User talk:PM Poon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Copyright violation in Skatalites article

Thanks for your work on the Skatalites article. I saw them live last night and wanted to learn more about them, so I came to Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, most of the text in the article is directly lifted from the biography section of the Skatalites website, which is copyrighted material. Per Wikipedia policies, I blanked the offending section of the article and placed a copyvio tag there. If you have the time, could you rewrite the section from scratch?

— Ke6jjj 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:180px-Prison_logo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:180px-Prison_logo2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ting pei.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ting pei.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bass River (Massachusetts)

Nice work wikifying this!--Caliga10 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright problems with Inis Baeg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Inis Baeg article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! -- The Anome 10:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More direct copying from copyrighted sources

You have also copied other people's work in your contributions to Graphism. It is acceptable (indeed, almost compulsory) to use cited third-party information sources, but direct copying, even with the presence of a citation, is not allowed. Very limited fair-use quoting with direct attribution is allowed under some circumstances, but must be an explicit quotation and obey normal copyright rules. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT for more information on this. -- The Anome 10:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More direct copying

Regarding Yescard: more direct copying, this time from [1]. Please see my comments above on copyright policy. Repeatedly violating Wikipedia's copyright policy is likely to result in your being blocked from editing. -- The Anome 10:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks for getting back to me

Thanks for replying to me about this. If you write your own original text, using the sources for sources of information, and cite the sources, that will be fine. Please don't paraphrase whole passages; this is not in general enough to be considered enough to avoid being a derivative work, (not to mention accusations of plagiarism) unless there are so few ways to phrase a particular statement that the form of the statement is essentially dictated by the nature of the information. (for example, "Paris is the capital city of France", or "the sky is blue"). -- The Anome 13:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct copying

Hi, I thought that citations would be okay. Anyway, I could rephrase it, if it is absolutely necessary. — PM Poon 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you write your own original text, using the sources for sources of information, and cite the sources, that will be fine. Please don't paraphrase whole passages; this is not in general enough to be considered enough to avoid being a derivative work, unless there are so few ways to phrase a particular statement that the form of the statement is essentially dictated by the nature of the information. (for example, "Paris is the capital city of France", or "the sky is blue"). -- The Anome 13:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yescard

The above article has been edited. Can you please take a look, and let me know whether this is acceptable? — PM Poon 13:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement: Just a heart-to-heart talk

Hi Anome, I accept your verdict of copyright infringement when I did paraphrase whole passages. I have since rewritten Yescard and Graphism. Maybe you would like to take a look. Unfortunately, I did not bother to rewrite Inis Baeg when I found that you had deleted my version.

Writing involves two stages:

  • Data collection
  • Rewriting.

I do not think there was anything wrong with the data collection. What was wrong was that the second part, ie. rewriting, was not done well enough. Under the circumstances, I would have thought that it would be more appropriate for you to contact me to do a better version. Unfortunately, you did something rather drastic.

Your statement, "Repeatedly violating Wikipedia's copyright policy is likely to result in your being blocked from editing" is actually unnecessary. In fact, repeatedly violating any of Wikipedia's policy (not just copyright, and not just in Wikipedia) would lead to punishment. It is not as if you informed me early when I wrote those three articles. As you can see, your notification came ONLY after I wrote all those three articles:

  • 18 October 2006, time deleted: Inis Baeg
  • 20:38, 18 October 2006: Yescard
  • 00:00, 19 October 2006: Graphism
  • 10:06, 19 October 2006: Notification on Inis Baeg
  • 10:21, 19 October 2006: Notification on Graphism
  • 10:27, 19 October 2006: Notification on Yescard

Had the sequence being:

  • PM Poon wrote Inis Baeg
  • The Anome notified copyright infringement on Inis Baeg
  • PM Poon wrote Yescard
  • The Anome notified copyright infringement on Yescard
  • PM Poon wrote Graphism
  • The Anome notified copyright infringement on Graphism,

then your statement would have been justified. "Assume good faith." Remember? It is not as if I am purposely trying to hurt Wikipedia. You praised my article on Reichsjustizamt just recently on 17th October, remember? And Caliga10 praised my edit on Bass River (Massachusetts) the same day. Well, you were not the only one. I collected quite a handful of compliments before I left Wikipedia a year ago because of some power-crazy admins. Sometimes our lapses fail us. That's all. And maybe because my writing skills have blunted after a one-year lay-off, and need a bit of time to warm up. What kind of motivation and emotional support are the admins here giving? You gotta answer that yourself for my assessment of people like Pascal Tesson and Mel Etitis is blatantly negative, lol.

As to the threat of "being blocked from editing", I am not bothered by that. Did I get paid for my time or effort? No, right? Moreover, it is a toothless threat. Can anyone really be blocked, except his pseudonym which is worthless to me? As Justforasecond puts it aptly in Pascal Tesson's discussion page:

hey pascal, don't know how long you've been on wiki but you should take it easy on the warnings. my edits aren't vandalism and even if they were, its near impossible to get someone banned here. you're welcome to give it a shot though! Justforasecond 03:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond is happily retired. Do you think some admins are actually hurting this portal? — PM Poon 08:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice job on the cleanup

Nice job cleaning up Architecture of Ancient Greece! ~crazytales56297 O rly? Ya rly! 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the above

PM,
I'm glad that you've come through this OK, and I hope that you won't be put off from working on Wikipedia. If I've offended you, I apologise; that was certainly not my intention. I hope the comments below can help explain why I made those comments.
Tracking down copyvios is a boring, thankless task. After spotting your first example of literal copying (which itself was the result of many, many checks on other articles) I then checked each of your articles by hand, going back over your entire edit history to do so, time which I could have spent writing or improving articles, or spent away from the computer having real-life fun or earning a living. It is sometimes difficult to AGF when one has to track down and confirm not one but three cut-and-paste copyvios by the same author -- still, I try very hard to abide by WP:CIVIL, and I hope that the tone of my comments was, at the very least, polite and measured.
As you say, none of us get paid for this. Our whole reward in editing here is the pleasure of the work itself, and the satisfaction of knowing that we are creating a work which has the potential to revolutionise the way information is collected and disseminated. Nevertheless, there is some janitorial work that needs doing, and tracking down copyvios is part of that.
I rather hoped that the tone of my reply to you, both above, and on your talk page, when you contacted me above, showed that I could see from your reply that you were acting in good faith. Online writing does not have non-verbal cues, and it is easy -- for any of us -- to take offence where none is intended.
Articles with copyright problems have the potential to severely damage Wikipedia's core mission of providing the world with information that is libre as well as gratis. Unfortunately, there are people who start to create numerous cut-and-paste articles, and although they eventually get tracked down, blocked, and reverted, doing so is a pain. From your edits to those three articles, you appeared to me, until you replied to my comments, to have become one of them.
In my defence, I'd like to point out that there is a message in big bold text directly under the "save" button on the edit form. It says "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." It is hard to see how we could make it any plainer without putting it on the button itself, or presenting editors with a click-through licence.
Moreover, there is, regardless of any self-imposed rules on Wikipedia, a legal requirement on you under copyright law not to do this. I'm afraid that copying large chunks of other people's text, reformatting it and putting it into Wikipedia is not fair use. We should not have to tell you not to do this (although we do so anyway, in big bold type like this).
Apart from any legal obligations, I'm afraid I also disagree with your comments above about the two stages of article writing being "research" and "rewriting": I believe that the second stage should be "writing", rather than "rewriting". As I said in my comments, mere paraphrasing of source material is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Even if the words are reworked, copying the structure of someone else's work still at the very least risks being seen as a form of plagiarism.
When writing Wikipedia articles, you should ideally use, and cite, multiple sources, and then cross-check and synthesize the information, rather than the writing, from those sources into your article.
There is one exception to this, which is material that is in the public domain, which may be directly copied, re-written or hacked about to your heart's content; even so, the use of public domain text should be acknowledged out of courtesy to its author, and to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia.
Please don't be put off by copyvio warnings; I particularly appreciate that you have now set the articles right, and I can see that you are a good-faith editor. I look forward to seeing more of your writing on Wikipedia. -- The Anome 12:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Anome, for your explanation. I was just wondering why you wrote it in your own discussion page, rather than mine. I was about to write to you when I found this message of yours that has rendered what I was trying to write irrelevant. If you find my discussion page unworthy of your response, I hope you could leave a message to request me to visit your discussion page instead.

Different writers have different approaches to writing. I have worked in a publishing firm before, and I have seen how some authors write. Of course, that was commercialization, the aim of which was just to technically avoid copyright infringement. I do admit that my version was too close, but to say it was cut and paste was not completely true. I did try to paraphrase the sentences. Unfortunately, after being put off from this portal for almost a year, my writing has blunted. In fact, I have written many articles (probably more than a hundred) for Wikipedia before I left a year ago, without any copyright vio problems, except for Betty Ting, which I subsequently rewrote, this time with no problems. Writing requires data, and therefore the originals are the sources of information from which your writing is based. Do you not agree? At the end of the day, you still need it to cite your source. Or are you writing, not based on any source?

To say that I did not refer to other sources is also not true, although the evidence does point to that. In fact, all articles had multiple source from the Google search (it's so easy with Google!), but I only picked from the one which to me was the best. In doing so, you may say that you are right, but to say that it was not cross-referenced for accuracy.... To me, the basic problem was that I did not put in enough effort to make the article sufficiently different from the original. As for whether it is unethical even if the article was sufficiently different, that's another story altogether. We can argue until the cows come home but in so far as there is no copyright violation according to any court of law, I am satisfied... but maybe not you. — PM Poon 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Anome, can you show me your source that says "... reformatting it and putting it into Wikipedia is not fair use"? I do not agree with this, but I do agree that I had not reformatted sufficiently.
  • "Even if the words are reworked, copying the structure of someone else's work still at the very least risks being seen as a form of plagiarism." Can you show me where it says that? As far as I know, copyright only protects the final form of the works, not the ideas behind it, such as structure. We can have the same structure, but not the same sentences, copied word for word, which I had not changed sufficiently. One problem which I encountered was that the original writer had written too well, so much so that I was so reluctant to change it, LOL. That, to me, was the main problem, and I will look into that in future.
  • "... the use of public domain text should be acknowledged out of courtesy to its author, and to help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia". Well, even with copyright vio, didn't I do that? LOL. — PM Poon 08:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to conclude. No, no, no hard-feelings after your explanation, but not before that, LOL. In fact, your points and that of Pascal Tesson were constructive after I knew exactly what both of you meant. These comments will definitely help me to improve my writing. — PM Poon 08:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yescard: Cut and paste

Hi Anome, can you show me how to cut and paste the following:

The yescard is like a credit card where the chip is recognized by bank terminals. The yescard has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal (hence the name yescard). The emulation of the bank card is done on a virgin gilded card usually called gold card and it is extremely easy to hack. Same process as the one for pay-per-view TVs, phone cards (telecarte) and GSM SIM cards.

Bit of history
Serge Humpich (a French Engineer) made a discovery that criminals can only dream of - how to forge credit card that can defeat security measures put in place by the organizations that issue genuine cards. He found a method that would enable him to withdraw the equivalent of more than $2,000 every 15 minutes. Mr. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees security for the 33 million French credit cards, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported $150,000. The organization turned his offer down (the system was believed to be 100% secure). In order to prove his method efficiency, Mr. Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and, using a doctored card, bought himself some tickets. The banks then pounced and Mr Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting. The public prosecutor called for a $7,500 fine and a 2-year suspended prison sentence. Serge Humpich used in 1997 the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes using algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve".

to become

Yescard is a programmable smart card that enables the processing of purchasing instructions on certain types of automated electronic payment systems. [1] The name "Yescard" comes from the fact that this card has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal.

History
In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them. This discovery could enable him to withdraw the equivalent of some USD$2,000 every fifteen minutes. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees the security for the 33 million credit cards in France, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported USD$150,000. The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure. In order to prove otherwise, Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and using a doctored card, bought himself ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account. The banks responded and Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting.

The reason why I asked is because I am still puzzled as to how you can do it. In particular, I would like to know how many steps you take to reach my "copyvio version", as you labelled it. Additionally, I would like to know whether the percentage of materials extracted from the entire article has any bearing on copyvio. I need to know this so that I can avoid copyvio in future. — PM Poon 12:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the above

Well, you've come to the right person to ask about this. Unfortunately, I haven't got time to compute an optimal edit sequence, but if I were you, I'd try to avoid copying long runs of words from the original, like this (identical runs of text highlighted in bold text):
BEFORE:
The yescard is like a credit card where the chip is recognized by bank terminals. The yescard has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal (hence the name yescard). The emulation of the bank card is done on a virgin gilded card usually called gold card and it is extremely easy to hack. Same process as the one for pay-per-view TVs, phone cards (telecarte) and GSM SIM cards.
Bit of history
Serge Humpich (a French Engineer) made a discovery that criminals can only dream of - how to forge credit card that can defeat security measures put in place by the organizations that issue genuine cards. He found a method that would enable him to withdraw the equivalent of more than $2,000 every 15 minutes. Mr. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees security for the 33 million French credit cards, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported $150,000. The organization turned his offer down (the system was believed to be 100% secure). In order to prove his method efficiency, Mr. Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and, using a doctored card, bought himself some tickets. The banks then pounced and Mr Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting. The public prosecutor called for a $7,500 fine and a 2-year suspended prison sentence. Serge Humpich used in 1997 the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes using algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve".
(Quoted from http://www.win.tue.nl/~ecss/2IF04/presentations/i.majeri.ppt presented here for the purpose of comment and textual analysis.)
AFTER:
Yescard is a programmable smart card that enables the processing of purchasing instructions on certain types of automated electronic payment systems. [1] The name "Yescard" comes from the fact that this card has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal.
History
In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them. This discovery could enable him to withdraw the equivalent of some USD$2,000 every fifteen minutes. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees the security for the 33 million credit cards in France, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported USD$150,000. The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure. In order to prove otherwise, Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and using a doctored card, bought himself ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account. The banks responded and Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting.
In other words, 120 out of 222 (54%) words in your text are literally copied segments of the original text, with only minor punctuation changes. Several other segments are almost literal copies, with minor tweaks and paraphrases: for example, making a couple of edits to your edited version to remove the prefix "USD", changing "fifteen" back to "15", and changing "responded" back to "then pounced" extends the overlapping areas even further, to 132 out of 222 words (59%) being in literally copied segments. And that's not even starting to count the other sections which might reasonably be considered to have been only slightly paraphrased from the original while preserving the original sentence structure, for example, "that can defeat security measures" vs. "that could defeat the security measures", "33 million French credit cards" vs. "33 million credit cards in France", "The organization turned his offer down (the system was believed to be 100% secure)" vs. "The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure." and so on.
Need I go on?
-- The Anome 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated comments

On review:
Oh. Apparently I do need to go on. I noticed that the one major sentence from your "after" version of the article that appeared to be devoid of copying from other sources was marked with a "[1]". So I went back to that version and followed that link, to http://www.clusif.asso.fr/fr/production/ouvrages/pdf/CyberCrime2001.pdf ... and discovered that your first sentence was a literal, word for word copy of the first sentence from page 5 of that document. So that's another 21 words lifted directly from someone else's copyrighted document. Let's now put it all together, with direct copying in bold, and paraphrase in italics:
Yescard is a programmable smart card that enables the processing of purchasing instructions on certain types of automated electronic payment systems. [1] The name "Yescard" comes from the fact that this card has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal.
History
In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them. This discovery could enable him to withdraw the equivalent of some USD$2,000 every fifteen minutes. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees the security for the 33 million credit cards in France, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported USD$150,000. The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure. In order to prove otherwise, Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and using a doctored card, bought himself ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account. The banks responded and Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting.
Now, let's unmix your original contributions from the literal copyings and the paraphrases. They are, as far as I can tell:
[1] ... comes from the fact that this card ... In 1997, using ... by means of ... discovered a method of ... issuing them. This discovery could ... otherwise, ... ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account.
That's 40 words out of 222 that, as far as I can tell, are not either direct lifts or lightly paraphrased from another work. The remaining 162 words appear to me, as far as I can see from the analysis above, to be derived directly or indirectly from the sources cited.
Of course, I could be mistaken in my analysis above. If so, would you care to enlighten me?
-- The Anome 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second update

I noticed that you had one quite lengthy run of words that appeared not to be copied from elsewhere. So, just out of curiosity, I had another look at the previous source documents, and found the following sentence from the Powerpoint presentation cited above:
The experience made by Serge Humpich at the RATP allowed him to buy 10 subway tickets but the banks were not able to trace the transaction to a bank account.
Comparing this with your sentence fragment:
ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account.
shows quite clearly that it is a paraphrase of the latter part of the sentence above. So, that's another 16 words that are paraphrased from elsewhere (of which the last eight are a literal copy from the sentence above). This leaves 24 words that are not either literal copies or lightly paraphrased from elsewhere.
As I said above: I could be mistaken in my analysis above. If so, would you care to enlighten me?
-- The Anome 00:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My reply

Thank you very much for your time to analyse. So what you mean by cut and paste includes getting different phrases and combining them together into one sentence, and you call it "cut and paste"? I think you have stretched your definition a little to far. You consider the following sentence a copyright infringement?

In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them.

Are you stretching things a little too far? How about getting a second opinion on this statement? Who can we approach?

You mentioned: "Unfortunately, I haven't got time to compute an optimal edit sequence, but if I were you, I'd try to avoid copying long runs of words from the original..." How you do things is your business. Do not impose your personal style of writing on other people! Our business is whether I had committed a copyright infringment, not how you would personally have handled the article.

Personally, I am under the impression that you are just trying to be a hero to impress this community and in so doing, totally forgotten the No. 1 rule, "Wikipedia:Assume good faith. How much do you really know about copyright violation? Can you list down the criteria so that we can have a meaningful discussion?

The reason why I am harping on this is because I have consulted my ex-company's lawyer and he did not think my article on Yescard was a copyright violation. And I certainly hope that you do not go round creating havoc with your overenthusiasm. — PM Poon 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Taking excerpts from other documents and stitching them together is exactly what I would call "cut and paste". In the case above, one of the cut-and-pasted runs of words was nineteen words long, another was twenty-three words long, and another was a complete sentence of twenty-one words. What are the chances of that happening by chance?
In any case, I think you're missing the point. If you have to argue about how much you need to alter a text to avoid accusations of copying, you are going about things the wrong way. If you write your own original text based on facts from your sources, the question of copyright infringement should never need to arise. So, why not do that instead? -- The Anome 09:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a smart alec, okay? I guess you do not know what is copyright? Please read:

Do not come out with your own rules. Do that in your own personal portal, NOT here in this community portal!

{P/S: Talking about "going about things the wrong way", I think posting a reply in your own discussion page is REALLY DOING THINGS THE WRONG WAY! What kind of person is this?) — PM Poon 10:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see that we have arrived at an impasse. I suggest that you post a request for your pre-deletion version of the Yescard article to be restored on Wikipedia:Deletion review, on the basis that your initial version satisfies the fair use criteria, and was unfairly deleted as a potential copyvio. Don't forget to mention the discussion above when you do so. Good luck! -- The Anome 13:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead if you wish. The only problem is that I do not know whether the rest here are laymen like yourself. Are there any qualified lawyers here?

Actually, as far as I am concerned, the Yescard issue was settled when my ex-company lawyer vetted the article. What I am trying to forward to you is NOT TO CREATE HAVOC WITH YOUR HALF-BAKED IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COPYRIGHT IS ALL ABOUT.

Have you read the two articles that I gave you? What does "Portion Used Compared to Length of Work" in the Fair Use Chart mean to you? Percentage of copied words in my article OR percentage of copied words from the original article? Fancy wasting so much time on calculating the wrong thing! Talking about "going about things the wrong way", ahem.... Stop arguing for a moment and think!

In the article, When Copying Is Okay: The "Fair Use" Rule, it reads:

Sooner or later, almost all writers quote or closely paraphrase what others have written. For example: Regina, a freelance writer, closely paraphrases two paragraphs from the Encyclopedia Britannica in an article she's writing. Assuming the material quoted is protected by copyright, does Regina need permission from the author or other copyright owner to use it? It may surprise you to learn that the answer is "not necessarily."

Why then are you still arguing? Does it not show you that your idea of copyright is too rudimentary? Remember the quote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? DO YOU KNOW THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND COPYRIGHT LAWS? Obviously NOT, if our discussion were to go by. As far as you are concerned, copyright is SOLELY to protect the copyright owner. WRONG!!!

"Copyright law has traditionally sought to strike an appropriate balance, between the rights of creators to be recognised and rewarded for their work, and the public interest in ensuring access to information and ideas." (Source: British Library)

That is how the fair use concept came about. You don't know that, right? "Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain." [1]

Cannot accept, right? Any source from your side? Nothing, right, except unsupported blabber, right?

And best of luck if you wanna continue to behave like an expert on copyright. Copyright is definitely NOT your field, at least not now!. — PM Poon 14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, if you are convinced that you have a case for fair use exemption, please list the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review, where it can be reviewed by the community. -- The Anome 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not necessary. I asked you to consult others if you want, not me... or you would rather live with your ignorance. Anyway, ignorance is bliss, because if you ever find out the truth, you may indeed be very embarrassed over the whole argument (that is assuming that you have the capacity to feel embarrassed at all). I am not interested in consulting anyone in here cos I have already consulted an expert in the field. (Fortunately, I was involved in publishing, although not in the publishing dept.) Moreover, for all I know, I may be asking another ignoramus, unless you can assure me that they are qualified lawyers, well-versed in copyright. [added] In any case, go ahead with what you are doing for all I care. Wonder whether you read my two references. Did anything go into your head? I bet not.

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.
For example, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer was permitted -- in its advertising -- to quote from a Consumer Reports article comparing vacuum cleaners. Why? The ad significantly increased the number of people exposed to the Consumers Reports's evaluations and thereby disseminated helpful consumer information. The same rationale probably applies to the widespread practice of quoting from favorable reviews in advertisements for books, films, and plays. [2]

On the one hand, "violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain." On the other hand, "a commercial motive doesn't always disqualify someone from claiming a fair use."

Well, copyright is a very complex field, and not as simple as you would like to think. So enjoy your meticulous counting. I rather go and polish charcoal. No difference, right? — PM Poon 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Yescard can go to hell for all I care. I left Wikipedia a year ago because of people like you.... half baked pies trying to act smart. The "best" part is they talk like you, without any substance, nor supporting references. Even solid evidences given to them appears to change nothing. That's the crux of this argument. Look at some of the arguments at Mel Etitis, and you will know what I mean. — PM Poon 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anome, if you do know of any qualified lawyer (especially if he is well-versed in copyright like my ex-company lawyer) in here, do let me know. Let's have a more enlightened discussion. — PM Poon 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation of article on Yescard


"Fair Use" Criteria Evaluation
Purpose and Character of Work Noncommercial, Educational, Scholarly
Nature of the Work Factual, Based on Public Documents
Degree of Use Small Portion of Work Copied
Portion Used Compared to Length of Work Small % used
Exposure Single Use, Large Public Audience
Premeditation Non-continuing
Honesty of Use Good Faith, Credit to Owner


Would this not be a more constructive way of discussing this issue? What is the logical conclusion? Need I say more?

Why don't you start counting the percentage if you don't take my word for it that the amount copied was small? Wouldn't this figure be more meaningful than those useless figures that you churned out? — PM Poon 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, if you are convinced that you have a case for fair use exemption, please list the article on Wikipedia:Deletion review, where it can be reviewed by the community. -- The Anome 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you do not understand plain English. Didn't I say that that article can go to hell? To be honest, the article doesn't mean anything to me. Moreover, I do not know who those people in charge of the Deletion review are. They may well be as "good" as your goodself in terms of copyright knowledge, and I won't be surprised a wee bit. With due regards to them, they may be better than you whom I have confirmed to know next to nothing.

If you understand what I had been driving at, I am telling you that I left a year ago because of one or two overenthusiastic admins who seems to be doing great injustice to this portal. I only hope that admins like them do come to their senses. That's all.

Are you not convinced that you are one of them? Why don't you take a good look at yourself in the mirror? Seems like all the supporting evidence that I gave you can't move your ego a wee bit, even though you can't rebut them. Ask God whether you have indeed been honest to yourself, and had weighed the evidence fairly and squarely? Or you merely reject them just because it proves you wrong? — PM Poon 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have deleted Yescard. How about deleting Graphism too? As I said before, my contributions here mean nothing to me. Go right ahead! — PM Poon 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the Fair Use Criteria Chart means nothing at all to you. Just goes to show how arrogant you are. KEEP IT UP! YOU ARE DOING A "FINE" JOB FOR WIKIPEDIA WITH YOUR NONSENSE AND ABUSE OF ADMIN POWER! — PM Poon 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of discussion on Yescard

I have moved our discussion on the above that you have deleted from this page to my user talk page. The reason why it is so lengthy is because you insisted on replying in your own talk page, even after I requested you to respond in my user page. The other reason why the discussion is so long is because you refused to address nor accept any documentary evidence given to you, so I have to continue to convince you. Apart from exhibiting high-handedness in the way you act within this portal, deleting the discussion is very unethical, especially when you have not even addressed nor refute a single documentary evidence raised.

Your reason for deleting was: User talk:The Anome‎; 17:48 . . The Anome (Talk | contribs) (removing lengthy discussion...). You are no novice to Wikipedia. Removing lengthy discussion is NOT a valid reason for deleting a discussion. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says:

When pages get too long
Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it.

It is not as if you do not know how to archive, as you have already done it seven times. Archive but don't delete! Of course, "removing lengthy discussion" is not your real reason. (If you disagree with this statement, ask God, and LISTEN to his reply!)

Anyway, here is the main conclusion of our discussion which you have, amongst all others, not yet addressed, nor dispute. Hope you don't delete it this time as it is not too long (archive to hide your embarrassment, but DON'T delete it!):

[edit] Evaluation of article on Yescard


"Fair Use" Criteria Evaluation
Purpose and Character of Work Noncommercial, Educational, Scholarly
Nature of the Work Factual, Based on Public Documents
Degree of Use Small Portion of Work Copied
Portion Used Compared to Length of Work Small % used
Exposure Single Use, Large Public Audience
Premeditation Non-continuing
Honesty of Use Good Faith, Credit to Owner


It is amply clear that my earlier version of Yescard meets the "Fair Use" test, and yet you would delete it and our discussion after I presented you with this evaluation that is so clear that you cannot refute. Isn't it not amply clear that you have not acted in good faith in discharging your duty as an admin... even to the stage of abusing your authority?

You have said at 12:39 on 20 October 2006 (UTC) that the version on Yescard after I revised it was acceptable to you. Why then do you delete that on or about 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)? Delete the earlier version by all means, but not the final, right? (And if you can't do that, it still doesn't give you the right to delete the final version, right? This is another proof of your high-highedness.) Anyway, it's not my loss. It's Wikipedia's loss, ie. the community's loss.

You have been blinded by your ego and you have insisted on your initial bad judgement? If you had accepted this after I had highlighted it to you, based on expert legal advice that I have consulted (albeit free and therefore not so thorough), the long discussion would not have been necessary. — PM Poon 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your mathematical analysis on Yescard

You have put in a lot of effort in analyzing the above article. You ought keep it, unless you agree with me that it is rubbish because the issue is what percentage of the original article is copied, NOT how much of the final article is copied. And you intentionally or unintentionally omit the fact that the sequence of some sentences have been rearranged.

Yescard is a programmable smart card that enables the processing of purchasing instructions on certain types of automated electronic payment systems. [1] The name "Yescard" comes from the fact that this card has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal.
History
In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that [were] put in place by the organizations issuing them. This discovery could enable him to withdraw the equivalent of some USD$2,000 every fifteen minutes. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees the security for the 33 million credit cards in France, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported USD$150,000. The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure. In order to prove otherwise, Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and using a doctored card, bought himself ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account. The banks responded and Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting.
In other words, 120 out of 222 (54%) words in your text are literally copied segments of the original text, with only minor punctuation changes. Several other segments are almost literal copies, with minor tweaks and paraphrases: for example, making a couple of edits to your edited version to remove the prefix "USD", changing "fifteen" back to "15", and changing "responded" back to "then pounced" extends the overlapping areas even further, to 132 out of 222 words (59%) being in literally copied segments. And that's not even starting to count the other sections which might reasonably be considered to have been only slightly paraphrased from the original while preserving the original sentence structure, for example, "that can defeat security measures" vs. "that could defeat the security measures", "33 million French credit cards" vs. "33 million credit cards in France", "The organization turned his offer down (the system was believed to be 100% secure)" vs. "The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure." and so on.
Need I go on? -- The Anome 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you DO NEED TO GO ON! You did not answer my question, "How could this sentence:"

In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that [were] put in place by the organizations issuing them.

be an infringement of this:

Serge Humpich (a French Engineer) made a discovery that criminals can only dream of - how to forge credit card that can defeat security measures put in place by the organizations that issue genuine cards.

AND THREE PAGES LATER IN THE ORIGINAL TEXT, THIS:

Serge Humpich used in 1997 the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes using algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve".

As far as this sentence is concerned, you were not honest when you made it appear that the sequence was the same as that in the original text. YOUR MOTIVE? Obvious, isn't it?

Would you like to answer this now, after having skirted the question 4 times when responding to me? Or you would rather delete it again without answering?

When you want to make an accusation, you have an inherent responsibility to respond to your questions regarding your accusations. "We should not have to tell you not to do this", right? (Hope you don't charge me for copyright infringement for lifting this last sentence of yours!) — PM Poon 08:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In your computation, Serge Humpich, a French engineer counts as five words of copyright infringement. How then should I rewrite this?

Serge, son of Humpich who graduated with an engineering degree and is a citizen of France...."

Hmmm, based on your method of computation, there still remains two words of infringement. Maybe not! Cos I have separated Serge and Humpich, LOL. — PM Poon 09:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A final response

After your initial comments, where you apoligised for copying from other people's work, you have now developed a theory, based on your personal interpretation of the fair use exemption, which you feel entitles to copy from other websites providing that you only copy a small proportion of the overall original work, even if all, or almost all of your edit is drawn from that original work. I'm sorry, but your theory of "copying only bits is fair use" places Wikipedia at risk.

You have made it abundantly clear in your comments above that you do not see any problem with this, and intend to continue with this behavior.

You are clearly unwilling to accept that your conduct is a problem, so I find it difficult to think of any possible way to halt your repeated copying of other people's work into Wikipedia short of blocking you. However, I have no desire to personalize this issue, so I will not block you myself. I will now bring this discussion to the attention of other admins and retire from the argument. -- The Anome 11:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, Wikipedia's policy is that material cannot be used in the encyclopaedia under fair use unless 'no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information' (see WP:FUC #1). In the case of textual material such as that quoted above by The Anome, it's abundantly clear that a free equivalent could be created, so it can't be used in Wikipedia. Thanks! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A final response

I realized that it was not a copyright infringement only after I consulted an expert. I then approached you and tell you about it. But did you address the points raised? No, right?

You mentioned: "intend to continue with this behavior.... to halt your repeated copying of other people's work into Wikipedia short of blocking you". Have I contributed anything since, that contravene YOUR idea of copyright infringement? What system of justice are you using? PREEMPTIVE ACTION? Go ahead and block, if you want. ASK AN ADMIN FRIENDLY TO YOU TO HELP YOU OUT SO IT'S LOOK MORE PRESENTABLE! And I won't even bother to ask for an unblock, so block it in perpetuity, if you must.

(NOTE: Seems like admins here don't have to follow guidelines, right? First, you don't practice Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Second, you don't have to follow the guideline, Archive — don't delete. Above the law, right? — PM Poon 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence duplication

I've noticed that your recent contributions have been superb: clearly written, and backed by multiple sources. Thanks! However, your disambig at diastasis contains the sentence the last stage of diastole in the heart, occurring just before contraction and during which little additional blood enters the ventricle.

Please don't do this again, or you will be temporarily blocked from editing. Please consider this a final warning. Further repetitions will result in longer blocks, with the possibility of indefinite blocking. -- The Anome 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re your reply to me: yes, I can tell you're one of the good guys. Yes, there are lots of ways of using copyrighted materials on Wikipedia under fair use: the easiest and best of them is direct quotation of short passages for the purposes of commenting on that passage. To ensure that this is fair use, you should ensure that the quotation is as short as possible given the context, that it is clearly set off in quotes or by indentation, and clearly cited to its author and original source. It seems to me that quoting a mantra within an article discussing that mantra would fall clearly under those criteria. I'll take a look at your article and get back to you. -- The Anome 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article Behavior settings, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
You have been left this message by PocKleanBot, an automated process that notifies editors that articles to which they may have contributed on more than one occasion in the past now need cleanup. If you have any comments or object to this message being left, please leave a message on PocKleanBot's talk page.

[edit] Copyviol in Distraction osteogenesis

Please leave a comment on this.--BMF81 18:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/m/_/User_talk%7EPM_Poon_ea75.html"