Talk:Polypill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This item is an original article produced for a website- it has not been posted. It uses information from the BMJ website and the original paper journal. I suppose therefore that the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper- Wald and Law- and with the British Medical journal. There is no known legal copyright for it. The information though is within the public domain and this is a summary of the facts within the public domain.

Hello. You say it was produced for a website, but I note you don't say this website. That would be ok if you were the author, or if the author had agreed to release it under the GFDL, but your comments strongly suggest this is not the case. You admit that "the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper", but then contradict yourself by saying it's in the public domain. Copyright problems aside, if you've looked at any other articles in Wikipedia or indeed in any encyclopedia you will surely be aware that this doesn't look remotely like an encyclopedic entry, and very much like someone's personal essay deposited here where it doesn't belong. On top of this it is not formatted or linked properly and you appear to have made no effort to make it conform to Wikipedia's house style. Now it would be great if you could write a proper article about the polypill, but this is not it. It seems the user who marked it as a copyright violation didn't list it properly, but I have now done this so that the question can be considered. If the article is deleted, you're still more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, but I'd recommend you create an account and read some of these first:
Plus a whole load of others you may come across.
— Trilobite (Talk) 06:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hi

I wrote the article for my personal ( small company) website but assumed that it could be used on wikipedia too. There is no copyright issue, that I am aware as I wrote the article. The polypill has been subject to international conferences to discuss it's development. As a concept and development it is not copyrighted. The BMJ was used to check facts and not plagarised.

Confess naiviety to the wikipedia format etc. Only after I had posted it did I realise that it was not in keeping with the rest of the entries.Later I returned and found that I should not edit it so haven't. More than happy to try resubmitting an improved version again

Hello. If you wrote it and you're happy for it to be used on Wikipedia then the copyright issue is solved. You're more than welcome to rewrite the article - perhaps base it on the original text but with different wording and overall tone etc. The problem was that it didn't read much like an encyclopedia article, which is most likely what caused the editor who flagged it as a violation of copyright to do so. It would be good to have an article on the polypill, in fact I'm a little surprised we didn't have at least a couple of sentences already. You don't need to worry about the really finer points of Wikipedia format - someone else can sort that out, but I'd recommend looking at some of our other articles, particularly ones dealing with medical topics, to get a feel for how this could be improved. Thanks for contributing the article and apologies for the confusion over its copyright status - we get so many copy-and-pastes of other people's work (several hundred are deleted each week) that any article that looks out of the ordinary raises suspicions and is often assumed to be in violation of copyright. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your help. I have editted it, hopefully so it is more appropriate in style. I tried putting some links in too. Feedback would be most appreciated

It's an interesting article, and a valuable addition to the wikipedia. Stylisticially it does still read a lot like a journal article rather than an encyclopedia one, but that's easy fixed. I'll make some adjustments over the next day or so (as I'm sure will others). It really needs some citations (journal references and external links both to scholarly and newsy webpages). -- John Fader (talk · contribs) 00:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have editted again and included details on Wald and Law. I do not know how to properly format this inclusion though. At what point is the article "clean enough"? the edits were done when I wasnt logged in --Wazza (talk · contribs)