User talk:Frickeg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! --Simonkoldyk 05:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issues

This is in responce to your question which you posted on the following webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Tutorial_%28Wrap-up_and_more_info%29#Translation_of_articles

I am unsure from this tutorial as to the specifics of copywright, eg. how to find out if something is copywright, whether there are instances that you can use copywright information with a citation, whether you need to ask permission for everything from a certain web page individually, etc. Also regarding books - how do you reference them, request permission for use, or do you even need to request if you reference properly? Frickeg 05:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

(1) The copyright laws to be abided by must be US copyright laws, because the WIkipedia server is located in the USA. Copyright laws vary drastically from state to state. (2) How you find out if something is copyright? Generally, copyright subsists in ANYTHING written: published or unpublished. Copyright basically means that you cannot: (1) Copy (2) reproduce in any material form (e.g. from text to sound, from DVD to CD etc. etc.) a substantial portion of any written work. Basically, you are not allowed to COPY anything unless you have permission. BUT, you can state the same things others have written etc. in your own words. FOr example, say you have read about the theory of relativity, nothing can stop you from writing about it in Wikipedia, so long as you don't COPY (i.e. use the exact same words Einstein used in his explanations). You most certainly can explain relativity in your own words. Technicially you CAN copy PROVIDED you don't copy a SUBSTANTIAL part of the original material? Now what exactly is a substantial part - this is an issue that courts define - use your commonsense, if you quote one or two words from the text of a newspaper e.g. 'this is a day that will live in infamy' - that should not be all that bad; but you cannot cut and paste whole articles and paragraphs from other sources without getting people's permission. (3) whether there are instances that you can use copywright information with a citation??? I think you may be confusing copyright violations with plagiarism. Plagiarism refers to the world of academics. There, you MUST cite otherwise you will be guilty of academic misconduct. With copyright, if you breach it by copying a substantial part of someone else's work without their permission, it doesn't matter whether you cited or gave acknowledgement of their work or not. Copyright would have been breached because you have copied. But, for copyright to ahve been breached, you must have copied a substantial part. (4) For webpages, you definitely need to ask permission if you are copying their specific words. Don't do this. You are allowed to rehash their wording and put it into your own words - in the end, whatever you do, so long as you: (1) haven't copied and (2) haven't copied a substantial part, you should be fine and there will not be any breach in copyright. Note, if you re-hash people's words and don't give proper acknowledgement you will be guilty of academic misconduct though.

(5) No need to reference. Just don't copy the specific words. You can restate the information contained therein (there is no copyright in ideas, but only copyright in expression), but you can't copy the words, sentence structures etc. You need permission from teh publishers of each book if you seek to copy substantial parts of it.

(6) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nobody can copyrgiht information. So if the newspapers write about, for example, shane warne's retirement today, you too can add that information into SK Warne's page, so long as you don't copy the specific words of the paper. No need for referencing to protect yourself from copyright, but you should reference for the benefit of readers. hoep this helps. --ToyotaPanasonic 14:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] marsupials

I've take the liberty of moving some of the articles to the names proscribed by Colin Groves in MSW3. I've also editted the references into the article text. - 20:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Keep going! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

*laughs* Yeah, I figured you didn't have a copy of MSW3. Just let me know if I make some edits but miss an article.... there might be some I don't have on my watch list. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Bettongia. Long-footed Potoroo was good. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are pademelons solitary?

May I direct your attention to the discussion I started? Both the Red-legged Pademelons we observed in Queensland and the Tasmanian Pademelons seem to live in female groups, which are visited by solitary males, when one or more of the females get in heat... пан Бостон-Київський 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbe condenser marked for cleanup

Please elaborate about why you think the Abbe condenser article needs cleanup. --Gerry Ashton 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

(Copying from Gerry Ashton's talk page to put discussion in one place) I'm fairly new at this, but it didn't look like a completely proper article to me, and knowing nothing about the subject I wasn't confident to clean it up. Would Wikify be better? Frickeg 06:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you perhaps concerned that the article uses Harvard referencing rather than footnotes? If so, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Harvard referencing explains that this system is just as acceptable as footnotes. --Gerry Ashton 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my inexperience. I have added bullet points before the references and removed the wikify template. If there are any other things wrong I've done then I apologise! Frickeg 21:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Trying to improve the encyclopedia is noting to apologize for. --Gerry Ashton 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clifton Dawson

Clifton Dawson clearly passes WP:BIO. He holds both school and conference records. The article alredy has 2 verifiable reliable sources. Please either remove the template you placed or state your specific concern on the article's talk page. Thank you, Johntex\talk 04:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Friday night new pages patrol is a fast and furious job, I know.  :-) Thanks very much. Johntex\talk 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
A barn star is never over-the-top! Thank you very very much. I had a rough day today myself so your barnstar is a really nice treat for me. I really appreciate it. Please let me know if I can ever be of any help and I will do my best. Johntex\talk 04:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Leonardo

New page- because there is a huge amount of information available about Leonardo as a scientist. In fact, previously the main article talked about his science, inventions and sex life to the exclusion of any discuussion of his painting, for which he is most famous and was knownn (almost exclusively) for 400 years. I amm not planning on removing all the science-related material from the main article, but just giving a chance for others to expand those biits that really interest them.

It allows mme to write in detail about Leonardo's light, perspective drawing, botany and geology which I can't do on the main page. Other people are fascinated by the machines which are on display at the British Museum, Castel Montelupo annd Close Luce. There are lots of photos and nowhere to put them.

I'm sure someone out there (my son for example) knows every TV program that's ever featured the inventions and would love to write about them.

Currently, every one of Leonardo's best known ppaintings (and some that are only attributes) has its own page.

I don't consider it too much. If you want to know what constitutes a lot of articles on the same subject try Honey bee.

--Amandajm 05:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pademelons

I'm glad someone's writing about the poor little buggers! Take a look at the page Eucalyptus regnans. My photo gallery is aimed at making a point, while not actually making a statement.... I took the last good photo of "El Grande" before they destroyed it, and have another good one of timber for burning stacked up against a V.T.Tree. --Amandajm 06:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Adamson

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Bob Adamson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. cleanup seems hopeless. DGG 04:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, thanks for letting me know, but I only corrected some typos a while back, so it's not really that important. You didn't think I was the author, did you? Frickeg 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/r/i/User_talk%7EFrickeg_0dd4.html"