Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proponent

Proponent

Blatant dictdef.-- malathion ^talk 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make a copyright violation? --Lucavix 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Copyvio? CanadianCaesar 01:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Two Objections: More could had been added to the article. Also how can a definition be copyrighted? --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It could be transwikied, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that wiktionary already has this. -R. fiend 01:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or if not already on Wikitionary, transwiki. and CanadianCaesar: err.. what exactly is it a copyvio from? Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just reading it, it looks like a copyvio, and in fact, it is. [1] CanadianCaesar 02:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It can not be a copyright violation if it is only a definition. --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - After re-reading the article (the "the dictionary definition of..." is a dead giveaway) and a bit of googling, I have come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, a copyvio. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 02:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please describe how giving a dictionary definition is a violation of a copyright. --Lucavix 00:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the dic def and leave the space open for anyone who wants to write a real article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- How does starting an article with a dictionary definition prevent people from adding anything they want to it? I had a series of contributions for the article including examples of political proponents. --Lucavix 23:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

move it to dictionaryDemodike 08:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary already has proponent, and had it for 4 months before this copyright violation even existed. Please check Wiktionary before nominating things to be transwikied there. Uncle G 15:51:46, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
  - how do you know this is a copyvio? Is it a copy from a dictionary? What dictionary? Is this considered a copyvio too? If yes, then why they have no legal problems for caching copyrighted documents, and wikipedia has? Demodike 10:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - We know that it is a copyvio from the discussion immediately above. As for your final question, please read the prominent bold notice that is below the text entry field on every edit page, and our copyright policy. Wikipedia is not a "cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents". Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Uncle G 16:33:19, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
    - Objection: We do not infact know that it is a copyright violation. In fact, since definitions can not be copyrighted, it can not be a copyright violation and every dictionary seems to have the exact definition in question. Futhermore many articles are listed on Wikipedia, that are in fact copyrighted, including quotes from magazines and the results of various studies, but they are not presented in such a way as to take credit for the studies and sources are typically given. I would argue since the dictionary is given as a source and no one took credit for the definition, it is impossible for it to be a copyright violation. --Lucavix 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not carefully. It is NOT mentioned there that Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. I think you are not authorized to tell what wikipedia is not, only "Wikipedia_is_not" official policy is. So either "Wikipedia is not a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents, like search engines are." quote must be added to the official policy, or otherwise wikipedia may be consider by some wikipedians, among other things, also as a cache of (other people's) copyrighted documents. Of course cached copyrighted documents must be locked with the help of an admin, to protect the copyright and prevent changes to the document, similar to what all internet search engines are doing to their cached copyright documents (search engines readers are not allowed to edit cached copyrighted document). On the other hand, discussion on a cached copyrighted document must be allowed. Cached copyrighted documents may be considered encyclopaedic too, so they also have a place to a free encyclopaedia. Am I wrong somewhere? Demodike 17:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I refer you a second time to our official copyright policy, adding that our copyright stance is a foundation issue (unlike WP:WIN, which only applies to Wikipedia alone) and non-negotiable. Uncle G 18:51:45, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
        
        Provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted. --Lucavix 00:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia seems to be a free encyclopedia, NOT an encyclopedia enslaved to GFDL license. Thats why other licenses are also allowed here, although, most of the times, not in the main articles space but in users' pages. The existence of many other licenses in many wikipedians users pages is against the GFDL foundation issue argument of yours, which is also supposed to apply to Wikimedia projects in general and not to wikipedia encyclopedia specifically. Wikipedia, having many different types of licenses in many user pages, seems to be an exception of the GFDL foundation issue. For example, have a look at the homepage of a wikipedia administrator which agrees with Dual Licensing instead of having a single GFDL. As you can see, the userpages of wikipedians are already free from the GFDL slavery. One step beyond, lets free article space from GFDL too, and let cached copyrighted documents to reside (for legal reasons only as protected ones) not only to users space, but also to the main article space too.
        
        Could you also please tell us what is the exact copyright violation here? You accuse that there is a copyvio here, without pointing to the exact copyrighted document! If it is a dictionary copyvio, please tell us its name and its ISBN number. Accusing a text of beeing copyvio without pointing to the exact copyrighted document, this gives everybody the right and the reason to revert your copyvio accusation.Demodike 19:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        from here. and if it's not explicitly CC'd, GFDL'd, or PD'd, it's safe to say that it's not any of those Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Objection: No one actually owns the definition of a word, and all kinds of use the exact same definitions. Also providing a factual definition is not a violation of a copyright but a reporting of the facts as they stand --Lucavix 23:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Erm, Hosterweis, that exact same definition is also in the webster and the msn dictionary, did they commit all commit copyright violations against eachother. Well, I would say No because Definitions can NOT be copyrighted.--Lucavix 23:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{wi}} once deleted. Alphax ^τεχ 02:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid Suggestion. --Lucavix 23:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would had liked to contribute to the artice, giving examples of proponents of various things, but since someone suggested a copyright violation even though the definitions of words can not be copyrighted, it seems I can not. Oh, and to that special someone, MSN, Google, and Dictionary.com all share the same definition. Gee, are they all committing copyright violations against eachother? Can you even provide evidence that a definition can be copyrighted? Since the US Supreme Court and the patient office both seem to dismiss attempts to copyright any definitions (typically by corporations like Microsoft) I highly doubt it. --Lucavix 00:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Google just pulls dictionary information by spidering and caching pages (which is why many times Wikipedia articles are found using the define: operator). And also, if the dictionary from which the content was ~~stolen~~ borrowed was made by a private corporation, and its contents not explicity licensed under Creative Commons, the GNU FDL, or put into the public domain, it is grounds for a {{copyvio}}}. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that all internet search engines that pull (and show) information by spidering and caching pages are illegal and guilty for copyright violations? If this is the case, then why they are still operational? Demodike 06:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a minor question, what does someone vote if they do not want it deleted? I would also like to note that a few of the votes to delete gave reasons which have been debunked (such as the transwiki argument). --Lucavix 00:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They would vote keep. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]