Colt AR-15
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Jeff Katz, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.wbt.com/katz/index.cfm. As a copyright violation, Jeff Katz appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Jeff Katz has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Jeff Katz and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Jeff Katz with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Jeff Katz.
However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 06:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear "Butseriouslyfolks"...before you take yourself too seriously, my daughter is in the Business School at UNC Chapel Hill. Wikipedia is NOT allowed to be used in any way, shape, or form as documentation of research. If you can't state what the ownership of a radio station is willing to state, and that which is verifiable elsewhere, you will remain nothing more than a cyberspace endeavor and within academia, a non-cerifiable source yourself. Funny, I find a lot of other instances where you remove items that are factual. I sense political bent here, Butt Seriously.
New Message:
Okay, I've read the copyrighting such that I'm now confused and I think I've made it more difficult that it must be. Jeff Katz is a radio personality that has asked me to figure out how to get http://www.wbt.com/katz/index.cfm posted on Wikipedia. Is there a "GNU for Dummies"? Mr. Katz has also asked me if this as simple as my sending him a particular form to sign along with whomever might need to at WBT Radio, if that is also needed.
Can Mr. Katz send an e-mail from his WBT address jeffkatz@wbt.com using the following instructions from above and will that suffice?
"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 GFDL"..... Thanks Colt AR-15 07:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The procedure is to have somebody of authority with the radio station's management send that email. Permission from Mr. Katz would be insufficient as he is not the owner of the station and cannot grant permission for others to use text from the station's website.
- Additionally, since the subject of the article has personally asked you to have this information posted at Wikipedia, please be sure to review and adhere to Wikipedia's policies regarding conflict of interest and neutral point of view.
- I hope this answers your questions. --Butseriouslyfolks 07:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no involvement with WBT or with Mr. Katz. I saw that he was listed on WBT and there was a flame war going on. I checked a few other radio personalities and saw that they were on Wikipedia. So I sent him an e-mail and asked if he knew why there was an argument as one apparently called his disabled daughter "retarded". So Mr. Katz said if I could let him know how to properly post his bio on Wikipedia such that there was his bio and no references to his daughter, he'd appreciate it if I cleared up the confusion.
I just wanted to be clear that this is an "arms-length" transaction. I listen to Jeff Katz some afternoons. I don't dine with him. Thank you for the help.
Colt AR-15 09:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- See, this is part of the problem. The subject of an article cannot control the article's content. It might start with the bio from the radio station website, but it will certainly evolve from there over time. If editors believe it is appropriate to include factual information about his daughter, he won't be able to prevent it. I don't want to discourage you from posting if you believe an article is warranted. I'm just suggesting that it might make sense to let him know that it's not as simple as posting the text he is happy with and leaving it at that. --Butseriouslyfolks 09:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what you are referring to as far as a "political bent". I have no idea who the subject of the article is as I have never heard of him. I'm merely doing what I routinely do here at Wikipedia, and that is trying to protect it from copyright infringement lawsuits. If you check my user contribution history, you'll see that I'm a content-neutral copyright enforcer.
I do feel compelled to point out, however, that while you belittle Wikipedia on one hand, your other hand seems rather anxious to have information included here.
Anyway, I saw your question near the top of the article in question. (I moved it to the "discussion" page, which is where comments of that nature belong.) The answer is above, but I will focus on the proper section now that I have an idea which one is appropriate:
- If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Jeff Katz and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission#When_permission_is_confirmed for instructions.
That should solve your problem and mine. If you need further guidance after visiting the above page, just leave a note on my "user talk" page, and I will automatically be notified next time I visit Wikipedia. Good luck! --Butseriouslyfolks 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I was merely pointing out that the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [ranked 29th in the nation] and the Business School [ranked 8th] are quite plain that Wikipedia is not credible for citations for their studies. Is it an interesting and informative read? Sometimes, yes, it is. In light of that, I found it interesting that a brief posting of a bio would get the Mounted Police after me. It is a very short bio. I don't think that US Copyright law considers such a brief post a copyright infringement when the source is given and the length is brief. To give a comparison, I believe you can play up to 30 seconds of a song and not be in violation of the author's property rights. I have sent Mr. Katz and WBT e-mail requesting formal permission and will forward said communication ASAP. I hope to have it by Monday evening.
Colt AR15
- I beg to differ with your understanding of United States copyright law. There is no blanket exception that permits others to copy a small portion of a protected work. There are various exceptions for fair use, but none of them would apply here. Incidentally, there is no copyright principal that permits the use of any specified length of a song. As you may be aware, bands have been successfully sued for sampling tiny snippets of others' songs. There's more information here: http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding song usage, you have confused apples with oranges. I spoke with someone who is nationally syndicated on US Airwaves. A small portion of a song being used, and he said 30 seconds, is not something that he needed to pay royalties on. Plus, they should be happy, and generally are, as it helps to sell records. Just as I could type an opening paragraph of a book and attribute it, asingle sentence or a single line used from a song is not copyright infringement unless I have taken it, financially benefited from it, and used it as my own work by giving myself credit.
I have heard many songs where the intro might have 24 notes in it for 4 bars and only 4 are different. Then the song is completely different. An author doesn't own a permutation of notes. It needs to be looked at in its entirety and in its context and the users intent.
- It is possible for 30 seconds of a song to be used without infringing a copyright, but it depends on the situation. It is not a blanket rule. The totality of the circumstances would have to be examined. Broadcasters of shorter sections of others' songs have been held in violation of copyright.
- As far as whether the copyright holder should be happy that the song is being used, I happen to agree with you in that concept, but the law does not. It is the prerogative of the copyright holder to determine where a song can or cannot be used, regardless of any benefits the holder might derive from the use.
- You might legally be able to copy the opening paragraph of a book, or a line from a song, but again, it depends on the circumstances. That you do not financially benefit and that you attribute the source does not shield you from a copyright infringement lawsuit, as noted on this page of copyright myths: http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/copy_myths.html. On a more practical note, items posted to Wikipedia must be useable for commercial purposes, e.g., if Wikipedia decided to publish a CD version of its encyclopedia. The fact that you personally do not reap financial benefit is irrelevant here.
- Finally, as far as songs are concerned, an author can own a permutation of notes, but you are correct that it must be examined in the entirety. Note that the user's intent may or may not be relevant, as George Harrison was held liable for copyright infringement for unintentionally copying He's So Fine in the course of My Sweet Lord.
Tet offensive
editYou seem to have missed my comment on the article's discussion page, so I'm repeating it here:
- There's a paragraph on Cronkite, beginning with the sentence "Probably the most well-known example of an anti-war statement in the press is Walter Cronkite's special report on the war of February 27, 1968." Your edit, in which you give Cronkite full responsibility for the end of the Vietnam war, isn't supported by the view of historians. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Attribution for information on how such edits have to be supported.
If you can show, with references, that there is a consensus among scholars that Cronkite's influence on the Tet offensive and the war in general was as important as your edit states, then your edit would be valid. A single remark by President Johnson isn't sufficient.
Also, please take note of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. When another editor reverts your edit, don't replace it again yourself, or you will be in violation of this rule. KarlBunker 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to give me a migraine. If you wish to create strawmen, you defend them. I have not posted that Cronkite was fully responsible for ending the Vietnam War. So don't ask me to defend what you have construed from the statement I made.
You want me to find three scholars? Okay, can I fax you my IQ test showing 164? I'm brighter than most "scholars" which is an ill-defined term in this day and age. Could I write somthihg scholarly? Yep, not a problem. And then I'll send two others with Phds in physics and engineering who are most assuredly "scholars" who agree with me. or do you have a list of "accepted scholars".
A single comment by the individual who has been called "the most powerful man in the world" is not sufficient for you? This is astonishing. Cronkites comments are public record as are Johnson's. The actions of the times speak for themselves - ipso facto - that Cronkite spoke and others began hammering away that we could not win in Vietnam. That is historical fact. For God's sake, I lived it as we had family in theatre and were pissed off at what Cronkite had done. As an example, Achminiejad (sp?) has, I believe, a PhD in some area of engineering. He states there was no holocaust. And you know what? He had many "scholars" agree with him at a recent gathering in Iran. Can I post that no holocaust really occurred bcause I have "scholars" that state it as such?
Look, this is a free compendium of information. It is not an "encyclopedia". At best, HS level students should use it as a source of reference to get started. As I stated, you can't use this at UNC Chapel Hill and if you tell me Harvard accepts Wikipedia as a source I'll be astonished and apologize. Encyclopedia Britanica has a paid staff to reference every single iota of information it "sells" it's information for. Wikipedia is a free service. And I dount that in all instances, that which is plain on its face is fully researched by EB. I won't do your work for you when it comes to just picking up the newspapers in 1968 to see what was going on and I also won;t defend your strawmen. I'm too old, and far to bright, to go down that tired road. Frankly, I don;t agree with parts of the Tet Offense. Want me to start pointing out sentence by sentence where you don't have it footnoted by "scholars"?
Why am I being stubborn on this issue? Because what I have posted is plain. It is as plain as water evaporationg when left in a bowl.
And yes, I did miss your other message.
- You still aren't signing your comments correctly.
- Hold down the shift key
- Press the tilde key (in the upper left of your keyboard) 4 (four) times
- That's all. You're done. Your user name and a time stamp will be added to your post.
- Click the "Show preview" button to see whether you got it right.
- In other matters, it's nice that you have such a high opinion of your own intelligence, but that isn't terribly relevant. You've noted that Wikipedia isn't considered a scholarly source. That's correct, because anyone, whether they know a subject or not, whether they even know how to use a keyboard or not, is allowed to edit. However, in order to make Wikipedia as useful as possible, it has certain rules about how content should be added. Content is supposed to represent the consensus view of scholars and other "reliable sources", as defined in Wikipedia:Attribution. To use your example, because Holocaust denial is discredited among a consensus of reliable sources, it is supposed to be presented in Wikipedia as a discredited view.
- These rules can be inconvenient, but they're there to make Wikipedia as reliable as possible while still being editable by anyone. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, I'm not the person for you to argue with, because I can't change them.
- By the way, the Johnson statement you mention in your edit is an interesting one, and I'd like to see it added to the article--just not in the opening paragraph. I'd like to see it added as an actual quote, so if you can provide a source for the quote I'll add it to the appropriate paragraph.
- KarlBunker 12:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)