Talk:Johan de la Faille

Copyright

Hello Notafly, I guess I was too quick, and should have left uploading the article to you, but you were polite and gave me the honour. Now I am in trouble.

It took me a day, checking books and websites. My conclusion: there is more information on the internet than in books on Johan de la Faille. Unless you tell me your source, then I can check in the library. Anyhow as we all know the internet is becoming a very important source of information.

I don't understand why Moonriddengirl removed all. The beginning of the article was really my work. The first four references can be used without any problem as well as no. 7. Now it seems very illogical to me to leave the references on the page, but not the text to which it refers.

By the way. The references are mentioned four times under the article! Is not that a bit overdone or is it good for the article and will it attract more attention? What do you think, Moonriddengirl?

The paragraphs on the shelves and the paintings were copied but I changed quit a few things and most important I added references, so everybody, also GFHandel could see I was not the author. I learned from a lawyer in the publishing business, it is all about paying tribute to and honour the original author. Sometimes it is not easy to find the first author, because most people are copying in one way or another.

I made some terrible mistakes on Cosimo III, the king of Portugal, and the Dutchess of Portland, because I did not find the source you have. It also takes time to get familiar with the subject and understand the details. Rome and Naples were not built on the same day. But, as you did hide the names of the latter two and did not add a source, it looked liked it was not changed at all. I'm very sorry to attack you a little, but as you will understand I really need to defend myself here.

I just heard on the German news, their Secretary of Defense Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is in trouble and under attack, not because he copied other people's material in his thesis (n.b. on a law subject), but because he did not mention the original source! The solution is mentioning sources.

Do we all have to become lawyers and make articles dry and boring, while they will be filled with: Mr. or Mrs. so and so said ..... Copying was practiced through the ages; in fact we learn most from copying (our parents and peers), any biologist or psychologist will confirm.

There is a lot of information in the last two paragraphs which could be skipped, like on the prices and on her clothes. They are not essential. Some names or links I really like. Albertus Seba used to live around the corner. Each day I walk through that street.

The paragraph on conus cedunulli fits also or better to Pierre Lyonnet, don't you think?

I invited some people to take a look at this article. I was also thinking of sending an email to Wadsworth Atheneum to let them know about its existance, before I upload the painting by Johannes Verkolje. I assume I have to wait a little. Taksen (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It is all blanked because, given the extensiveness of your violation of copyright policy in the rest of the article, the content which has not yet been identified needs to be carefully evaluated to ensure that it is your own work. This is not a simple matter of plagiarism, which can be addressed by attribution. This is a violation of the Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that it is not good practice to alter your comments after they have been replied to, as you are doing, in accordance with WP:REDACT. It is better, instead, to make a new section with new comments. This is particularly the case if you wish a reply to them, as I will not be reviewing them for changes. That said, you are welcome to propose a rewrite of this article in the temporary space, as you are directed on the template's face. If the content is not found to be infringing, it will be used to replace this one at the end of a week. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Because it is 2am and because of my limited knowledge of English I really need to improve my sentences. I did not notice you replied. Sorry.Taksen (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl and Notafly, I sent an email to the author of two websites and he suggested to omit the two paragraphs and cite them as footnotes. I hope you will add later on what you think is important. Byebye. Taksen (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Johan de la Faille. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003162838/http://www.archief.delft.nl/ to http://www.archief.delft.nl/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)