'. However, you still cannot quote extensively from copyrighted text. Fair use allowances in the United States do permit reproduction of copyrighted text in some instances, but copying several paragraphs out of a copyrighted book with minimal alterations would generally not comply. There is not a hard and fast rule in US copyright law as to the number of sentences you are allowed to quote. The English Wikipedia guidelines I've reproduced above helps by setting out some circumstances in which non-free text should be used. The majority of text you contribute should be written in your own language, unless the source you use is public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL. It isn't a question of not verifying the information—we should cite sources for the facts we use—but the language used in that book belongs legally to the copyright holders, and we cannot appropriate it for our own purposes even if it would be valuable to the article unless we do so in compliance with US law (which governs the Wikimedia Foundation) and Wikipedia's copyright policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited.
 * The problem is that nobody knows what extensive means. For example, some people think that it is ok to quote a whole page, other think it is extensive to quote 3 sentences. And like you said a number is not written in both US laws and German laws. So in this case, I quoted only 9 sentences from the same source. The first 2 sentences are already changed by me, so why they are still copyright protected? For example, if someone writes I'm hungry in a book and I write a book with the same phrase, is it protected, too? No, I don't think so. The remaining 11 sentences are quoted 1:1 from the same book, yes. I wouldn't describe it as extensive quotation, but some other did, yes. Ok, I changed then some words in 7 sentences in section 2. In section 3 and 4 there are only 2 quoted sentences 1:1 from the source. Do you think this is excessive? You still don't have numbered a limit of quoted sentences allowed in Wikipedia. Are you determining this by your daily mood? -- Grochim (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that nobody knows what extensive means. For example, some people think that it is ok to quote a whole page, other think it is extensive to quote 3 sentences. And like you said a number is not written in both US laws and German laws. So in this case, I quoted only 9 sentences from the same source. The first 2 sentences are already changed by me, so why they are still copyright protected? For example, if someone writes I'm hungry in a book and I write a book with the same phrase, is it protected, too? No, I don't think so. The remaining 11 sentences are quoted 1:1 from the same book, yes. I wouldn't describe it as extensive quotation, but some other did, yes. Ok, I changed then some words in 7 sentences in section 2. In section 3 and 4 there are only 2 quoted sentences 1:1 from the source. Do you think this is excessive? You still don't have numbered a limit of quoted sentences allowed in Wikipedia. Are you determining this by your daily mood? -- Grochim (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you like another opinion? I'd be happy to ask one of the other administrators who works copyright problems to weigh in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes of course. I'm really missing some clear rules for that subject. However, I suppose that everybody handles this by 'feeling'. -- Grochim (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All right. I'll ask a couple to stop by. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

←I've started with one, who is probably among the most active admins on copyright matters. But there are some core factors to consider here. First, if you haven't used quotation marks, you aren't quoting; you're simply copying. Citing your source is insufficient, because it does not indicate that you have copied text; it only suggests you are using the source for information. You must acknowledge when you use a source for language. Second, as our copyright policy indicates, "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely." (More information is found at our copyright FAQ.) While common use language is not protected by copyright and phrases like "I'm hungry" are common use, the United States Supreme Court has deliberately set a very low threshold for creativity. Text like "By contrast, the insight of transaction costs theories of the MNE, simultaneously and independently developed in the 1970s by McManus (1972), Buckey and Casson (1976), Brown (1976) and Hennart (1977, 1982), is that 'market imperfections' are inherent attributes of markets, and MNEs are institutions to bypass these imperfections" easily meets that threshold. Such text cannot be reproduced unless it is quoted.

But you could not simply copy those several paragraphs from the book and enclose them in a block quotation. Fair use considers not only the transformative nature of your use of the material (that is, whether you are adding anything new or simply reproducing something), but also the "amount and substantiality" both to the original work (which is long) and the new work (the Wikipedia article, which is relatively short). While actionable infringement is more likely to be found where greater levels of similarity exist, Richard Stim noted in 2007's Patent, Copyright & Trademark that "[a]n infringement may be found based on several paraphrased passages of a few hundred words each, or just 20 words copied verbatim." In determining whether use is substantial, courts look not only at the proportion of duplication in comparison to the relative size of the works, but also to such considerations as the creativity of the copied material, its use in both works and its centrality to either. Such determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.

Wikipedia has chosen to be conservative with its use of non-free material because of its goal to allow material to be freely used, even commercially, anywhere in the world. From WP:C: "It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use or otherwise." Likewise, with text, while limited quotations are allowable under fair use, extensive quotations are forbidden by WP:NFC to help keep our content free. There is no reason that this material cannot be revised into original language, which is free of copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * OK you told me now a lot of things that don't answer my questions, sorry. You are already talking about possible court cases and we even didn't got a notice from the holder of the copyright. I know the laws, the level of creativity, the GNU license, and so on. I know that there are no clear rules about this and it depends on the opinion of a jurist in a court case or a Wikipedian.
 * So my questions are small and simple:
 * Am I allowed to cite numbers, words, sentences or paragraphs in Wikipedia literally? Literally means the adaption 1:1 of the source. Yes, I don't want to write it NOT with my own words now due to reasons of WP:V.
 * If yes, what is the permitted length or size or scope of literally citations? Could you specifiy that not with your own words, please?
 * Thank you for your effort. -- Grochim (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question #1: You are allowed to quote sentences and sometimes paragraphs in Wikipedia verbatim under some circumstances within limitations. ("quotation" is different from "citation." See also from the page you linked: CS) and specifically the example of how to format a quotation.) When the material is non-free, such quotations must conform to WP:C and WP:NFC.
 * Question #2: There is no pre-set limitation to the length of literal quotations (again, citations are something altogether different), either on Wikipedia or in US courts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well in German it can be both quotation and citation, so I thought there is no difference. I think we are talking about citations, not quotations. So what I did was: I cited (not quoted) several sentences from another book. It doesn't make sense to re-phrase the sentences with my own words when I'm citing the autor because the source isn't valid any longer. What does it need to use sentences verbatim in Wikipedia? If Wikipedia doesn't allow to cite at least a paragraph verbatim then there will remain a big problem with the verifiability of the content. And you have deleted with your action also sentences I have written by myself. Please note also that only a part is sourced by Pitelis, Christos. I also cited from Hymer, Kindleberger, Caves, Bain, Dunning, Rugman and Teece. Do you want to delete the sentences from this men, too? Because Pitelis doesn't have copyrights on this sentences and he nevertheless published them in his book. Do you think that was also a copyright infringement? -- Grochim (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a difference. Quotations are marked with quotation marks and look like this: "This is a quotation." . The source remains valid even if you put it in your own words so long as you do not alter the meaning of the author. This revision is what is required on Wikipedia, as I noted in quoting from our copyright policy. You may have cited Hymer, Kindleberger & Caves, but the text comes from Pitelis: "This idea that MNEs owe their existence to 'market imperfections' was first put forward by Hymer...,Kindelberger... and Caves" is in the book from which you have copied text. There are no quotation marks in the book to indicate that Patelis is quoting here, and it would be an awfully peculiar thing for Hymer, Kindelberger and Caves to have said. The quotation actually from Hymer in the book, "an instrument for restraining competition between firms of different nations" would be indicated by single quotation marks if you were to reproduce the sentence in accordance with WP:NFC; the manual of style notes that "Quotations are enclosed within double quotes (e.g., Bob said: "Jim ate the apple."). Quotations within quotations are enclosed within single quotes (e.g., Bob said: "Did Jim say 'I ate the apple' after he left?")" Pitelis is not infringing on Hymer's copyright for a number of reasons: the quotation is clearly marked, it is brief (10 words total), and it is part of a long work incorporated within a long work to attribute a point of view (also a recommended usage in our WP:NFC.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grochim, Moonriddengirl asked me to come and have a look at the situation and provide another opinion on the situation from a copyright perspective. Reviewing the sections in question, I have to agree that it does not simply constitute as quotation (given, for example, the lack of quotation marks or other indication that it is a quote). Unfortunately it is not enough to use people's work as long as we cite it - we do not have permission to modify or release it under the GFDL. The fair use provision would allow limited use on Wikipedia, but the problem of the work not being directly quoted again causes an issue. As has been stated above, the text in question has simply been incorporated into the article text with a citation and minor alteration; this is not sufficient to avoid derivative work and other related issues. Quotations are fine to use on Wikipedia, but they must be kept to a couple of sentences, and must be clearly identifiable as quotes. They can often be useful to demonstrate certain views and opinions, but cannot be incorporated into an article in the way that they currently are. I hope this helps. Best, – Toon (talk)  15:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you both have convinced me now. In future, I won't use any references on Wikipedia because it doesn't make sense. -- Grochim (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you remain unclear about how to use quotations from copyrighted text, I'll be happy to explain further or find others to help. This has nothing to do with referencing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, I know that Wikipedia has certain limits, and this is one of them. The main idea of Wikipedia is to represent confirmed knowledge. On the other hand it is not allowed to cite something, at least not 2 sentences in a row. I also changed some sentences in order to prevent copyright problems but it was apparently not enough. If I express the idea behind these sentences in my own words, it could be completely different. It is similar to the interpretation of law texts: If you change a word, the sense can be completely different, even the opposite. So how shall it be possible to represent confirmed knowledge when it is not allowed to adopt it due to copyright reasons? -- Grochim (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

←You combine paraphrase and quotation without losing the sense of the original. I would be better at demonstrating this in a field closer to home; I'm afraid that survey courses in micro- and macro-economics is the extent of my education in marketing. I lack the familiarity with the topic to grasp the nuances in the original and might miss or misunderstand something. So this is for the purposes of demonstration only. With that in mind, if we took the run of text that begins "The idea that MNEs owe..." through the end, I might paraphrase it something like this:

There are some runs of text that are not creative and which Pitelis and Sugden don't own. For example, the list of names (McManus (1972), Buckley and Casson (1976), Brown (1976) and Hennart (1977, 1982)) is basic fact, and it is arranged chronologically. We can reproduce this without concern. Most of the text, though, is going to be easily creative enough that it is copyrightable expression.

As I said above, I may have misunderstood something or missed some nuance. Marketing is not my field. But since you're editing the article, I presume that your interest and background is likely to be greater. If I've gotten something wrong and you'd like to talk about how to paraphrase it differently, I'd be happy to work with you on it. I know it is challenging to keep the intent of the original while using different words, but unfortunately unless the material is public domain or otherwise free for use, we just really don't have much choice.

Quoting two sentences in a row is usually not a problem (though we do have to indicate that we are quoting, as I did in my example, with quotation marks) if the quotations are necessary. But looking at the text before I blanked it, there is a bit more duplication than that. The sentence that begins "If there are" is almost entirely verbatim--just a few words changed. The next sentence is also almost entirely verbatim, although the first few words are different. So it goes for seven more sentences, which have very minimal changes from the source. The next sentence, though merging two together, contains extensive runs of text from each: "A similar case arose when the technology had often few substitutes and the number of potential licensees in any given foreign market was also often limited, thus creating a biletaral monopoly." Source: "A similar case arose when the technology developed by firms based in one country was valuable abroad. That technology had often few substitutes and the number of potential licensees in any given foreign market was also limited, thus creating a bilateral monopoly." (emphasis added) The next two sentences are, again, almost verbatim. The third alters the opening few words, but then continues verbatim reproduction and so through three more sentences. Thus, we have around 16 consecutive sentences that are either verbatim or only very minimally changed from the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

After such a long discussion I couldn't resist to rewrite the text ;-)

But now I wouldn't use any citations or quotations because the sentences and words are quite different from the source. However, I think it would be much easier to publish verified content on Wikipedia if the copyright requirements would be fitted to the corresponding law. For example, according to German law it is allowed to cite 16 consecutive sentences verbatim without problems if they are going to be cited correctly. And I guess it's not that different with the US law. In fact, without original research and reliable sources it is not possible to represent verified content. If I'm rewriting the stuff, I'm already in conflict with WP:OR. It's not possible to rewrite something without putting your own ideas and views in it. -- Grochim (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
You still have to cite your sources. :) Citations are used not only to indicate quotations (direct use of words), but also to acknowledge where you found information. This is necessary to avoid plagiarism (unless the information is common knowledge) but, more importantly, to satisfy WP:V, since readers need to know that you didn't make up the facts for yourself. But it's not WP:OR as long as you are accurately paraphrasing or summarizing your source. It's only OR if you skew your interpretation so that it doesn't reflect what the authors intended (at which point it becomes "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position").

I'll take your word for it that German law would allow you to copy 16 sentences. American law is not so clear-cut. In its circular on "fair use", the US government says, "There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission." Perhaps US fair use allowances are more strict than German. In this circular, for example, the courts make special allowances for teachers to copy up to 1,000 words of a work (if the full work is at least 10,000 words) to pass out to the students in their class as long as they do not (a) make more copies than are needed to give one each to students in the class, (b) they do not pass it out to more than one class in the whole school, (c) they do not use more than two excerpts from the same authors; etc. This is not even for publication, but for private use in the classroom.

Wikipedia has special considerations when it comes to fair use. The teachers mentioned in that circular above are permitted up to 9 such instances of excerpting throughout the year (presuming they meet all conditions). How many excerpts across how many articles does it take before, say, a publisher of text books can sue Wikipedia for contributory infringement for reproducing large amounts of its works? (At this point, the US DMCA would protect us from that, but the Wikimedia Foundation has chosen not to rely on this act.) The Wikimedia Foundation has not only to consider the amount of copyrighted text used in this article, but in articles across the board.

Anyway, as far as your paraphrase is concerned, paraphrasing gives you an opportunity to rewrite some of the jargon for a generalized audience. I don't know what "pecuniary externalities are going to be internalized" means. I doubt I'm alone. :)

One thing you generally do need to be careful about with paraphrasing is revising enough. United States copyright law allows for infringement even if many of the words have been changed if the "total concept and feel" of a paraphrase is too close to that of the original. There are some tips for avoiding that at Close paraphrasing. It's not always easy (or fun). To be safe, phrases like "This makes it easy for the MNE to enforce price discrimination shemes in various countires." should be more completely revised from the sources "made it easier to enforce price discrimination schemes across countries." This is not only similar structurally (which is in the United States part of the creative expression), but also in vocabulary. I'd probably revise something like, "An MNE can more easily control prices internationally." There may be a better way to say "enforce price discrimination schemes." You've also retained original text in passages like "instrument for restraining competition between enterprises in different foreign markets." These need to be put in quotation marks where necessary or further revised. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the text with the references. It is really sad to hear that teachers are forced to limit their copies for their students due to copyright reasons. The government is blocking the access to knowledge by law. In fact we are forced to make oral tradition: You read something in a book but you are not allowed to show it to someone else. However, this form of replication of information is highly inaccurate. You can see it in your own example:


 * "This makes it easy for the MNE to enforce price discrimination shemes in various countires."
 * "[...] made it easier to enforce price discrimination schemes across countries."
 * "An MNE can more easily control prices internationally."


 * Control prices is not the same as enforce price discrimination schemes, for example. The words have completely different meanings and the original meaning is lost. The same is it with this:


 * "[...] instrument for restraining competition between firms of different nations."
 * "[...] instrument for restraining competition between enterprises in different foreign markets."


 * Markets and nations are not the same neither. We could say that there are complete different ideas behind these sentences. It is better to replaced the changed phrase with the original and set it in quotes.
 * Do you think the text fits now to the Wikipedia policy? ;-) -- Grochim (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on this further. I agree with you that United States copyright laws are excessive in some cases. I once wanted to place a videotaped political show in our university's library for my students, and they made me jump through all kinds of hoops. I'm not surprised if I got something wrong. As I said, this is not my area. I don't imagine in the ordinary course of things I'd ever work on this article. :) It's morning in my part of the world, and I'll try to review and get back with you ASAP, probably within a few hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to let you know that I am working on this. I think you've done quite a good job on most of this—it actually makes more sense to me (an outsider) now. :) There are a few passages that will probably need to be further revised. I'm hoping to be able to suggest some alterations that will work without losing the sense of the original. I'll have to trust you to judge that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you very much for your help, too. If you know some things to improve, let me know. To be honest, I'm not that a insider with MNEs and market imperfections neither ;-) However, I think it is pretty important to know how MNEs are related to market failure. The common sense says us that firms do grow together with a the market; however, the transaction cost theory says that the grow of firms is reasoned by market imperfections, in other word when the market failed. This is nothing new; the basics had been published in 1937 by Ronald Coase and got pretty famous (The Nature of the Firm). I hope this information could improve the article a bit. Wish you a nice day. -- Grochim (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. charts
(copied reply here as contains link to my file)
 * Thanks, impressive detail in the new sheets. I had just uploaded my excel file to allow others to create the graphs.  It's here.  I will link it from the image pages also, then anyone can see our info and help out.  Nice work. |→ Spaully₪† 13:23, 13 May 2009 (GMT)
 * I won't be able to update the two graphs for the next few months as I will be travelling! I have updated the file, linked above, and encouraged others to update them if needed.  It would be good to keep them going in some form but don't feel any onus to do it yourself, just informing you. Thanks |→ Spaully τ 18:49, 5 July 2009 (GMT)
 * Ok I will try to keep an eye on it. Greetings -- Grochim (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Grochim
I would like to know if you have a data describing the numbers of the sick people in each state ordered by dates for the H1N1 pandemic summarized in a table or file. (the same file you have upload to wikipedia but unfortunately I could not download it.)

I will appreciate it very much if you can send me the relevant data. Thank you very much in advance,

Yossi. yosibz1@gmail.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.70.33.77 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Permission to use your photo
Hello Grochim:

I would like to use your photo " Lichtbogen " ... 3,000-volt arc between two nails on my website that I'm creating. Is it okay?

Kindly, AngloZaphar (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi AngloZaphar, that's absolutely no problem. -- Grochim (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Erlaubnis zur Verwendung des Stakeholder Diagramms
Hallo Grochim,

ich würde gerne dein Stakeholder Diagramm (jedoch in von mir veränderter Form) für eine Seminararbeit verwenden. Laut den Lizenzrechtlichen Bestimmungen ist dies auch gestattet, jedoch nur wenn ich den Urheber in der von ihm festgelegten Weise erwähne. Ich habe leider keine explizite Angabe von dir gefunden wie die Erwähnung für dich in Ordnung geht. Ich hätte das Bild selbstverständlich referenziert (URL im Literaturverzeichnis) und deinen Namen als Fußnote bei der Bildbeschriftung vermerkt. Wäre das in Ordnung für dich?

Danke und lg, Gianni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.162.169 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hallo, das geht in Ordnung. Grüße. -- Grochim (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Klasse, vielen Dank! lg, Gianni —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.162.169 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Deine Grafik Mechanismusdesign_Verkehr.png
Hallo Grochim, Deine Grafik hat einen kleinen Verdreher: Bei der Regel "rechts vor links" ist "links vor rechts" visualisiert, zumindest wenn die Autos auf der rechten Straßenseite fahren. Damit Beschriftung und Inhalt zusammenpassen, müßten die roten Autos müßten grün sein und umgekehrt. Da Du vermutlich die originale Vektordatei hast: Könntest Du das mal bei Gelegenheit in Angriff nehmen? Danke und viele Grüße --Da flow (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hallo Da flow, es hängt davon ab, in welche Richtung die Autos fahren. Wenn die grünen Autos von rechts nach links fahren, dann ist die Beschriftung richtig. Aber du hast Recht, man müsste die Fahrtrichtung in der Grafik angeben, damit das Ganze deutlich wird. Leider habe ich die Originaldatei nicht mehr. Und ich weiß nicht, wann ich wieder dazu Zeit habe, die Grafik neu zu erstellen. -- Grochim (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Dein Bild "Grundbegriffe des Rechnungswesen" im Artikel "Rechnungswesen"
Hallo Grochim,

und zwar bin ich beim Lesen der Wikipedia-Seite über Rechnungswesen auf einen kleinen Fehler in einem von Dir hochgeladenen Bild gestoßen. Du hast die beiden obersten Zeilen des Bildes in ihrer Reihenfolge vertauscht. So müsste "Kosten - Betriebsnotwendiges Vermögen - Leistung" oben stehen und nicht "Aufwand - Gesamtvermögen - Ertrag".

Ich wäre Dir sehr dankbar, wenn Du das ändern könntest. Einen Quellennachweis findest Du hier: Sönke Peters, Rolf Brühl, Johannes N. Stelling: Betriebswirtschaftslehre. Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2005 S. 175

Beste Grüße MrTraditional — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrTraditional (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited After Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cataclysm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Saludo desde Colombia
Un saludo Grochim, estoy trabajando en un documento y encontré muy util la imagen http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stakeholder_%28es%29.png, quisiera referenciar su autoría. Podría facilitarme los datos para citarlo. Gracias por su contribucion. Puede contestarme al correo jenbueno@gmail.com 190.157.142.190 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Jennifer Bueno190.157.142.190 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Marketing
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Marketing, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from Dennis Adcock, Al Halborg, Caroline Ross (2001). Marketing: Principles and Practice, page 16; Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong, Veronica Wong, John Saunders (2008). Principles of Marketing, page 7, 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:Marketing and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Marketing, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: 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:Marketing. 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 work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Marketing 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:Marketing 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) 11:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Non-availability approach
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Non-availability approach, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from Giancarlo Gandolfo (1998). International Trade Theory and Policy: With 12 Tables, page 234, 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:Non-availability approach and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Non-availability approach, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: 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:Non-availability approach. 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 work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Non-availability approach 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:Non-availability approach 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) 15:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

CCI Notice
Hello, Grochim. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm supposed to provide something "thoughtful" in order to get unblocked? What do you mean by "thoughtful"? Grochim (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Literally, "with more thought." You'll need to demonstrate that you have a fundamental grasp of copyright; your actions, previous interactions, and the shrug of an unblock request above clearly indicate that you have no idea what you're doing. Read the many warnings above, and the very specific CCI. Kuru   (talk)  04:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How can I demonstrate that I have a fundamental grasp of copyright? Grochim (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the CCI can now be found at Contributor_copyright_investigations/Archive. Your response that "the copyright violations are rather questions of citation style" is less than encouraging, to say the least. Your contributions were, in many cases, largely copy/pasted from books. One start to being unblocked would be to review your past contributions, explain why they were problematic, explain what led to them, and explain what you will change in your future editing to ensure this never happens again. Most of your past contributions have been deleted, but here is one example that was merely reverted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Permission to use your photo
Dear Grochim, please I would like to seek permission to reprint and quote an image of the Example of Stakeholder from 2008;2009, in my dissertation, for academic purposes.

Thank you. VictoriaKLee (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello VictoriaKLee,
 * thanks for asking. Since my official account is blocked indefinitely, I'm replying without login. You can use the picture, I'm happy to help you out.
 * Grochim 2A01:41E3:26D3:B600:D700:17BA:8BCE:A2F8 (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)