Talk:compete

RFC discussion: July 2012–September 2017
Not exactly sure what to do with this etymological addition - can somebody rewrite it or something? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. It's probably valid but copied verbatim from a copyrighted source, it even links to this source to confirm that it's a copyright violation. So first job is to revert it and mask the edit, then add back whatever information is useful with an original wording. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it a copyright violation when it's quoted and attributed? --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I don't know that this one was 'attributed' so much as it had the URL at the end. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Μετάknowledge: I think you're confusing "copyright violation" (a legal problem) with "plagiarism" (an ethical problem). Attribution is not generally a factor in copyright violation. (With some exceptions. Example exception 1: certain copyrighted works, such as Wiktionary entries, are publically licensed with an attribution requirement (via CC-BY-SA or GFDL or whatnot), so of course it's a copyright-violation to violate that license by using them without attribution. Example exception 2: certain kinds of fair use only make sense if it's clear what the original source is. It's hard to claim "it was just a book review!" if the "review" doesn't mention the book.) —Ruakh TALK 12:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks. I try to avoid the two, and I also try to avoid legal discussions, so there you go. I would always rather refer situations like these to RFC and do manual cleanup myself. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good now. --Pickyevent (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)