Talk:H. P. Lovecraft (band)

message: :Image:Hplovecraft.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 this Wikipedia article 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. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hplovecraft.jpg

message: "H.P. Lovecraft was an American psychedelic rock group in the 1960s, later resurrected as Lovecraft for two less-acclaimed albums in the 1970s." Less acclaimed than what? This is clumsily written and should be edited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.19.152 (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point - I've modified it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Less acclaimed" ?

message: I have put back the template for H.P. Lovecraft, the author, on this page.  They did not simply take his name - they were authorised to do so by his estate, and composed and performed musical interpretations of several of his writings.  Hence, in my view, worthy of association with the writer through his template.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of H. P. Lovecraft template 

message: OK, so I've just settled down to start adding suitable inline refs to this article and one of the books I'm using is Peter Buckley's Rough Guide to Rock. Well, it turns out that the first four paragraphs of the H. P. Lovecraft "History" section are copied verbatim from Buckley's book. Literally word for word the same. Everything from "H. P. Lovecraft fashioned a hybrid of acid-folk-rock..." down to "...baroque harpsichord passages and the chiming of a genuine 1811 ship’s bell." Obviously I'll be rewording this text considerably to avoid copyright violation issues but I just though I'd mention it because this kind of thing just blows my mind! How could anyone think that copying directly from a published book would be acceptable for Wikipedia??? --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just had a look back through the edit summary to find out who the culprit was and actually, it seems as if this non-original text was innocently imported by Nareek on July 23, 2006 from the article about the author H. P. Lovecraft.  A look back at the edit summary of that article shows that this copied text was first added by an annoymous IP editor on July 18, 2006. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm very surprised if that is the case, because some of the text in that section is text I added here, some 4 years ago, and in a number of later edits, and I don't own, nor have I ever knowingly seen or read, the Buckley book.  Is there a possibility of reverse plagiarism - that they copied us?  Having said that, I can't recall checking to see where the text that I began my edits from originated, so there could be a copyvio issue there predating my edits.  I'm also conscious that, 4 years ago, I was less than punctilious about adding refs, and I'd be happy to see this article improved in that direction.  This article is very good, reliable and thorough, and I hope we don't get too hung up on whether or not the fact that it is self-published makes it unreliable.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

text: PS: Does the book mention WP as a source, by any chance?  If not, and if they have got text from here (which, from my point of view, looks highly possible), they could be in trouble per WP:REUSE.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rough Guide to Rock was published in 2003, long before the Wikipedia article existed, so it can't be a case of reverse-plagiarism. You're absolutely right that your additions are not plagiarized, but the text that you were adding to (as shown in the diff link you provided) is what has been copied.  I'm not accusing any regular contributor to this article of plagiarism, the culprit was an IP user who added this text to the H. P. Lovecraft article on July 18, 2006 (see here). User:Nareek then innocently relocated the text here, obviously unaware that it was copied. The Rough Guide to Rock is available on Google Books, check out page 510 here and tell me that the text from "H. P. Lovecraft fashioned a hybrid of acid-folk-rock" through to "chiming of a genuine 1811 ship's bell" hasn't been copied verbatim. As for refs, yes, I'll be adding plenty in the coming days and of course re-writing the plagiarized text. I think the thing with the nickwarburton.com blog entry is that it'll be OK to use it sparingly if we can't find a more  relialble ref to support a given statement. Regardless, it should probably be added as an external link though. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All good - well done for spotting the copyvio. I'll let you get on with it, and take a look at a later stage.  I probably have some offline sources if necessary (including the original albums, purchased circa 1970 - may be worth a few quid now!)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch with the bogus URL! When I added the "External links" section I just copied and pasted from another article and I remember thinking to myself "now, don't forget to change that url before you save the page". D'oh! :-D By the way, I'm truly envious of your original vinyl issues of the H. P. Lovecraft LPs. I'm a bit of a vinyl freak myself and yes, they are worth good money if they're in good condition. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: With regards to your earlier comment about using the Nick Warburton article and not getting too hung up about whether its self-published Ghmyrtle, I've just learned that Warburton actually wrote the sleeve notes for the H. P. Lovecraft compilation Dreams in the Witch House: The Complete Philips Recordings. I reckon that it's a fairly safe bet that this blog article is nothing more than an extended and unedited version of those sleeve notes (I don't have this particular comp so I can't confirm this, I'm afraid). I was using the Warburton article as an inline ref anyway, but this new info certainly strengthens my confidence in it. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gross plagiarism in this article