User talk:Xero/Archive 1

Just to get this started.

It is a copyvio from here: [1]. What Rastafarian tripe. Stop putting your opinions on this page, the Rastas are clearly a legitimate part of jamaica. please source your claims that they are tripe, --SqueakBox 00:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the text you added to Jamaica contains material from multiple sources. For instance, "By the end of the 16th century the Arawak population had been entirely wiped out, suffering from hard labor, ill-treatment and European diseases to which they had no resistance" appears to be copied from "http://www.pilotguides.com/destination_guide/central_america_and_caribbean/jamaica/sugar_plantations.php", and "Vast numbers died as a result of forced labor and thousands more committed suicide by hanging themselves or drinking poisonous cassava juice to escape from their bondage. Mothers are said to have murdered their children rather then let them grow up and suffer the slavery they had known under Spanish rule" quoted in [2], among other places. I know copyright rules can be confusing, but in general, we can not use others' material on Wikipedia unlesss it is released into the public domain or the coyright holder agrees to release it under the GFDL. In my opinion the number of copyright violations justifies reversion of the page. User:Xero, please feel free to continue to edit it but write in your own words, please. Do not simply revert the page to the version with the copyright violations. If you have questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you read and understand what I wrote? I'm Jamaican, Rastafarianism is not a religion it is a patchwork system of beliefs. I never called Rastafarianism tripe I called the edit you keep reverting to tripe. Where it has Rastafarianism's biggest contributions listed as dreadlocks and grean-black-yellow clothing. i found that offensive and I removed it, unless you've sat with and talked with Rastas or the Maroons at night with the drums going off over a bowl of pepperpot soup, or actually fled the fucking island during the 80's elections because gunmen shot anyone who weren't voting the way they liked, you don't get to question how much I know about the Rastas or the island. Some white kid with dreadlocks and funky striped shirt is not a rasta no matter how much bloody pot he's smoked.

And seeing as thats what started this little fight i'm assuming thats where youre coming from? A white british kid right? Who sampled some pot and wished himself a Rasta?

If the site does not explicitly list the text as copyrighted material is it still copyrighted?

If it does not state either way it must be assumed to be copyright material, --SqueakBox 00:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) BTW I live in the Caribbean myself, and I do know about Rastafari. i haven't made assumptions about you, so don't make (wild and inaccurate) assumptions about me. I certainly have not said I am a Rastafarian, why on earth do you assume I am one. Or that I have ever sampled ganja. Or that I am a kid. Or that I don't have some idea of what it is like to be black. You sound very full of yourself, and only want to engage in personal attack. Stop it. I notice that you may be from Jamaica but you are in the rich US now, so stop trying to pretend you are supercool at my expense. If you don't like what is in Jamaica on the Rastas write a better version, or maybe I will if I get round to it, --SqueakBox 00:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is. See Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ for more information. Under U.S. copyright law, creative works are automatically copyrighted unless the copyright holder specifies otherwise (it didn't always used to be this way). That means, in general, if you find something on a web site, you cannot just copy and paste it here, even if there is no explicit copyright notice. Works in the public domain. Works can be placed in the public domain by the copyright holder; for instance, I have released several photographs I took to the public domain—anyone can use them. Also, works of the U.S. Government are public domain, by law. Copyrights also expire after a period of time, which is why material from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica are used on this site sometimes. However, even when using public domain material, it is a good idea to credit your source, and if possible, rewrite it anyway. For that matter, citing your sources is always a good idea. Now while the wording is copyrighted, the information is not. What this means is that you are free to research multiple sources, synthesize the information, and add to the article in your own words. I know this can be confusing. Does this make sense? — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A little advice

Please be more polite in your edit summaries. Calling people an idiot and a prick does not help your case, and may lead to your being blocked for violating the policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Don't take this dispute personally; we're trying to build a high-quality encyclopedia here, and we have to take copyright concerns very seriously. If you find yourself getting heated over this matter, then log off for a while, do something else, and come back when you've calmed down.-gadfium 00:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rastafari

I have rewritten the Rasta section in Jamaica. I hope it is more to your liking. Feel free to improve on it, --SqueakBox 01:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

You had me going for a moment. I thought you knew something about Rastafari. I know better now. Do try to source your claim that Rastas don't believe Selassie is God before reverting what I wrote, and that they aren't really into the Israelite thing, --SqueakBox 01:26, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)