Talk:Operator monotone function
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Contested deletion[edit]
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because there is no copyright on Mwiki, and it was only used to create the page but it is being completed with other sources. Note that the Mwiki page has not been active for 6 years. And this is an important subject which should be in wikipedia. --Lilily (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
If you consider their FAQ it says "About the philosophy of the site: Who wrote all this? The users of the wiki. Several people. Whom do the pages belong to? Nobody." Also please consider that the article has now been reworked, the copy of the other page was made only to create this page before editing it. --Lilily (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed that tag, as it's no longer unambiguous given the new evidence. It may warrant revision deletion of the initial version, but I'd suggest giving it to more experience copyright people than myself for that judgement. The problem in my view is that the user who added that, as far as I can see, there's no copyright notice when editing the wiki. As such, the default position in copyright law is all rights reserved. Compare that to Wikipedia: above the publish button we have:
By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
- ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: what do you think of the copyright state? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Lilily and Bellezzasolo: we assume copyright unless there is an explicit release. I've sent this to CP to deal with, which will give the owners some time if there actually is a compatible license to make it known on the website. The only reason I didn't revdel or G12 was because their was a bit of a rework and the line about no one owning it, which implies that they might have a licensing policy somewhere that I couldn't find. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Please note that the last version of the page was very different from the website on which the original version was based, and as such there should not be copyright issues any more. If there is any left, that can be changed also, just let me know which lines you would like to be edited. Note also that maths formulas cannot be copyrighted. So please restore the page and it would be great to have a more constructive approach. Thanks Lilily (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- No. This is a complicated case as it involves the potential need to cure attribution, unknown copyright status of the source text, and the need to look to see if the subsequent additions followed our policy on close paraphrase. I don’t have the time to do all of this currently, and complex cases like this with multiple possible outcomes is precisely what the CP process is designed to look at. All the text is in the history and another user who is familiar with copyright will review it. If it has no issues, then they will simply revert me, which is fine, but there is enough here that needs to be looked at that I’d prefer it have another set of eyes.. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Hi, can you advance on this please, and ideally it would be someone with maths background that should decide. I don't know how you decide if a page is a copyright violation, but if it is a bot, can you run it on the current version ? Or just delete the page and create a new one with the latest version of the text ? This process should not take weeks. Thanks Lilily (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- The process takes time because we currently have a backlog of pages. It will be addressed eventually. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: This is now taking more than a month, and you have about 6 months of backlog. Can this be taken care of faster ? To start with, the wikipedia copyright guidlines state that you should let the original author correct the page, which was not the case. The page was taken down before I could modify it, and there are not even criteria about what score from what bot counts as acceptable. Anyways, if wikipedia is still something collaborative, the please work on pages rather than taking them down. It has become very difficult to do anything but minimal modifications to pages. Lilily (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- The process takes time because we currently have a backlog of pages. It will be addressed eventually. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Hi, can you advance on this please, and ideally it would be someone with maths background that should decide. I don't know how you decide if a page is a copyright violation, but if it is a bot, can you run it on the current version ? Or just delete the page and create a new one with the latest version of the text ? This process should not take weeks. Thanks Lilily (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- No. This is a complicated case as it involves the potential need to cure attribution, unknown copyright status of the source text, and the need to look to see if the subsequent additions followed our policy on close paraphrase. I don’t have the time to do all of this currently, and complex cases like this with multiple possible outcomes is precisely what the CP process is designed to look at. All the text is in the history and another user who is familiar with copyright will review it. If it has no issues, then they will simply revert me, which is fine, but there is enough here that needs to be looked at that I’d prefer it have another set of eyes.. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Please note that the last version of the page was very different from the website on which the original version was based, and as such there should not be copyright issues any more. If there is any left, that can be changed also, just let me know which lines you would like to be edited. Note also that maths formulas cannot be copyrighted. So please restore the page and it would be great to have a more constructive approach. Thanks Lilily (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed[edit]
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.ma.utexas.edu/mediawiki/index.php/Operator_monotone_function. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: I've done my best to restart the page, but I have only university-level maths and this is over my head – please feel free to fix! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)