Talk:Adjustment Team

message: I found :Image:Adjustment team.jpg and noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. Someone will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If it was obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the  tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as  or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If there are other files on this page, consider checking that they have specified their source and are tagged properly, too. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unspecified source for [[:Image:Adjustment team.jpg]]

message: :Image:Adjustment team.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Adjustment team.jpg

message: I deleted the comparison to the film Dark City after reading the article on that film. Left what there currently is of a plot synopsis largely as a gap filler until I (or someone else) has time to write a plot synopsis. To me this appears to have been written by someone who hasn't read the story and didn't get the information from an accurate source. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot synopsis 

message: LOOP4321, your sole Wickipedia contributions have been to remove references to Copyright Registration Number RE0000190631 related copyright status in Adjustment Team. The section is verifiably referenced with reliable sources and it is notable that the story is in the public domain. You have not made edit summaries about deleting this text section or discussed this on the talk page. If you are editing in good faith please explain your reason for deleting this section. I believe Wickipedia has a feature to request opinions from disinterested editors when editors of an article cannot agree on something. If necessary we could do something of that sort to resolve this amicably. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what all this "Copyright Registration Number RE0000190631" stuff is about but this is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA, not a legal document.  There is no need to include such detail.  It's reasonable to identify it as being in the public domain and then mention that there is "a copyright dispute"; any specifics or case numbers can be left in the reference/citation. Mrstonky (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright section deletions. Please explain reason if this is good faith editing. 

message: 69.108.83.187, if you have valid objections to the sections you deleted please explain those objections on the talk page. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A TraceRoute for this IP showed something familiar from checking on a problem with the philipkdickfans.com site.  See Google Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for AS21844 (THEPLANET) and Google Safe Browsing Diagnostic page for philipkdickfans.com. AS21844 (THEPLANET) seems to have some technical relationship to both the IP address and the site. I don't know whether this has any significance but someone with more IT knowledge might know if it may indicate anything more than coincidence. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 deletions in 7 minutes with no explanation. Please explain reason for deleting Copyright status and Movie adaptation sections if this is good faith editing. 

message: I've removed the "refimprove" tag because I believe the article's references have been improved enough that the tag is no longer appropriate. Comments about this are welcome. If it is believed the tag removal was not justified, I'd appreciate some explanation of what further improvements are needed to justify the tag's removal. If it was inappropriate for me to make the decision since it is based on references I've added, please inform me of that and where it would be correct to ask for a tag's removal in such a situation. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "refimprove" tag because I believe it is no longer appropriate. 

message: I added the facsimile version from wikimedia commons, and a text version someone put together (link to text version was accidentally found here : http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/10/first-look-the-adjustment-bureau/ )
As this works is public domain in the USA, it will allows US residents to read and use the text in any way they feel necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.239.164.161 (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added facsimile and text versions 

message: There was a link to an online version of the text a few days ago which no longer appears on the page.  I believe the debate over public domain status is resolved, and would like to inquire as to why the link was removed. --Redknight (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to online text 

message: I added "United States" to one sentence for clarification. I also changed section title back to "Copyright status and copyfraud" which more accurately reflects content.
The Canadian copyright status of the story (and derivative works), the basis for claim of copyright and who the Canadian copyright would belong to if valid is a recent topic of discussion due to a DMCA notice. As noted at http://www.sffaudio.com/?p=28808&cpage=1, DMCA is not Canadian law but a DMCA notice was used anyway.  Copyfraud is relevant to all the subjects because the story may be protected by copyright in Canada based on the original 1954 copyright but the Canadian copyright holder may not be The Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust because there may not have been a valid transfer of rights from the author's children to The Philip K. Dick Testamentary Trust under Canadian law. Similar issues concerning who owns the rights could exist in other nations which don't apply the rule of the shorter term to US works.  Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status and copyfraud section  

message: What connection does the author quote have to this work?  The quote doesn't seem relevant to Adjustment Team in any way. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - have deleted for now...of course it may be reverted if there is a genuine reason for it being there I guess...  Greg1138 (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author quote 

message: ...is now unreadable, seems MOSTLY irrelavent and doesn't belong here.  I don't get it? Can someone better at this stuff than me tidy it up? Greg1138 (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it is unreadable. Talk to Refrigerator Heaven about that. Over the past few years, he's flooded the article with irrelevant and tedious details about copyright. He's attached a mostly irrelevant image and he's written an overly-long plot synopsis that doesn't adequately introduce the setting of the story. I really don't think all the work has made the article a better one. Knyght27 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section as original research. It reads like somebody's opinion about the copyright status of the work - which may well be correct, but we don't engage in our own legal research, we only reproduce the research of others. So unless there's a reliable source addressing the question of the copyright status of the work, we can't do so in our article.  Sandstein  20:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That was not original research you deleted although you did delete reliable sources which ironically were mostly links to research of others.  Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should not repeatedly revert the section's removal by others, that's edit-warring. I've started a discussion at WP:NORN#Adjustment Team.  Sandstein  05:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Sandstein , I suggest you review the definition of edit warring. It does not include reverting vandalism or reverting blanking as good faith editing which is what the many reversions of blanking by myself and many others have been. Also, in the English-speaking areas where I have lived the way you used the word "you" in this context is singular implying the reversions of blanking have been only by me, not by a number of editors (and bots). This is misleadingly to many English speakers and I think contributed to Mike Christie's evaluation of what commentors had previously said. It may possibly have also have discouraged him from checking contributions from commenters on this page and therefore given undue weight to some of the commenters. Your contributions clearly indicate you are a legitemate editor who has made many edits but this is not the case for all the commentors on this page. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I should also have mentioned you removed the section twice stating original research as the reason the first time without actually describing what was original research. "[I]t reads like original search" is merely an opinion about writing style. "So unless there's a reliable source addressing the copyright status of the work" seems an unambigious assertion no reliable source doing so was used. Perhaps I misunderstand. Regardless, what sources are you challenging the status of on and on what basis are you asserting they are not reliable sources? I can't properly dispute or agree without that information although my impression is that you are challeging reliable sources which have previously been questioned and their status as reliable sources was correctly described/explained in the past. I also note at least one editor has been banned for blanking copyfraud information about RE0000190631 but I'm not aware of anyone having a problem from Wikpedia for mentioning it. Indeed, the information has been in an FA ("The Last Of The Masters") and the story "Adjustment Team" is on two Wikimedia sites with no DMCA notices issued. Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

text: IPs are even less anonymous when they are part of a corporate domain, Unsigned Comment. Is this an official statement from Paramount? Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Copyright Status and Copyfraud" Section... 

message: Some of the old content is gone and not all will be restored. New content is being added. It's a very good resource again and safe to link to.  Refrigerator Heaven (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip K. Dick Fansite is clean of malware now 

message: Why is there no information in the article about the copyright and fraud related lawsuits and other disputes related to this story? Why all the opposition to mentioning copyright status in the article? 199.250.57.231 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem as long as the analysis of the copyright dispute is done by an external source. The only issue was that the argument was being made in this article, which is against the no original research rule. If someone else is making the argument, we can cite it and include it here. —howcheng  {chat} 03:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright and fraud lawsuits