Talk:immaculate

I have found different forms of thought or copyright police in other venues. Generally, Eean, they don't have their research in order. For instance, a word in general use, being used as ordered by any number of thousands of dictionaries, and being used in a not-for-profit or non profit manner, does not infringe upon a copyright holder.

I.E. if I am to tell you that this sentence is immaculate (Exceptionally clean, clean as a whistle, Like Mother Mary's mythical conception;) and you tell me I have violated a copyright, you would be mistaken.

You should allow the users of this product some latitude instead of applying what little authority you have to try to shut them down. If you are going to remove a word that I entered, purely to help discuss another entry, then have the good sense to replace the meaning of that word with something that you think is not a copyright infringement.

Keep up the good work.

No, you obviously stole from [1]. Note the bold letters at the below the edit box when you edit messages. I agree, the notice is more dense then it has to be. But to clarify the GFDL allows for commercial use, so while Wiktionary is non-profit its material can be used for-profit. Either way it would be an infringement. It is also Not Nice to include content from another resource without citing them (I usually do so in the edit summary), even in the cases where it is legal to do so. --Eean 08:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sir, before you topple over with righteous indignation, I agree that the definition was used, quite harmlessly, in what I Now Believe was a Not So Nice way. As one of my very first entries, however, I didn't think the hatchet job was necessary. I was of the understanding that many other Wikcinarians would help me clean up the product. I was of the understanding that if someone found my entry needing an attribution they would put it in for me, I.E.[2].

Thanks for all your help and understanding here. I know how difficult it is for the older and much smarter WikiWinarians to put up with a rash of Wikinewbies, such as myself. And now, thoroughly enlightened, I shall renew my search for fresh entries and hopefully, you can keep a close eye on my work.

Keep up the good work...and let's be friends.

Just to be clear in this case, even with attribution it would still be illegal. Wiktionary has had a lot more problems with folks violating copyrights then Wikipedia, because folks are used to being able to quote entire definitions in research papers and the like. But we're writing a competitor dictionary with 10's of thousands of definitions, so clearly we can't do that. Folks putting stolen content on Wiktionary can be quite poisonous, because if someone else comes along and improves the entry with their own content but it was later discovered to have come originally from the MW or somesuch, it would have to be deleted. So I remove illegal content as fast as possible. Plus, I wouldn't even know where to begin to define 'immaculate' (I only ever use it in the phrase 'immaculate conception' myself) and I generally prefer improving definitions over writing new ones. --Eean 17:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)