Talk:The Client List

Speedy Deletion for Copyright violations

I am the creator of the article. The story is written by ME, I did not take it from anywhere. Please quote the website that you think I have taken the plot from, if you can.
As for the source for the ratings, it's not that reliable but it is the ONLY source for now, I promise to update it with more reliable source when such source appears.
The page isn't a dublicate, the previous one was deleted because I copied the story from the official site and now I have written my own resume and updated the article. I don't think that the article must be deleted only because of an unreliable source, which soon enough will be replaced with a reliable one. Waterflame96 (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever contribution you have made so far is stolen material taken from a wide variety of sites. I have already reported you to ANI regarding this issue. The plot is word from word from the official site, and the ratings is word from word from the source you list. You have already received dozens of warnings on your talk page about the inappropriateness of stealing other people's words. The unreliable source was IMDB which was removed. The article is up for deletion because you have violated Wikipedia policy and US law by continuing to create them using material copy/pasted from other websites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not, I repeat DO NOT, acuse me before you see and you make sure you're right! Read the plot I have written. I will compare the version from the official site and mine:

Official Site: Inspired by a true story, this Lifetime Original Movie is the story of Samantha Horton (Jennifer Love Hewitt), a former Texas homecoming queen and physical therapist. When both she and her husband, Rex (Teddy Sears), are laid off from their jobs, Samantha accepts an offer to work at a massage studio in a nearby town, not realizing that the other staff members are actually prostitutes who service a clientele of wealthy and powerful businessmen. Eventually realizing what goes on behind closed doors, but desperate to provide for her family, Samantha goes along for the ride. But when the police raid the business and Samantha is arrested, she ends up as a key witness in the case — putting high-profile johns in handcuffs and bringing a small Texas town to its knees. Mine: Inspired by a true story, the film tells the story of Samantha Horton. She has 3 children and a lovely hausband but they don't have jobs and they need money. She once was a Miss Texas and now when she wants something she uses her look to help her get it. One day, when Samantha is looking for a new job, she finds a massage saloon. They hire her and she is shown a typical session but it's far more than she expected as the girls give more pleasure to their clients than a massager would have to. Samantha quits at first but then, when she realizes that her family needs the money she goes back and stars working and getting an impressive payment. The clients like her so much that they buy her jewlery and she even recieves 3 marrige proposals. She eventually grows tired of working with so many clients and starts using drugs to be able to work and deal with her family. One of the girls there who has been working for 2 months couldn't take it anymore and Samantha tells her to go to the church and tell them what she feels she has to say. Some time later the police break in the saloon and arrest everyone, including Samantha for prostitution and drugs abuse for Samantha. One of her friends, a lawyer, helps her to get her sentence from at least 2 years to 4 weeks. Before she goes to jail, Samantha says goodbye to her hausband and her kids, as they go to live separate. After she gets out of jail, on her and her daughter's birthday, Samantha's hausband forgives her and they start over.
Think again when you acuse someone and would you please at least apologize! Waterflame96 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor changes to the wording that actually make your new version factually incorrect (which I will note you changed after after your first version was deleted), do not fix the situation. Nor does it address your stealing of the other content of this article. I'm not going to apologize for pointing out the obvious. You have continuously and consistently created articles using copyrighted material. When you are called on it, you make minor changes or log out and do so as an IP, or just remove the warnings. This is NOT acceptable behavior. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my Goddness, YOUR behavior is not acceptable. First, I swear in my life that I wrote this plot myself and did not copy a single word from anywhere. And where exatcly do you see factual mistakes. My first version was deleted, ok. I fixed it but I can never create an article for the movie because I did it wrong the first time?

And by the way, what do you want me to write? Of course it will be the same but with different words, that's the point! That's what the warning for the previous article said - "Say it with your own words", so I did! And for the record, MY plot and the one from the official site are almost completely different. Mine describes better and uses details and the other one is just and short summary. Waterflame96 (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I suggest you respond to the Administrator's noticeboard about the issue. Arguing here with me or trying to justify copying material does not show a good faith desire to cease violating policy or to be a good contributor here. As I noted there, this is not about this single film, but multiple articles you have created with the same issue, which were mostly fixed by other folks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been kept and has been completely rewritten to remove all copyrighted material. Please take some time to read the ANI thread and the notes I left on your talk page. I also encourage you to learn some basics of Wikipedia editing regarding formatting (br tags should not be used in article prose, for example) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnmaFinotera, in this instance, the cited material was evidently a press release. With press releases, the intention of the author is for the material therein to be used by the media without any expectation of attribution. Notwithstanding, here, the press release was cited. You supplied, yourself, other, more objective sources, and that's fine, of course. But in considering whether there is possible infringement, or whether it is fair use, it's ok to consider the type of source, whether facts or opinions are being referenced, the extent of verbatim use, and whether the source is cited. It's not to say you or any other author was right or wrong, and the article is certainly better for your improvements, but the deletion of facts just because they're substantially from one source might not be necessary without more. Bsherr (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if it was a press release or not. It was still a WP:COPYVIO per Wikipedia policy, irregardless of whether or not the company wanted its plot summary spammed everywhere. Nor was the plot the main issue in this second version (as it was in the first version which was a complete copy/paste hence its CSDing by an administrator), but the blatant copy/pasting of content from other sites. It is infringement, plain and simply...the only issue is whether to delete the entire article or just remove the offending material. As you, though a non-admin, removed the CSD, I removed the offending material and redid the entire article to ensure no infringement remains. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 07:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said I'm incorrect in calling it fair use. Could you explain? The fact that it's a press release is relevant, because one of the four factors in determining fair use is the nature of the copied work. Right? You do agree that if it were fair use, it would be acceptable under Wikipedia policy, right? Regardless, the WP:AGF thing to do would have been to refer the article to WP:CP, not accuse the original author (maybe you have some history with them, but the above discussion could be more understanding). And telling the other users that it's futile to discuss it with you on the talk page only compounds it. It's true I'm no admin, but anyone can remove a request for SD. If I'm mistaken about anything, let me know, and I'll know for the future. Bsherr (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained to you why you were mistaken on your talk page, and no, the AGF thing to do is not refer it to WP:CP. Copyvio CSD exists for a reason, and it was wrong of you to remove it as you are neither an admin nor an experienced enough editor to make that sort of call. And no, violating WP:COPYRIGHT is not acceptable under fair use claims. It was not a quote being used for a single statement, it was blatant copy/pasting. As I also already explained on your talk page and in the ANI thread, this is NOT an isolated incident. The ANI has diffs showing multiple issues with this one editor continually making articles consisting of large amounts of copyvio material. I have no "history" with them under than spotting the first version of this article, which was an even worse copyvio, after he accidentally overwrote a totally unrelated article with it then self corrected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here I am. I admit that the previous article was done totally wrong. And maybe the fact that it's a press release makes it right but... why do we argue about an old article which doesn't exist now. The article has been rewritten(I see AnmaFinotera has rewritten my rewritten plot, which I am thankful for) and now it has realiable sources and no copyvio. If it's just to decide wether it was wrong or not, I've said it. I know I copied in the first article and that was wrong but I don't see ANYTHING wrong with this article - the plot wasn't copied and everything was right. Maybe just the source for the ratings but I found the Variety article right before I opened the article here, so I would have updated it with the new source. Now let's leave this alone, it's good enough now. And once again I thank AnmaFinotera for adding more reliable sources and adding some things in the plot. I hope that now it's clear that this article(before AnmaFinotera edited) was right and the only thing that just might be wrong is the ratings source. Waterflame96 (talk) 10:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, it is not "clear" that the article was right. You were very much in the wrong for your blatant stealing of content (which despite Bsherr's uninformed claims above, is already agreed to by others in the ANI thread you continue ignoring). The source of the ratings wasn't reliable, but that is not the problem, it was that you stole their words and claimed them as your own. I urge you, for your own sake, to stop ignoring the notes on your talk page and ignoring the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents thread about you. If you continue ignoring these discussions, you will end up blocked. I presume this is not what you desire, so you need to properly discuss things, explain your actions in ALL of the articles you have copyvioed in (such as every Ghost Whisperer episode article you have made to date), and confirm that you do realize it is now never appropriate to just copy text from other web sites and paste it in Wikipedia articles willy nilly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm understanding the points of contention more clearly now. If it were a word-for-word, you would be correct, it likely would not be fair use. But when I read the plot section, I didn't see word-for-word copying, only similarities. Looking back, I still don't see word-for-word, only similarities (which concurs with Waterflame's claims that he or she rewrote the plot), but I acknowledge that your comprehension might be more or less thorough than mine. If that's the only point of disagreement, I understand your position now. Bsherr (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just changing around words is not enough to avoid copyvio. To avoid copyvio, a good practice is to read the sources, put them away, and then without looking at them, write down in your own words the result. By referring to the sources while writing an article, you almost inevitably fall into copyvio. RJ (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a British movie?

A few weeks ago I saw an older British movie with a very similar story. Sadly I can't remember the name.91.39.85.156 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]