Talk:Cass Fox
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Tags[edit]
I have added the unsourced, NPOV, and cleanup tags to the article. As of now, it reads more like a fan site than an ecyclopedia. There are sentences without periods. The article is quotation-heavy, and none of the quotations have citations. There are unverifiable NPOV statements like "Often when you’re living a half-life, it takes a near-death to bring you back to reality" and "all of her songs come from the heart." I will try to edit it some, but I really don't know anything about Cass Fox, so while I can remove bad information, I'm not sure if I'll be able to add much good information. --Muéro 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
The reference i had placed right at the start was intended to show that pretty much all of the biography had come from her web-site, if you remove this yes it is unsourced and does read biased, that's why i placed that reference ther so that people would know it was a biography written by cass herself. --Chappy84 09:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the citation because it was not placed correctly. But after you re-added it, I went to the website and realized almost the entire article is a copyright violation. I removed all of the copyvio material, which also meant I could remove the NPOV tag. --Muéro 12:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not one to try and cause problems, i was wondering however - there isn't a copyright shown anywhere on her own website, therefore is it copyrighted and as such shouldn't be on wikipedia or is it, as a lot of it is shown on other sites about her and reviews about her, that it isn't copyrighted and is freely available for use? --Chappy84 15:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- From Wikipedia's official policy on copyrights: "All works are copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." You must either own the copyright to the material or acquire the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL. You can, however, summarize, paraphrase, or even quote copyrighted works as long as proper citations are provided. (Quotations should be used only when exact wording is necessary.) --Muéro 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I felt from the adjustments a made, by re-writing the biography, but just including quotes from what Cass actually said, and referencing these quotes, that i was complying with Wikipedia's official policy on copyrights. If you compare 09:58, 15 September 2006 to 18:23, 19 September 2006 then i think it is re-written enough but if not, please revert the article to the version shown on Cass Fox/Temp. Thanks
- Copying a bunch of text and editing every 5th word is much different than "paraphrasing." A proper paraphrase should have the same meaning as the original, but should be completely rewritten. It should not have any exact wordings that are the same as the original. It should not have the exact same sentence structure as the original. I have reverted the article back to the version from three days ago. --Muéro 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- although I didn't change every 5th word I can see what you meant by me having a SIMILAR sentence structure, I was simply trying to get as much legitimate information on to the page as possible. If I have time I will do a full re-write of the biography in my own words structure and submit this for consideration.--Chappy84 22:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Copying a bunch of text and editing every 5th word is much different than "paraphrasing." A proper paraphrase should have the same meaning as the original, but should be completely rewritten. It should not have any exact wordings that are the same as the original. It should not have the exact same sentence structure as the original. I have reverted the article back to the version from three days ago. --Muéro 21:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I felt from the adjustments a made, by re-writing the biography, but just including quotes from what Cass actually said, and referencing these quotes, that i was complying with Wikipedia's official policy on copyrights. If you compare 09:58, 15 September 2006 to 18:23, 19 September 2006 then i think it is re-written enough but if not, please revert the article to the version shown on Cass Fox/Temp. Thanks
- From Wikipedia's official policy on copyrights: "All works are copyrighted unless they either fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." You must either own the copyright to the material or acquire the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL. You can, however, summarize, paraphrase, or even quote copyrighted works as long as proper citations are provided. (Quotations should be used only when exact wording is necessary.) --Muéro 18:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not one to try and cause problems, i was wondering however - there isn't a copyright shown anywhere on her own website, therefore is it copyrighted and as such shouldn't be on wikipedia or is it, as a lot of it is shown on other sites about her and reviews about her, that it isn't copyrighted and is freely available for use? --Chappy84 15:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)