Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jackiestud

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 14 June 2009 (→Possible copy and paste and breach of GFDL licence: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:41, 14 June 2009 by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) (→Possible copy and paste and breach of GFDL licence: comments)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Possible copy and paste and breach of GFDL licence

You must answer this question. There appears to be a breach of the GFDL licence and if you aren't going to explain it then you can't be allowed to continue editing. This is a legal issue, not a content dispute. Please show that you are genuinely interested in working with other editors to edit the English Misplaced Pages by responding.

It looks as though this is in part copy and paste from another article. There are fact tags and different forms of citation which I am sure are not yours. Where did this come from? It is breaking our GFDL licence. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Iam sorry, I don´t remember. Jackiestud (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
That's not good. It's a legal requirement to do the attribution, as you are using other people's work. Please don't do that again. You can copy and paste but you must put a link in the edit summary. And just because something is in one article doesn't mean it's ok, there is a lot of bad stuff around. Articles such as these should use academic sources rather than websites unless you find a particularly good website. And websites such as AbsoluteAstronomy take their stuff from Misplaced Pages and you can't use them. You also need to understand that where there is significant disagreement about something that must be made clear. You misrepresented what our Adam article says. The name may be related to the word for red, but that's not what you wrote, and the original source for the 'red' bit in any case is Josephus, hardly a good source for an etymology. A lot of people think that 'religion', worshipping deities, is relatively recent - certainly not 30,000 years old - that early man didn't distinguish between the secular and the sacred the way we do. We don't even know for sure what the Venus figurines are, and our articles should not suggest we do. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)