Talk:Oswego Recreational Trail

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article lacks references.
	It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Untitled

This page may be a copyright infringement: [1]. --Coppertwig 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One would need to know why you think it is before being able to say that it isn't. RussNelson 05:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is just about an exact copy of text on the web page I mentioned. There is no assertion given that you are the same person as the owner of that website, nor that the owner of that website owns the copyright of the material. It's not clear to me whether it would be the writer of the letter who would own the copyright. Coppertwig 17:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to visit User:RussNelson? How many times do I need to say that [2] and User:RussNelson are the same person? In case once isn't enough, count me here as having said it again. RussNelson 01:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the red tape, and I'm a newbie at copyright stuff here so just point me to the appropriate section of policy if I get something wrong. To establish for such purposes that you're the owner of the website, I would think it would be enough to post a notice on the website stating that Wikipedia user "RussNelson" is yourself, and then on the talk page of each article where such a question would come up, post a message which tells exactly where on the website to find that notice. I think the copyright information should be displayed clearly here on the talk page, not require a person to examine the article history or user pages.

I think you need to address the question of who owns the copyright. It's still not at all clear to me that you as the recipient of the letter have the authority to license it.

Here are some standard instructions you may find helpful -- they're more likely to be correct than my suggestions:

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Oswego Recreational Trail and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Oswego Recreational Trail with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Oswego Recreational Trail.

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Coppertwig 16:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A list of facts about the trail is barely copyrightable. To claim copyright, you would have to assert that your arrangement of the facts expresses your creativity. Now, given that it's that person's job to promulgate information about the trail, do you really expect her to not want me to publish that information? Please stop this, you're wasting everybody's time. RussNelson 17:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. I think Wikipedia takes copyright seriously and that a guess as to what someone would want is not considered sufficient assurance of copyright status; also that copying a couple of paragraphs word-for-word is usually considered a violation if permission isn't established. I'm going to put a template on it so that someone more knowledgeable than me will take a look at it. --Coppertwig 21:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idiot can insert that template without cause .... and an idiot has in this case. Someone more knowledgable than you HAS taken a look at it. Would you PLEASE GO AWAY and STOP VANDALIZING MY ARTICLE?? Sheesh! Since you (whoever the hell you are, Mr. Twig, or can I call you Copper?) obviously have the tenacity and intelligence of a bulldog, I have modified the external page in question to include a GFDL license. Now, if there is a copyright problem, it is between Mary and I, not between you and I. I trust that this will satisfy your small brain. Now Go Away and make a change that actually improves Wikipedia! RussNelson 01:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(<<<outdent) Although the external web page now states GFDL license at the bottom, the page alleges that the originator of the material is someone other than the owner of the website, and I'm under the impression from the above that permission has not been obtained from the originator. --Coppertwig 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article completely. I'm sure that you think you've improved Wikipedia, however all that you've done is cause the additional article that I would have written with the time you caused me to waste to not exist. I wonder which article you destroyed? We'll never know, but we can be sure that wikipedia is worse-off by one article because of your shenanigans, Mr. Twig. Next time contribute something to Wikipedia rather than making it worse. RussNelson 18:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for rewriting the article. I'm guessing it's probably OK now -- although I think you were supposed to put the rewritten version on the suggested subpage rather than deleting the copyvio template. --Coppertwig 16:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]