|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:AnonG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, AnonG!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
Nice work with the references by the way. I'll have to do some reading when I get the chance! 
postate 17:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- sorry, I am not a native english speaking person. So my contribution is limited to references and new external links. regards, AnonG
- It's good. We need more references and all contributions are welcome. postate 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have the rights to copy the full stuff from these articles:
- may I copy them here, correcting internal links ? AnonG
- I'm not sure. The website you've linked to is under the GFDL liscence, and material released under it isn't allowed to be released under the CC-BY-SA liscence which we have (with the exception of a brief period when Wikipedia switched). postate 17:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Since that site uses GFDL 1.2 and we use CC-BY-SA 3.0, you can't automatically copy it. However if the users who wrote those articles all agree to release it under our license, then it is ok. It seems they were exclusively written by wikisysop, is that you? There was one user who just fixed some typos and spelling, that isn't a problem. -- Nx / talk 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. The website you've linked to is under the GFDL liscence, and material released under it isn't allowed to be released under the CC-BY-SA liscence which we have (with the exception of a brief period when Wikipedia switched).
- It's good. We need more references and all contributions are welcome.
All right, so I will try to build up a shorter and independent version for RW hoping that someone will correct my spelling and grammar errors. I think this issue is worth for an article here. It is perhaps too much germany-related (or europe-related), but important enough to be mentioned here. AnonG 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- RW is very international so even Germany specific articles are good. "Bullshit smells the same in all countries" if you want a soundbyte :) You're not the only editor who asks for help with English so don't worry. postate 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just to get something clear. I wonder if you could you tell us if you also the editor who posts as "Wikisysop" at the Germanic New Medicine wiki from which the article was copied? I note that their copyright was was explicitly made more liberal by "Wiksysop" at the same time that you copied the article.--BobNot Jim 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Bob, it's not a copy, rather a sort of concentrated text. To answer your specific question: the best way would be to send an email to italix (at) transgallaxys.com, it's their email address. AnonG 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I submit that the given e-mail address is yours, but not Wikisysop's. Answer?
ListenerXTalkerX 19:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- its not my own, its the contact-address of that wiki (see: [2]). But an email sent to that address would also be forewarded to me. AnonG 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- That answers the question. ListenerXTalkerX 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually that opens more questions. That page says (as badly translated by Babelfish) "the material [of those two articles] comes from numerous articles of newspapers, films TV, transmissions radius, sentences of courts, declarations of been involved persons", and "The main authors are two medicine students and a doctor", and "The text is therefore of origin from more authors and it does not represent the personal opinion of a person or a concrete group". All this seems a bit at odds with the free-to-use copyright notice slapped on the site today. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- your translation is more or less correct. The problem in the past was the lack of facts about GNM and Hamer, when many patients were convinced to choose that quackery and died. Later a sort of european team worked together, including 7 physicians, some medical students and two journalists out of different countries. Everyone spoke it's own language, italian (because of the huge number of italian victims), german and french. The contributions of the members and all incoming news were mixed together, translated (if necessary) and redistributed over a newsletter. Reviews of the newsletters served as source for newspaper articles and TV-transmissions. The nmwiki-content is nothing else than a long chain of these internal newsletters. These were written by a single person. Later, this chain was retranslated into different languages and corrected by native-italian and native-english speaking people. There was (and is) no commercial interest of course. The group was working mostly anonymously because the hamer-supporting right-wing scene was involved. After 2008, the number of victims and fooled patients decreased, and in italy, an organization using the GNM-method was searched by police and resigned to treat cancer-patients (at least to my knowledge) according to the Hamer-method. So, the international group dissolved and only a single person takes now care of the old texts, that he made, using the different contributions. For instance, one person was charged to copy all court rules, another interviewed relatives of former patients. BTW: today, some new activities of the GNM-scene can be seen in norway and north-america. AnonG 20:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say that getting some more international woo is quite a good idea. We're pretty Anglo-Saxon at the moment.
- Having said that, I'm still not too clear on the copyright issue. The copyright belongs to the original authors and not to the website. At least that's the way that Wikipedia seems to understand it. If somebody who has control of the copyright template of the site changes it to say that it's free to copy that is irrelevant - the copyright still belongs to the original authors. In other words I don't believe that retroactive liberalisation of copyright works. Looking at the two texts every line that I have checked is taken from the original work.
- How much difference all this makes I don't know.--BobNot Jim 21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- your translation is more or less correct. The problem in the past was the lack of facts about GNM and Hamer, when many patients were convinced to choose that quackery and died. Later a sort of european team worked together, including 7 physicians, some medical students and two journalists out of different countries. Everyone spoke it's own language, italian (because of the huge number of italian victims), german and french. The contributions of the members and all incoming news were mixed together, translated (if necessary) and redistributed over a newsletter. Reviews of the newsletters served as source for newspaper articles and TV-transmissions. The nmwiki-content is nothing else than a long chain of these internal newsletters. These were written by a single person. Later, this chain was retranslated into different languages and corrected by native-italian and native-english speaking people. There was (and is) no commercial interest of course. The group was working mostly anonymously because the hamer-supporting right-wing scene was involved. After 2008, the number of victims and fooled patients decreased, and in italy, an organization using the GNM-method was searched by police and resigned to treat cancer-patients (at least to my knowledge) according to the Hamer-method. So, the international group dissolved and only a single person takes now care of the old texts, that he made, using the different contributions. For instance, one person was charged to copy all court rules, another interviewed relatives of former patients. BTW: today, some new activities of the GNM-scene can be seen in norway and north-america. AnonG 20:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Actually that opens more questions. That page says (as badly translated by Babelfish) "the material [of those two articles] comes from numerous articles of newspapers, films TV, transmissions radius, sentences of courts, declarations of been involved persons", and "The main authors are two medicine students and a doctor", and "The text is therefore of origin from more authors and it does not represent the personal opinion of a person or a concrete group". All this seems a bit at odds with the free-to-use copyright notice slapped on the site today. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- That answers the question.
- its not my own, its the contact-address of that wiki (see: [2]). But an email sent to that address would also be forewarded to me. AnonG 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- I submit that the given e-mail address is yours, but not Wikisysop's. Answer?
- Hello Bob, it's not a copy, rather a sort of concentrated text. To answer your specific question: the best way would be to send an email to italix (at) transgallaxys.com, it's their email address. AnonG 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just to get something clear. I wonder if you could you tell us if you also the editor who posts as "Wikisysop" at the Germanic New Medicine wiki from which the article was copied? I note that their copyright was was explicitly made more liberal by "Wiksysop" at the same time that you copied the article.--BobNot Jim 19:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
