User talk:Jvanbrink

Darlene hunt

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Darlene hunt, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.dramaticpublishing.com/AuthorBio.php?titlelink=9460.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Darlene Hunt

Hi there,

I am Darlene Hunt's publicist and created her Wikipedia page which was simply her approved bio. Within the bio, there are quotes that she has given and have been previously published in a local newspaper in Kentucky. These quotes were the reason for the article's deletion; however, these are direct quotes from Darlene and they are in her official bio that is used for all official business.

I would very much appreciate the page being reinstated as it isn't plagiarism of the article when the quotes were actually said by her. If I asked her to give me rewordings of the exact quotes, according to your policies it wouldn't do any good because basically the same quotes exist in this newspaper article.

Best, Jordan Van Brink Publicist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvanbrink (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. (I've replied at my talk page, but am copying my answer here in case you do not log back in within the next few days.) The problem does not lie in quotes but in content that has been copied from [1], including text such as "As a comedian, Hunt has toured comedy clubs across the country and has been featured at the Chicago Comedy Festival and the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. She has performed as a member of the world-famous Groundlings Theatre in Los Angeles and has studied with Second City in Chicago." The website is marked "Copyright © 2006 - 2009 Dramatic Publishing". In order for us to reproduce content from the site, we need clear licensing permission, which must be provided outside of Wikipedia itself. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the processes which we can use. I do need to be sure, however, that you're aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and what we refer to as our "law of unintended consequences". Once a biography is established on Ms. Hunt, you will not be able to control its contents beyond the parameters defined there and here. As her publicist, you are highly encouraged not to create an article on Ms. Hunt but may choose to do so if you wish so long as you are aware of the potential pitfalls.

If you decide to clear the material at the website, let us know, and the content can be restored. If you send an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation, it will be restored once that permission is processed, usually within a week.

Please let me know at my talk page if you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Once licensing verification is provided, copyright concerns for the content will no longer be an issue and content can be restored. Again, the directions for doing so are at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. I'm happy to help you with the process if you need clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The material isn't under copyright to that website - that is a website to purchase something she wrote and it includes an old bio that she used to use herself. What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be a process to get this approved as the bio doesn't belong to this other website. Jvanbrink (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that may make it more rather than less difficult to verify permission. Since Wikipedia does not have any means of verifying identities upon account creation, we must verify copyright ownership through external means. We know that this content was previously published; copyright protection is automatically bestowed by US law. Hence, we can't use it unless we can positively identify its point of origin and verify that it is licensed compatibly for our use. Does Ms. Hunt have an official web presence? That might be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately she doesn't - this was set up to create more of a presence. If you simply look at the website to which you are referring, it is a website to purchase plays and includes official bios of all authors. Saying they have the copyright to the bio is like saying a Broadway Play has the copyright to an actors' bio when it is the actor who wrote it. Literally it is impossible for this website to own the copyright to any of the bios listed.Jvanbrink (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Just checking back in on this as I'd love to get the issue resolved this week. Thanks! 206.205.202.130 (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the pivotal point here for Wikipedia is that it was not published here first; if it's been published elsewhere, no matter where else, we must verify that it is copyright free. This is official policy. This is a challenge when there is no official web presence. If the website that is hosting the content can place a notice on it indicating that it is public domain or that its copyright is held by somebody else, we can work forward from there. (If they do the latter, they should specifically identify the copyright holder so that we have somebody in position to verify permission. If they do the former, then there are no remaining concerns unless the content has been published elsewhere as well.) If the website is not willing to host any such notice, there may be no alternative but to rewrite the content in original language. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I can simply rewrite the questionable sentences for simplicity sake. Is it possible to get the original formatting back on the page so that I can go in and edit it now instead of starting from scratch?206.205.202.130 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Any chance?206.205.202.130 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I can move it into your userspace so that you can work on it here, and when you're finished, it can be moved into article space. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much formatting, but what there is I've moved to User:Jvanbrink/Darlene Hunt. I included all the words you had wikilinked (or that somebody had) in case you need them again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm a total idiot - where can I access that? Please don't judge :-) 206.205.202.130 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. :) It's an unfamiliar environment for you. I know how strange that can be. As I said, there's not much. There's an infobox (the image has evidently been deleted). There's a list of words, a reference section that currently has nothing in it and some categories that are only visible when you edit the article. Click on the colored text here: User:Jvanbrink/Darlene Hunt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokes - i redid the page in my userspace. Do I move it into the article space or is that something that just happens? Jvanbrink (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry to say that it still has copyright issues. For instance:

Hunt starred with Sean Hayes (from TV's "Will & Grace") in Platonically Incorrect, a play which she also wrote. It played in Los Angeles and New York and was later developed into a pilot by ABC.

Is also present in [2]. Other content is also in that, which has only been changed a little bit: "She has been featured at the Chicago Comedy Festival and the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen and she performed as a member of the Groundlings Theatre in Los Angeles. Darlene has also has studied with Second City in Chicago." is very close to "...has been featured at the Chicago Comedy Festival and the U.S. Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. She has performed as a member of the world-famous Groundlings Theatre in Los Angeles and has studied with Second City in Chicago." This is a close paraphrase, and we would need permission for it just as much as for a direct copy. Content from the lead and throughout is also too close to this. Unless we can verify permission, this content needs to be written completely in original language to comply with our copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm just at a total loss here - given that it is someone's bio, there literally is no way around not paraphrasing. These are her credits. Jvanbrink (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is not the issue; the issue is paraphrasing too closely, particularly across several paragraphs. Avoiding copyright problems under the U.S. laws that govern us require putting content in original language and structure to avoid creating a derivative work. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some tips for avoiding these issues. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also has some tips, in the part marked "Adapting sources: paraphrasing and summarizing". I'm sure it must be frustrating having to rewrite content that belongs to you; unfortunately, if we can't verify the license, we have to treat the content as we do any other previously published text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you hate me by now, but I did indeed make some structural edits. Let me know if this is ok. Jvanbrink (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No, certainly, I don't hate you! I appreciate your patience and regret that it's necessary. :) I'll go take a look. If there are lingering issues, I'll try to give examples of what might be done differently. As an administrator on Wikipedia dealing with copyright issues, I do a lot of this, so I have some practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I go on, let me note that in all cases the colored text in my answers are links. You probably know that, but I don't want to risk confusing you. :)

All right; I've had a look. The opening paragraph remains almost verbatim from the bio here. The next paragraph is revised, but, not, I'm afraid enough to avoid being a derivative work. The following paragraph is also problematic. Compare the text in the article here: "and was later developed into a pilot by ABC. After writing nine more pilots for various networks, her series The Big C, starring Laura Linney, debuted on Showtime in August 2010 to much acclaim." to "and was later developed into a pilot by ABC. After writing nine more pilots for various networks, her show The Big C starring Laura Linney will be premiering on Showtime in August" in this source. The final paragraph is still very close to the original.

Not because I want to add to your difficulties, but I'm afraid we also cannot use quotes from Ms. Hunt unless you can provide a citation for them. Our Biographies of Living Persons policy will not let us attribute words to a living person that we cannot prove. I realize that you work for her, but we have no means to verify this on account creation, and our readers have no means to verify this on reading the article.

It is difficult to revise such brief content. Part of the problem here may be that you are thinking of this as a blurb bio such as would be appropriate in a source like that I linked, whereas that's not what Wikipedia is aiming to produce at all. Snagging one of her coworkers, take a look at the article for Laura Linney. It is a "B class" article, which is not one of Wikipedia's best but is a good way on the path towards it. One of the most important things to note about that article is that it uses many different published sources in creating its content. There are many good sources on Ms. Hunt that could be used: This is an excellent source, for instance. This is another. This looks like it could be another good one, though I can only see the abstract. The best way to produce an article for Ms. Hunt would be to assemble sources that pass Wikipedia's reliability standard, draw information from those diverse sources and weave them together in your own words into a new construction with proper citations.

Failing that, what you produce for her will likely have to be much briefer than what you've been writing. It is almost impossible to include full details from one or two sources without infringing on them. But here's an example of how you might do that:

Originally from Louisville, Kentucky, Hunt traveled widely for her education in theater, beginning outside of Chicago at Northwestern University before crossing the ocean to attend the Royal National Theatre in London and the Oxford-based British American Drama Academy. Even before graduation, she had begun writing and performing. She helped write and toured with the play No Problem (Dramatic Publishing) during college. She has also taken to the stage as one of The Groundlings improv comedy troupe in Los Angeles.

There are other ways of course. That's just one possible approach.

One trick is to take information from all throughout the sources you do have and not to try to rewrite it sentence by sentence. That's practically impossible from a copyright standpoint. Even if you switched out every word, the structure would still be present. And while information is not copyrightable, the selection of information to include may be.

Ideally, I would recommend you take a day or two with Google News and assemble some good sources. Not only will this help you deal with the copyright issue, but it will help you deal with the sourcing issue you are likely to encounter. Even if the article as it stood in your userpage right now were completely without copyright concerns, it would still not meet Wikipedia's basic policies on verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability; Wikipedia:No original research). If moved into article space, it would quickly attract "maintenance tags", like this one. Next to copyright, your two highest goals should really be to provide good sources and to keep the content neutral. (For the most part, this text does a good job, but you want to avoid words like "critically acclaimed" and "to much acclaim." It's okay to use these if you're quoting a reliable source that used them, but when you work for the subject it's a good idea to keep things as strictly neutral as you can. The "Conflict of Interest" tag is even less pleasant. See this one, for instance.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)