Talk:Master franchise

COI Question

Is it not a copyright violation to quote an article or text without referencing it?

The text of this article is almost word for word quoted from the csfinvestment.com site.

Wiki: "owning the rights to develop a franchise system within a geographical territory" csf: "owning of the rights to develop a franchise system within a territory"

Wiki: "The master franchisee assists the franchising company in developing the territory in exchange for a share in the royalty revenues and franchise fees that are generated from operations within that territory." csf: "The Master Franchisee assists the franchise company in developing the territory in exchange for a share in the royalty revenues and franchise fees that are generated from operations within that territory."

Wiki: "benefits from a proven track record, brand name, and a successful operating system" csf: "have a proven track record, brand name, and a successful operating system"

This is a clear copyright violation. I'm not the copyright holder, onwer of the site, or any kind of investor of that site, I just hate when people violate copyright. I'll contact the copyright owner to contact wikipedia directly. Until then, I'm going to keep reverting so that the article complies with copyright laws. 98.17.83.229 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all most of the stuff was gleaned from an Entrepreneur Magazine article on the subject, not the spam link you keep adding. Second of all I would suggest you please understand as the one who added the material, you are the one who has created the COI problem. I have been trying to minimize that stuff by copy editing the crap you added, and remove the link to a blatant commercial site. Most of what you added was already in the Entrepreneur article any ways. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all most of the stuff was NOT gleaned from an Entrepreneur Magazine article on the subject, it was copy and pasted from the site whose reference are being removed. If one were to do a simple search on each and you'll find that not only the are many sentences word for word the same as csfinvestment site, as I stated in my first discussion post, these same sentences contain terms that are not used in the entire Entrepreneur Magazine article. Making use of content and not making correct references is in violation of Wikipedia policies WP:V and guideline WP:Cite.

Second of all I would suggest you please understand that you are making an incorrect assumption thinking that I added the material. Also, by stating that, "[I was] the one who created the COI problem" and "the crap [I] added", you are making a direct personal attack that does not address the content of the article in violation of Wikipedia policies WP:PA, Wikipedia:Civility and guideline Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines.

To address the issue of the original author "created the COI problem", please explain. An author that creates a text, then copies that text to a separate site, such as Wikipedia, and then makes cites their own original text is in full compliance of copyright law. Removing that reference, however, creates a copyright issue.

I will continue reverting these edits until the article complies with copyright laws.

152.16.10.191 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would seriously step away from this. Accusing me of plagiarism is a load, since I never put that crap in. I wrote the article using the Entrepreneur article. Another user added all the other stuff which I went checked on; I found the site to be a commercial link, I compared it to the original article I sourced the article from and removed the duplicate information, removed any other patently coi information and finally removed the link. Every time you undid my edits you restored the flawed version, causing all of these issues. Here is what I have done to resolve the issue, I removed all of the data from the site in question and restored it to the point just after I created the article, thus we will not have deal with the allegations anymore.

In response to your allegations and behaviors, which I warned you about on your talk page when this all began, I requested a sock puppet investigation about you and your relationship with Franchiseguru, the user who added the offending passages, shortly after this incident began. I did this because of the way you swooped in and began editing this very obscure article almost immediately after I edited the disputed information from site in question. Between the three accounts editing the page there is a disturbing relationship in the pattern of edits that point me to believe you are one in the same person. You knowledge of WP policies and formatting indicates to me that this is something you have done before and that these three single purpose accounts are being used to play the system to add information to WP that is self promotional in some manner. I will also be filing an ANI report because of the knowledge you display leads me to believe that you have done something like this in the past.

Accusing me of plagiarism and making comments that you are going to enforce the law on Wikipedia are personal attacks on me and violations of WP policies regarding legal threats respectively. I believed there was something hinky about this whole mess shortly after the edits began, and personally believe you are using these IP accounts as sock puppets to continue perpetrating the inclusion of information from the site in question. If you are not the same person, I would suggest you create a user account and edit from that to avoid these issues in the future. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC), updated 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Asking me to step away from an obvious copyright violation is a rather deplorable suggestion. While this is a simple civil matter, I could do this no more then I could stand by, doing nothing, while watching a person break a criminal law.

Again you claim I am accusing you of plagiarism. I feel I have done nothing of the sort. Please quote me or explain why you feel this way. And again you are referring to edits to the article as "crap". This is not production language and I respectfully request that you remain respectful of other people's words.

If you check the history, I never restored nothing more then the reference to the original source. As long as the article had entire sentences that were word-for-word the same, Wiki Policies and copyright law require such a reference.

I have no issues in requesting a sockpuppet investigation. I am not FranchiseGuru and have never claimed to be. The two editting IPs are both mine, and I never suggested otherwise. To assume that I am that user based on time alone is a flawed assumption. One might make a similar assumtion of you, creating a stub-page from a five-year-old magazine article, then waiting a month. Then create a sockpuppet WP:SPA to make an obvious wikipedia policy violation. Within hours your main account "swoops in" as you say, to correct the violation, saving the day. Within days, you are nominated for administration, to which you can point out this recent success as evidence of what a great admin you could be. If it were for those meddling kids, you would've gotten away with it, too. However, I don't believe this to be true, but it's equally as plausible as me finding the copyright violation soon after it was created.

My knowledge of WikiPolicies comes from doing no more then reading them after this disagreement began. As such, to use this as a basis for an ANI report might result in a more negative impact to you then to me. I would hope for your sake, then, that you avoid such an action.

I'd like to have more info about your claim that "that [I am] going to enforce the law on Wikipedia". Please quote me or explain why you believe this. While I agree that such a comment would be in violation of WikiPolicy, I don't believe that I did this in anyway and feel baseless accusations are personal attacks.

I would hope the reason for my contributions would be self-evident, and as such is the very reason that I feel no need to create an account. My only error that I could see was not recognizing that possible readers could interpret multiple IPs as multiple users and as such, assume a consensus was being formed. As such as I have laid claim to the other IP that was used in this article, and I will attempt note ownership if my ISP changes my current IP. I believe that a user's comments should be read and judged on its content, and not by the length of the user's profile.152.16.10.191 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)