User talk:SunshinePublishing

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Your article - "Word "GOOGLE" coined by Black Man in 1830's-- Verified" - was a copy and paste from another website. Unfortunately, Wikinews can't accept that - everything you submit to our site has to be your own work, and therefore that article has been or will be deleted. You may wish to consider working on the story and resubmitting it when it is your original work. Please don't let this put you off the site, and continue contributing! — Mike moral  ♪♫  02:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mike Moral (Pi Zero),

Getting down to the issues you have brought up, and not wishing to berate you for not thinking this through--as I'm sure you normally do-- allow me to simply say,

1- There is NO Copyright Violation... Public Domain material is at issue
and 2-This is certainly NEWS==

1. The information pasted into this article comes from the body of a book the original of which is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN --which shows the material being cited by the article--, because of its original publishing date, 1900 resides in the Public Domain--and CANNOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. [Do I need to quote you the laws regarding use of materials in the Public Domain and explain how they got there?] The information which IS copyrighted in the latest reprint of the book "Recollections" is in the forward and back papers of that book. NONE of that material is posted in this article. The rest of the material posted in the article is original and written by me (Ben Yarbrough).

2. Your second comment was that the article did not represent NEWS. Considering that even though the source material is old enough to be in the Public Domain, only in the shallowest of interpretations would state that the information discovered there regarding references to "GOOGLE" is not news simply because the source material is old--any more than someone could say that the information discovered in the "Dead Sea Scrolls" could not be news because the source material was old, or that discovery of the The East Africa Man was not news because the remains found were not NEW--in fact they were over a million years old.

I would, in light of the two pieces of information shared about this article, hope that an "intelligent thinking and truth-driven person" would reconsider their previous seemingly logical but "incorrect conclusions".

All the best, and don't let my careful disection of your objections discourage you from continuing to "Guard the Gate".

Ben Yarbrough info@Sunshine-Pub.com


 * Wikinews defines news as an event happening in the past 48 hours, or being reported on in the past 48 hours. For sythensis articles, at least two sources are needed that verify the news event and they must be from the past 48 hours.  Wikinews does not allow the integration of public domain content without source attribution.  Can you explain how, given Wikinews's definition of news, this qualifies as news? The question is not "Do I consider this news?" but "According to Wikinews's style guide and publication requirements, how is this news?"--LauraHale (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw, my remarks on copyright were based on the internal statement of the article that certain parts were being presented by permission of, etc. etc. That immediately means we would need proof &mdash;lawyer-proof proof&mdash; that permission has actually been given.


 * We don't write in first-person at Wikinews. Regarding neutrality, sourcing, and other topics of interest, see WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)