Talk:All That I'm Living For (Evanescence song)
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
IT HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED ON EVTHREADS OR EVANESCENCE.COM, YOU CANT PUT ANYTHING UP JUST BECAUSE OF WORD OF MOUTH! Zacanescence 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hunster, i dont know how to delete pages, so can you please? i took all the writing down, it was just the lyrics, reviews of the song (which were also reviews for the whole album) and that amy announced it on evthreads, (I checked, she didnt)
- I have removed the lyrics, obvious copyright violation. I have also proposed the article for deletion, which anyone can contest. If that occurs, it can be nominated for the Articles for Deletion process. Fan-1967 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Fan, though I have a feeling this would have qualified for Speedy delete. Completely unverifiable. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unverifiable is not a Speedy Deletion criterion. No criterion seems to apply. Need to take it through the process. Fan-1967 07:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that was just off the top of my head, and my head has been through a very long day :) Wasn't thinking. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Unverifiable is not a Speedy Deletion criterion. No criterion seems to apply. Need to take it through the process. Fan-1967 07:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Fan, though I have a feeling this would have qualified for Speedy delete. Completely unverifiable. -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Infringement
[edit]I've alredy saw the same information at the Evanescence Reference. The copycat hasn't even changed something. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Man... that has got to be the least attractive template on the whole of Wikipedia.
- Probably.
- Hopefully? --Dreaded Walrus 01:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the page it mentions is clearly licensed under Creative Commons Public Domain. That means that even if it is copied word for word (which it is), it isn't technically a copyright violation, right? --Dreaded Walrus 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that way. Taken from the template on the article:
- If this text is in the public domain or is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia: Explain this on this article's discussion page, with reference to evidence.
- So, evidence. At the bottom of the page (as with all pages on the wiki, presumably) it contains this image, which links to the Creative Commons Public Domain license. Further along the page's footer, the words "Content is available under Public Domain" is clearly visible. So I'm assuming it is public domain, and therefore able to be copied, and, by its very definition, cannot be a copyright violation. --Dreaded Walrus 02:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I've just added the article to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2007_January_20/Articles, as mentioned at the top of the template, as this step was forgotten by the IP that added the template. --Dreaded Walrus 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems that way. Taken from the template on the article:
- Also, the page it mentions is clearly licensed under Creative Commons Public Domain. That means that even if it is copied word for word (which it is), it isn't technically a copyright violation, right? --Dreaded Walrus 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Ok. But please, instead of adding more posts...just edit your posts. Armando.O (talk|contribs) 02:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Beating around the bush
[edit]Perhaps it would just be best if the article was placed in AfD, both for non-verifiability (concert announcement) and for not meeting any music notability guidelines (proposed and present). -- Huntster T • @ • C 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)