Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Corruption perceptions index
improved table
[edit]please anybody checks the improved table for errors. We can then start using this one. --Spitzl 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
make only certain columns sortable
[edit]{{helpme}}
I know there is a general way to make columns sortable. However, how do you make only certain columns sortable? In this case, it should be "Rank", "Country" and the years "2007", "2006", etc. While this is probably easy to solve (I hope), there is an additional twist to it. As you see, the table (I'm talking about the colored one on the top) is split in two parts. Is it possible to have the sortable buttons only on the left side, but still make it function for the entire table? Thanx for helping out! --spitzl (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Please look there. If any questions or wishes should remain, please ask on the talkpage of the article.--Thw1309 (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- It can't be done. The two columns will have to be combined into one longer column, and the colspans and rowspans will have to be removed if you want to make this table fully sortable. There's really not that many options when it comes to sortable tables, unfortunately. One thing that might help is to make the upper headers into a separate table perched on top of the main table. (You may have to get tricky in order to make the columns line up at all browser-widths though.) Lurlock (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, that sounds like a bigger project. Anyways, thanx for looking into it. The thing is, I'm really not good with tables, but maybe I'll try some time to transform it into a "normal" sortable table. I guess we could get rid of the top row and place the information somewhere else. Cheers, --spitzl (talk) 10:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2010 data
[edit]have added the data for the first 110 countries from the 2010 figures. Please feel free to add the rest. --Spigot123 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Data and copyright
[edit]Beyond My Ken. Data can not be copyrighted. You can research this more and find out that this is true, or you can continue to look ignorant about this issue. I really don't care. Others will keep reverting your incorrect blanking of non-copyrighted material. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is not data, it is research, analysis and interpretation turned into a number. It is indeed copyrightable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do some research. Repetition does not make something true. Facts, including data, can not be copyrighted. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong. The index is neither a "fact" or "data", it's an original creative expression of research etc. You are laboring under a serious misapprehension. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Think of it this way. The table shows Denmark as having a Corruption Perception Index in 2002 of 9.5. If this was just data, there would be somewhere you could go to find that datum that Transparency.org would have referenced to make their table, just as one might look up the population of Denmark, or its square mileage. But there is no such place where that supposed datum can be found, because it originated with Transparency.org, who created it, and it did not exist before then. They explain their methodology here:
Thus, as I said above, Transparency takes various kinds of data, from various sources, and combines them together in some way to create an index number, a brand new set of numbers which is an original creative act. (The mere fact that this creative act generates a new set of numbers does not make it "data".) This is absolutely copyrightable, and, indeed, Transparency.org has a copyright notice on every page of the website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide. ... The 2012 CPI draws on data sources from independent institutions specialising in governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the 2012 CPI are based on data gathered in the past 24 months. The CPI includes only sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector. Transparency International reviews the methodology of each data source in detail to ensure that the sources used meet Transparency International’s quality standards. For a full list of the data sources, the type of respondents and the specific questions they ask, please see the CPI sources description document. (Emphasis added)
- And you are still absolutely wrong. Go to the copyright noticeboards, and experts on Wikipedia, and ask. Facts can not be copyrighted. The data involved is just more facts. You are making yourself look foolish. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- You've got a very black-and-white perception of how copyright works, and it just isn't the case. Judges are all the time making decisions based on all sorts of factors, like how much copyrighted material used, and how it is expressed. You are right that, all things being equal, "facts" are not per se copyrightable. If I publish the square mileage of Denmark, someone else can use that fact in a new work if it's expressed in a new and original way. I believe, for instance, that you can, right now, insert into the Denmark article the sentence "According the Transparency.org, Denmark in 2002 had a Corruption Perception index of 9.5" and you would not be violating anyone's copyright, because you've express that information in a new and original way. However, one cannot take Transparency.org's table of indices (or, worse, 10 years of index tables) and put it into another table and get away with it, because you're taking too much, and the table is just not enough of an original expression, even if you tinker with colors or other ephemera. No judge would let you get away with that, because the expression of Transparency.org's original creation of information is copyrightable, and the table that was here was a blatant violation of that copyright. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- You haven't linked to such a table, and even if you did, it would be easy to make enough changes to avoid copyright problems. Happens all the time on Wikipedia. At least you finally got my point. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- You've got a very black-and-white perception of how copyright works, and it just isn't the case. Judges are all the time making decisions based on all sorts of factors, like how much copyrighted material used, and how it is expressed. You are right that, all things being equal, "facts" are not per se copyrightable. If I publish the square mileage of Denmark, someone else can use that fact in a new work if it's expressed in a new and original way. I believe, for instance, that you can, right now, insert into the Denmark article the sentence "According the Transparency.org, Denmark in 2002 had a Corruption Perception index of 9.5" and you would not be violating anyone's copyright, because you've express that information in a new and original way. However, one cannot take Transparency.org's table of indices (or, worse, 10 years of index tables) and put it into another table and get away with it, because you're taking too much, and the table is just not enough of an original expression, even if you tinker with colors or other ephemera. No judge would let you get away with that, because the expression of Transparency.org's original creation of information is copyrightable, and the table that was here was a blatant violation of that copyright. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- And you are still absolutely wrong. Go to the copyright noticeboards, and experts on Wikipedia, and ask. Facts can not be copyrighted. The data involved is just more facts. You are making yourself look foolish. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Think of it this way. The table shows Denmark as having a Corruption Perception Index in 2002 of 9.5. If this was just data, there would be somewhere you could go to find that datum that Transparency.org would have referenced to make their table, just as one might look up the population of Denmark, or its square mileage. But there is no such place where that supposed datum can be found, because it originated with Transparency.org, who created it, and it did not exist before then. They explain their methodology here:
- Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong. The index is neither a "fact" or "data", it's an original creative expression of research etc. You are laboring under a serious misapprehension. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do some research. Repetition does not make something true. Facts, including data, can not be copyrighted. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. I was asked to weigh in here, presumably because of the work I do on copyrights. Facts are not copyrightable, but it is important to distinguish between fact (a person's phone number; the average weight of a rhesus monkey) and conjecture. Facts do not vary; everyone who assesses them correctly reaches the same facts. When trying to determine whether or not a table or list is copyrightable, the first question is whether it contains fact or conjecture...even expert conjecture. (For instance, a US Court found a list of the market value of used cars copyrightable because it was based on a variety of informational sources and expert opinion, in CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports.) What are the criteria on which this table is based - how did the sources you are using reach the conclusion they've drawn about each listed state's corruption? Are they the same criteria that anyone, creating such a list, would use? Do they involve any guesswork or speculation? These are the kinds of questions that go into determining if content is creative. It is difficult for me to imagine how a "Corruption perception index" could be fact, given that perception is inherently intangible, but those are the factors we need first to evaluate. Following that, the question turns to the creativity of the expression of fact, but the first matter to resolve is always whether or not what you're dealing with is actually "fact". (See Wikipedia:Copyright in lists.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(unindent). Thanks for the info. I found this:
- CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports. I read enough of it to get the gist about originality, and the fact the company was losing business because a competitor was using their results to make money passing on the same results.
There is no table at transparency.org that I could find quickly that is very similar to the one here at Wikipedia. The closest I could find with a little looking around was this one:
So Wikipedia is not violating copyright via presentation or format. As for originality I think one has to remember that Transparency.org is an advocacy organization and wants the info to get out. They would never sue Wikipedia or anyone else for passing on their results. That is why they put the info out, so that it gets disseminated widely. They want the news media, Wikipedia, etc. to pass out the info. If someone copied their reports outright, and their website, and tried to outright steal it all under a different name, then they would probably sue for copyright violation. Especially if it diverted donations away from them.
Wikipedia has many tables of info, and most tables by their nature are not outright theft of a whole organization's means of making money. Has anyone ever complained to Wikipedia about tables? I bet it is very rare. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists talks about "repeatable calculation". I think that is what this table is. See:
Complex repeatable calculation probably based on many studies. But the bottom line is that we are not ripping off Transparency.org. We are doing exactly what they want us to do. I think Wikipedia should not become so strict about copyright that we invent copyright protections that no one would bring to court. We have these discussions concerning Fair Use too. I like how Wikia deals with that issue. Much more practical about it. As in: do the people whose material is being used like what we are doing or not. A common sense approach. See:
I know we are not talking about fair use here. I am talking about the similarities in how we look at the legalities. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we can't use content on the assumption that a copyright owner would want to get the information out - only on the basis of whether or not the content is free. The bottom line is the creativity of the data. [1] seems somewhat vague - "It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions." Do you know the formula at use? Do you know the criteria that went into selecting the formula? Without that, we may not be able to use the content unless Transparency.org is willing to license it. Sometimes organizations of this sort do; the approach at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is sometimes quite successful. Anyone is welcome to approach them to ask for this license, but if you decide to do this, please be sure to ask for the specific terms required. If they write back saying something vague about it being okay for Wikipedia to use, we can't accept it. Content has to be compatibly licensed. :/ Any other changes to how we handle copyrighted content would be much wider than this single instance, I'm afraid, and could involve reevaluating legal policies such as WP:NFC and WP:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- "the formula at use" does not matter. What matters more is what I pointed out that you are ignoring. Common sense is allowed on Wikipedia. Look it up.
- I have no patience with clueless deletionism based on legalistic hairsplitting based on vague court cases that divided the courts themselves. Feel free to drive away tens of thousands of more editors. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors.
- The idiocy of what you just said is why people leave Wikipedia in droves. Following your logic people and news media who share the transparency.org stats for even a short list of countries in their articles on web pages and in the news media could be sued for copyright infringement. I guarantee there are many such lists in the news media and elsewhere. Taken to its utmost stupidity sharing even a single transparency.org stat for one country is a copyright violation.
- I know from experience that over time Wikipedia policies come around to common sense after all the idiocy is discussed for months and years on end and the idiocy is fully exposed by people a thousand times more patient than me. When that happens remember "I told you so."
- But I have better things to do and I am out of here for now. And remember what I said you are why people leave Wikipedia in droves. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Timeshifter, we have a duty to stay within the law. If the law is vague, we must err on the side of caution for fairly obvious reasons. The "so newspapers can't use it?" argument is at best a straw man: yes, newspapers can probably use it, because many jurisdictions have fair use or fair dealing laws which include explicit or implicit exemptions for review and the public interest. "It falls under a fair use exception to copyright law" allows newspapers to use it but is not the same as "it falls outside copyright or is under a license that allows anyone to use it for anything" - the requirements for content to be used on Wikipedia most of the time. There is an important distinction here, and the ability to make it is more demonstrative of clue than avoiding "legalistic hairsplitting" would be - legalistic hairsplitting is perfectly acceptable when we're talking about the law, because the etymology of the term is that it's what lawyers and judges do. Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have replied to you at Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Timeshifter, we have a duty to stay within the law. If the law is vague, we must err on the side of caution for fairly obvious reasons. The "so newspapers can't use it?" argument is at best a straw man: yes, newspapers can probably use it, because many jurisdictions have fair use or fair dealing laws which include explicit or implicit exemptions for review and the public interest. "It falls under a fair use exception to copyright law" allows newspapers to use it but is not the same as "it falls outside copyright or is under a license that allows anyone to use it for anything" - the requirements for content to be used on Wikipedia most of the time. There is an important distinction here, and the ability to make it is more demonstrative of clue than avoiding "legalistic hairsplitting" would be - legalistic hairsplitting is perfectly acceptable when we're talking about the law, because the etymology of the term is that it's what lawyers and judges do. Ironholds (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- But I have better things to do and I am out of here for now. And remember what I said you are why people leave Wikipedia in droves. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You asked Beyond My Ken to consult the people who do copyright work on Wikipedia and then, when he does, become aggressive with me because you don't like my response? Personally, I'm inclined to think that people's failure to follow WP:CIVIL has a lot more to do with people leaving Wikipedia than copyright enforcement. I understand, however, that it is frustrating to have content you think is important questioned and that collegial discourse can be challenging in such situations. I do hope you'll try, because there's no reason to make this conversation nasty. The content will be kept, or not kept, based on an evaluation of its copyright status, not on how much you can hurt my feelings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It works both ways concerning WP:CIVIL, and it is pretty damn uncivil to blank a page that has been around for six years based on an essay of yours, or its premises. I consider it admin misconduct, but that is just my opinion. See User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct. I am not really invested in this particular chart. I only helped with a formatting problem they had. My concern is for the issue in general concerning a poorly sourced essay and the possibility of future deletions of more charts and lists based on it, or its premises. It is not personal. But I am pissed. So since the issue is the essay, I prefer to continue most discussion on its talk page: Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not uncivil to follow policy in evaluating copyright problems - this template has been here and active for years. User:Beyond My Ken's application of it is standard practice and could hardly be admin misconduct, since he's not an admin. (Oh, just to add, if you think my essay is the reason for the blanking, you may want to review more of our history. The essay follows on the handling of lists; it doesn't lead it. We've been addressing list and table copyright issues for years.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- What policy? Policy as represented by Wikipedia:Copyright in lists? You, an admin, are endorsing User:Beyond My Ken's blanking of this longstanding chart based on what little policy is expressed in that essay. It seems like you could wait until you actually have a clear policy before blanking charts and lists that are obviously questionably being blanked. There is no clear cut policy for this particular chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Suspected or complicated infringement. That is the policy BMK is following and which I endorse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- What policy? Policy as represented by Wikipedia:Copyright in lists? You, an admin, are endorsing User:Beyond My Ken's blanking of this longstanding chart based on what little policy is expressed in that essay. It seems like you could wait until you actually have a clear policy before blanking charts and lists that are obviously questionably being blanked. There is no clear cut policy for this particular chart. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not uncivil to follow policy in evaluating copyright problems - this template has been here and active for years. User:Beyond My Ken's application of it is standard practice and could hardly be admin misconduct, since he's not an admin. (Oh, just to add, if you think my essay is the reason for the blanking, you may want to review more of our history. The essay follows on the handling of lists; it doesn't lead it. We've been addressing list and table copyright issues for years.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It works both ways concerning WP:CIVIL, and it is pretty damn uncivil to blank a page that has been around for six years based on an essay of yours, or its premises. I consider it admin misconduct, but that is just my opinion. See User:Timeshifter/Unchecked admin misconduct. I am not really invested in this particular chart. I only helped with a formatting problem they had. My concern is for the issue in general concerning a poorly sourced essay and the possibility of future deletions of more charts and lists based on it, or its premises. It is not personal. But I am pissed. So since the issue is the essay, I prefer to continue most discussion on its talk page: Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) You asked Beyond My Ken to consult the people who do copyright work on Wikipedia and then, when he does, become aggressive with me because you don't like my response? Personally, I'm inclined to think that people's failure to follow WP:CIVIL has a lot more to do with people leaving Wikipedia than copyright enforcement. I understand, however, that it is frustrating to have content you think is important questioned and that collegial discourse can be challenging in such situations. I do hope you'll try, because there's no reason to make this conversation nasty. The content will be kept, or not kept, based on an evaluation of its copyright status, not on how much you can hurt my feelings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Can I throw out an alternative? I'm intrigued by Timeshifter's contention, which seems very likely, that Transparency.org is an advocacy organization and wants the info to get out. While I agree with MRG that we cannot use this possibility to use the material without permission, it means it is very likely that the organization would provide permission, and may even be eager to do so. I don't think ti would be hard to contact the organization, explain the desired use, and get formal permission.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sphilbrick. :) It's very possible. As I say, sometimes it works very well when somebody approaches them with the form at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, you did already suggest that. Then it must be a good idea :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. :) I was glad to see you suggest it, in case it had been overlooked especially. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, you did already suggest that. Then it must be a good idea :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Article for deletion
[edit]This chart was an integral part of Corruption Perceptions Index for a long time (chart was started in 2006). Here is the last revision before Beyond My Ken blanked the page and put up the copyright violation notice in its place.
From reading Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists it is clear to me that User:Moonriddengirl is making up policy based on her own opinions of law. She is not a lawyer. The lawyers on that talk page are far more knowledgeable and often disagreed with her and each other.
I am thinking of putting this chart page up for deletion. Not because I believe this should be deleted, but because 2 non-lawyers should not be allowed to delete this table based on vague copyright law that they do not understand.
Wikipedia:Copyright in lists is an essay. It was created years ago, and it is not a guideline.
Therefore I suggest returning the chart in the meantime while this goes through the deletion process. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- That page was created following consultation with the Wikimedia Foundation's attorneys and is in addition based on long established precedence on Wikipedia. You can do a search of WT:C and WT:CP for "lists" and see prior conversations about them. Feel free to nominate the content for deletion if you like, but the copyright determination is a separate one. It comes down to whether the content is creative and, if so, if it is compatibly licensed. Copyright problems remain blanked for the determination period, regardless of whether or not the material is under consideration at other forums; people can see it easily via the history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- You have to admit that you are endorsing the blanking of a longstanding chart based on your selective interpretations of several lawyers' opinions. Rather than let the chart stand while it goes through either AfD or copyright determination. You also have to admit that the possibility that this chart is a copyright violation is vague at best. Also the possibility that Wikipedia might be sued because of this chart is nonexistent, or almost nonexistent. But this discussion is better continued at Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- {{copyvio}} is the standard and policy-based handling of copyright concerns where the material cannot simply be removed until the matter is determined. It is recommended when the entire page is involved. This template (which would go through WP:TfD, not WP:AfD) is being handled no differently than any other. There are many pages blanked on this project even as we type pending copyright determination.
- You have to admit that you are endorsing the blanking of a longstanding chart based on your selective interpretations of several lawyers' opinions. Rather than let the chart stand while it goes through either AfD or copyright determination. You also have to admit that the possibility that this chart is a copyright violation is vague at best. Also the possibility that Wikipedia might be sued because of this chart is nonexistent, or almost nonexistent. But this discussion is better continued at Wikipedia talk:Copyright in lists. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean about my "selective interpretations" - I drew together a page documenting copryight practices with regards to such content based on consultation with the Wikimedia Foundation's attorneys. You can discuss it at the essay page if you like, but here is where you should put forward any evidence you may have that the content on this page is not creative. The administrator who closes the copyright listing (I will recuse myself) will probably not consult the list talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- So, let me get this straight. We need legal opinions if we want to entertain the idea of disagreeing with you. Expert legal opinions. Yet when legal opinions are provided, it is unacceptable to use them to reach a decision you don't like - for that, we should go through AfD, a venue that doesn't involve lawyers, because as a non-lawyer you dispute the legal opinions. Rrright. Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, you know what the technical term is for "deciding to violate copyright law because we've determined we're unlikely to get in trouble"? It's called "inviting judges to dump all over you". The judiciary tends not to like premeditated or contributory elements of copyright infringement: this is one of the reasons we put the onus on showing it is legal rather than merely showing that, well, it's murky but nobody's likely to complain. Ironholds (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- So, let me get this straight. We need legal opinions if we want to entertain the idea of disagreeing with you. Expert legal opinions. Yet when legal opinions are provided, it is unacceptable to use them to reach a decision you don't like - for that, we should go through AfD, a venue that doesn't involve lawyers, because as a non-lawyer you dispute the legal opinions. Rrright. Ironholds (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure what you mean about my "selective interpretations" - I drew together a page documenting copryight practices with regards to such content based on consultation with the Wikimedia Foundation's attorneys. You can discuss it at the essay page if you like, but here is where you should put forward any evidence you may have that the content on this page is not creative. The administrator who closes the copyright listing (I will recuse myself) will probably not consult the list talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not a violation of copyright law as far as I can tell. We should consult the list talk page before doing anything because that is where the main discussion has occurred in the past, and now. For example: "I realize and so does the Wikimedia Foundation attorney who spoke to me that copyright issues are not a firm, hard line, and her opinion on the matter (as of March) was presented as her best recommendation based on the fact that case law related to this issue is murky."
- Also, concerning Moonriddengirl's comment: "here is where you should put forward any evidence you may have that the content on this page is not creative." That is her (nonlawyer) selective interpretation. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is indeed my nonlawyer interpretation that a Wikipedia administrator is likely to follow standard procedure when closing out this listing at the copyright problems board by checking the talk page, but probably will not check the talk page of an essay. I'm not sure how that's "selective interpretation", but perhaps you have your own definition of that. :) (Quotes out of context can be troublesome and are discouraged by Wikipedia:Talk. Please note that your quote of me eliminates the part that makes clear the attorney was discussing surveys.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, concerning Moonriddengirl's comment: "here is where you should put forward any evidence you may have that the content on this page is not creative." That is her (nonlawyer) selective interpretation. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)