Talk:Facilitas

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Empoole361 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I see no direct or blatant copyright infringement(s). All claims have been properly researched and cited. I respectfully request a detailed list of any/all alleged copyright infringements in this article. Furthermore, the link that I have been provided(http://wac.colostate.edu/books/writingspaces1/jones--finding-the-good-argument.pdf )with is a link to another academic paper and is in no way in conflict with this article based on copyright infringement or plagiarism. While there is a similarity between the quotes used in the linked article and this article, both were taken from the same source (Murphy, James. Quintilian On the Teaching and Speaking of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987. Print). Both were cited properly and in no way does this constitute a copyright infringement.

Thank you for your time and patience in helping me become more acquainted with Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Empoole361

A note

The link mentioned in the copyvio notice is to a site licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA. This licence is not compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA. Peridon (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Response

Just because this site, which is not compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA, used the same source as I did, does this automatically mean this is copyrighted material? If, to make this process easier, an administrator would like me to re-word the final sentence of "Quintilian Development" to appear less like the quote from the linked article I would happily do so. However, again I stress my original sentiment, and contest the speedy deletion nomination. This article is a viable, useful, and meaningful contribution to the Wikipedia community. Furthermore this, linked article, is not the only article with this information in it, here is another link with similar content.http://www.worcester.edu/Currents/Archives/Volume_1_Number_2/CurrentsV1N2BourelleP28.pdf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Empoole361 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My comment was more for our newer regulars, some of whom don't appreciate the difference between CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA. (It took me some time, and I ought to know something about copyright...) Basically, if a large part of it is copied from a non-compatible source, or direct quotations (as brief as practicable) are not duly acknowledged and put in quotation marks, there is a problem. We tend to work on the principle that if we can't see a CC-BY-SA or evidence of the stuff being in the public domain (e.g. the author died in 1920), then it is copyright. We prefer to play safe, for (possibly expensive) legal reasons. Some people or places don't worry about copyright. I've been told that a tune of mine is being used in the US and it's regarded as being trad. I take that as a compliment... My written work (outside Wikipedia) is another matter. At Wikipedia, as I said, we don't take the chance. I'm speaking in general terms here, as I haven't looked into the details of the case (especially as most of it appears to be sourced from printed copy). Peridon (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)