Talk:Lambda Sigma Upsilon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright issues

I would like to note that none of the material used is copyrighted. I would also like to note that although some material has come off the national website I have been granted permission for its use from the organizations national secretary and public relations chair. I am currently in the process of editing the article to be read from a more neutral point of view. I do not know what the next step is please inform me. Monarca7 (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Monarca. I'm an administrator here and was asked by User:Passionless to try and help out a bit. Passionless has done the right thing by putting the copyright tag over the article, but large chunks of the article are copy and pasted from other websites. The material is copyrighted, see the copyright tag here], for example. Unfortunately while I believe you that you have permission, WP can't take your word for it, because you could be just about anybody, if you know what I mean!!

So you have two choices. You can have the originating website changed so that the copyright tag is removed and add a notice there specifically releasing it under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). Or you can have someone like the national secretary send an e-mail from an emailaddress associated the fraternity to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. This message must also explicitly permit the use of the material under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL.

The other thing to mention is that if you are associated with the fraternity you have something of a conflict of interest. That's okay, but you should read the information I linked to give you suggestions of how best to edit in this circumstance.

Please let me know what you plan to do about the permission thing, as it is important to know if we should should wait for a few days for you to get things lined up at your end. If getting permission isn't possible, then we will need to remove the copyright violating text. --Slp1 (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the National secretary of the organization of this. However, it is believed that tag was placed in error as I have been assured there is no copyright in place for the information. It may be that it pertain to the esthetics and layout of the site. I have also taken it upon myself to check the United States copyright office website it also does not appear there. Monarca7 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. It is irrelevant what the US copyright office says; all published material is presumed to be copyrighted (most especially if a copyright tag, as it is here] and here!! The only way we can use the text is if it is released under CC-BY-SA and the GFDL as described above. I'll keep an eye on this; let me know what the fraternity decides to do about giving permission or not. BTW the other option is to rewrite the information in your own words. That can happen with no problem, and it might be a good idea, as the fraternity generated text is understandably fairly promotional in tone. --Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even if the copyright issue is resolved, the text is promotional and makes too many unsourced claims (claims that would have to be sourced to a third party, not to the organisation itself). Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

So, couldn't we just delete the copied text, and have a neutral re-write using some third party sources, and this copyright thing would be all over with? Passionless (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, what would probably make more sense is to revert to an older version without copyrighted material. That can easily be done if that is what you, Monarca7 and other interested editors decide is the best plan. Slp1 (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn’t mind having a neutral rewrite however, the e-mail has already been sent. As for the reverts, that wouldn’t do much since most of it has already been there since before I ever joined Wikipedia most of it has been up for 3 to 4 years. However, I was given permission to reuse it and update it here if it was necessary. On another note why it is that Lambda Sigma Upsilon is being targeted when the grand majority of NALFO orgs and former NALFO members have done exactly the same? Is it simply because I reverted some edits I didn’t agree with (and tried to discuss on user page)? Or because I have been editing the page so much? Was it just a random selection? I just ask because it has been up for so long and it seems to be following the tendencies of similar pages. Honest curiosity. Thanks so much by the way for all the assistance you guys have been providing.Monarca7 (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the copyright issue mentioned somewhere. Editors stumble onto an article for all sorts of reasons, sometimes because they've been looking at what other editors are doing, or at noticeboards where issues are mentioned, etc. Then sometimes they see a need to clean it up. Of course, a lot of bad articles stay under the horizon for far too long. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense Thank you Dougweller. Monarca7 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One of your edits had a key word that was picked up by Lupin's anti-vandal scanner-the edit was fine but I saw the atrocious format, so I thought I would fix it, than I saw all the first person writing (Our and We), and I check the respectful website and saw the article word for word there, so I tagged it and posted it where all copyright violations are listed. I'm just too lazy to actively check other frats, but if you do find large amounts of copy-pasted material on their pages you should do what I did to this page. If you need help you can ask me. Passionless (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, E-mail has been sent. When will I know there is a resolution to this? Monarca7 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The people who work on permissions will be answering the email, and will leave us a message here if it is adequate. See [1]Slp1 (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank youMonarca7 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I give up do with the article as you will.lol. The E-mail was sent it was not good enough. I will never revert any edit made by an editor I don't agree with or even attempt to talk about it lol it just leads to all of this. lol Please inform me of the next step.Monarca7 (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to pursue the copyright route, then you should contact User:Moonriddengirl and ask for details about what was wrong with the release. She added the tag above. In the meantime, I note that the copyright tag has been removed, with some sections changed but large quantities of the copy and pasted copyvio text remains, as well as the promotional tone. Also, non-reliable sources such as blogs, have been used as references. I will remove this all material. What will be left will be a very basic article. Unless the GFDL consent is received from the fraternity, restore any information in your own words, using the high quality reliable sources. Thanks. --Slp1 (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It was sent and received we would just not release every single item on the site, understandably. However, all of this is too time consuming I suggest if you really have issues with anything in the article that you check out every current and former organization in NALFO and in Greek life in general. Our organization allows members to use any information from the website and do with it as they we will. Hence they do not copyright anything on the website but the format of the website itself. However, I understand why this may not be clear. It just seems extremely bias and unfair that my organization is the only one that gets such treatment because administrators decide at a whim to check one and not the other.Monarca7 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but there isn't much that can be done, unfortunately. Understand it wasn't a question of a "whim" but of an editor that noted a genuine problem. If you notice copyright violations in the articles of other organizations, please point this out and/or remove them. It would be a great service. I would also encourage you to edit the other articles to remove promotional material too. --Slp1 (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well Monarca7, after you made the claim that other frats have copyrighted material awhile ago, I did search through many of them and found nothing. Passionless -Talk 22:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Slp1 I understand what you mean but you have been very helpful so far and you have actually given me some research that I did not previously know about. Also, as you can see I still need help clearing this up and as a member of a fraternity I would not want to cause somebody else this frustration. Passionless I am new to Wikipedia. Your search was probably inadequate as because, I was new, I used several other fraternity articles as a model this is why I thought it was acceptable. Can I ask in what manner did you conduct you search? I feel as if by questioning an edit or asking for an explanation upsets you if that is correct it is not my intention. I am just new to this so I ask. Thank you. Monarca7 (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just took a sample population from the 400 listed at here in the chart on quality. Passionless -Talk 00:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did the same and found 7. However, as I am new to the rules and do not necessarily agree with them it is not my place tag them as copyrighted. However, when looking at an org open their national site and go to history or type a phrase into Google. Monarca7 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Please list them for me, the ones who have cut and pasted large amounts of text onto wikipedia from their websites. I looked again, and while I think most sorority pages are just awful things, filled with a tone carried from their conversion from their websites to wikipedia, copyright problems are not common. Beta Sigma Psi is a good example of a page clearly written as a summary of the website, but because it is not copied word for word it is not a copyright problem. It needs a whle lot of work, but that is different. Passionless -Talk 01:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but once I found them I deleted them and since I picked them at random I don't remember the organizations. Thank you for providing a reference to a page that showed what is acceptable and for working with me here. I am not an aspiring editor it just this wiki thing becomes an obsession quick. I just know when someone is looking up information about an org they are looking for a lot of stuff. When I searched wiki for a lot of information on organization it was unfortunately very limited please let me know if you have more suggestions and thank you for the help so far. Now I got to get back to real life.Monarca7 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Images

This article has some problems with images, 1 being the massive photo of the group of men, and the other is the sheer number of photos is overwhelming. Please see this, as it backs me up with both issues. If you-Monarca- could remove some photos so that I do not have to choose which ones go, that would be appreciated. And you were saying before about the photo needing to be big so people can see each person in the photo, well there are a huge number of photos which are massive but kept as a thumbnail so as to no disturb the text. Some examples would be the first two photos on the NHL page or the second painting-Titan's goblet- on Thomas Cole's page. Passionless -Talk 06:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As for the 'notable alumni'- I looked through them and by their positions/titles alone I doubt any of them would stand against an Article for Deletion process. Although many actors/professors/CEOs have wikipedia pages, only the most notable of these have pages while the majority are lesser known and have no reliable sources to prove there notability. Passionless -Talk 21:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lambda Sigma Upsilon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728095038/http://www.thelsufoundation.org/ to http://www.thelsufoundation.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728095038/http://www.thelsufoundation.org/ to http://www.thelsufoundation.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)