User talk:J.smith/YouTube Linklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi! Were looking for a few people to help spread the message. If your experienced with AWB or running a bot, let us know here.

How to help...

Well, basically... spread the message. This is the first phase in removing inappropriate YouTube links from wikipedia. It should also have the side-effect of raising awareness about linking to copy-vio sites in general. In the long term this message spreading should have a very positive impact on wikipedia.

The spam message can be found at: User:J.smith/YT and is easy to subst.

== YouTube Links ==
{{subst::User:J.smith/YT}} ~~~~

When you start editing on a letter add the following to the top:

'''Status:''' Open

That will help keep us from overlapping work.

After you complete a letter change "Open" to "Finished"

Related policy and guidelines
  • WP:C - We can't link to documents that violate others copyrights
  • WP:EL - Reiterated WP:C and also suggests not linking to content that is suspected to be fake or falsified.
  • WP:V - YouTube can't be relied on to verify almost anything
  • WP:RS - RS is contested, but everyone agrees that YouTube can only rarely be relied on as a source.


Add your name here if you plan on helping

  1. ---J.S (t|c) (I'll work alone... but I sure hope I won't need to!)
  2. Definitely; and woe betide those who stand up against me. :DNearly Headless Nick {C} {L} 12:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting a review

If you followed this link and you want to find out if the link to YouTube in your article is OK, one of the experts who watch this page will review it for you.


I'm happy to help. I think I would be more useful actually checking/removing the links, as I don't have AWB anyway. I'm sure there's articles that aren't being watched, that need to be checked by someone. So if that's OK, count me in.

Maybe when the link(s) is removed, the corresponding entry on your front page list could be struckthrough so it's obvious it's been sorted. Any other ideas or if you don't agree with the above, let me know. If not, I'll start doing this, using the above method, tomorrow.

On a different note, I hope YouTube isn't being totally cast aside forever, they're apparently working to remove copywritten material and there is a growing number of broadcasters and copyright owners legitimately sharing their material. I hope that one day Wikipedia be able to link to those, where appropriate, and not have everyone convinced that Youtube links are always evil and must always be removed. —B33R(talkcontribs) 06:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, to have some eyes and ears reviewing the actual clips would be great. If you remove a link, feel free to de-link it and strike-though. AWB can create links based on "links on this page" and simply striking thought don't really help. (And don't forget the wikipedia external link philosophy: As few as necessary)
YouTube does have a legitimate potential as a reliable source... but right now it's a major problem on wikipedia. I've personal reviewed about 40 links and only seen 2-3 that looked like they -might- be legit. If those informal statistics are trustworthy then perhaps 250 of the 4k articles with YouTube links should remain... I wish there was an easy way to tell the diffrence. :( ---J.S (t|c) 08:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I should probably start on the links you've already left a message for, that way the message still gets across about YouTube links and hopefully people won't automatically re-add them. I just noticed something really positive too, #2 in the Num section, the first YouTube video I visited from the list, has this message - "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation". Looks like YouTube is making it a bit easier for us! —B33R(talkcontribs) 17:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope Google is working on making the issue better... but YouTube has traditionally had a very poor way of dealing with it. They required the copyright owner to complain before they removed it. I -hope- they are changing that internally... or even set up a processes where other users can report copy-vios. *shrug* ---J.S (t|c) 18:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, yeah... following my contributions is a good way to do it. Find the inactive articles... ---J.S (t|c) 18:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Corrigan article link

The link in the Brent Corrigan is to a trailer I created and put up on YouTube. The link neither violates my copyright nor is used as a source, merely as an illustration of a fact, as evidenced by comments and statements on Corrigan / Lockheart's own page. The link to the trailer should be returned to the article.Jodyw1 05:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR ---J.S (t|c) 20:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it absolutely necessary to use such terse replies? It borders on incivility. 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
No, but I didn't really know what else to say about it. I didn't mean to be rude.... just... concise. I'm sorry if I offended you Jodyw1, it was not my intention. ---J.S (t|c) 07:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Uh, videos are primary sources, not OR. Primary sources are OR if they are used to advance a position in an analytic/synthetic argument. The video does not advance any kind of position or argument. I have restored the link. Cindery 04:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"trailer I created" I will be reverting. ---J.S (t|c) 06:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Trailer he or she created is a primary source, not original research (and furthermore does not fall under the purview of copyright verification, which is the stated purpose of your "project.") It seems clear to me per the self-admitted "soapboxing" you posted on your userpage that you have a bias against YouTube links, which are not de facto prohibited under Wiki policy. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place to enforce your personal biases under the guise of policy, or otherwise. I am going to reinstate the link, and crosspost to NOR. (I also think there should be a little more admin/community oversightof your "project," particularly your template, which sounds "official" but does not actually reiterate Wiki policy in a useful way, but seems designed rather to imply that your opinions/bias are policy, when they are not.) YouTube links can be invaluable resources which greatly enhance the quality of articles (and you seem to have overlooked the value of YouTube as a delivery medium, whereby public domain films can be conveniently made accessible. Under law, a tremendous amount of film is in the public domain.) Cindery 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Review my history and You'll notice I've stopped using the template in preference for simply removing the link. Also, the template is backed up by policy anyway. AND, I didn't wright the current version. AND this project was discussed on WP:AN. AND errr... and... hmmmm yeah. ---J.S (t|c) 22:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


First of all, administrators aren't special classes of users who can approve/disapprove of a project. (actually, you have the same authority to disapprove of a project.

But lets assume that administrator "oversight" mattered... Dmcdevit has been involved in the project for quite some time now. He helped me setup AWB and has been removing links as well. Dmcdevit is an administrator, a checkuser and a member of the ArbCom. I have chatted with other administrators/editors on IRC a number of times about this project and I have gotten nothing but positive responses.

As for my bias against YouTube... I don't hate Google Inc. or something like that and I have already acknowledged a number of times that occasionally YouTube links are appropriate. It's rare, but I have never claimed it to be different. (re-read my disclaimer and you'll see I never ask anyone to remove them wholesale).

Now, I think I actually think we have good reason to be leery of links to YouTube. Of the 400 links I've reviewed for removal (with AWB) I've only found a handful that should be kept. For example: Weird Al's White And Nerdy video is being linked to from Weird Al's own website, removing any copyright/reliability concerns. The other example that sticks out is a link to a band's official profile on YouTube. But of the 400+ links I've reviewed I've only seen about 10 that fall into the "keep" category and well over 200 were OBVIOUSLY in violation of some-one's copyrights with the rest as a strong possibility. ---J.S (t|c) 22:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What I said, verbatim, is I think there should be a little more community/admin oversight of your "project." And there should be. "99% of YouTube links probably shouldn't be there" is not a Wiki policy, and auto-removing links instead engaging in discussion on talkpages with editors of articles is not a useful or cooperative method for establishing copyright after you've determined that it's in doubt--in your opinion-- because the source is YouTube. Also, you're not "experts"--you don't even have a clear idea what OR is. Users who have a policy question should be going to NOR/V/C/RS boards, not to the self-appointed YouTube police who aggressively deleted the link in the first place for "review." At first I thought the "no-YouTube on Wikipedia" project was at the level of the userbox wars, but it's just a handful of that you've acknoweldged that any class of user can disapprove of how a project is conducted, please keep that in mind and take care not to pass yourself off as an authority to users who object to your aggressive deletions of YouTube links. Last but not least, this is a public discourse--don't write to me on my talkpage, out of view of the readers of this page. And mind wikiquette--you are not invited to address me in capital letters.

Cindery 00:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You may want to review the section of Help:Talk Pages where it talks about indenting comments. It makes discussions like this much easier to read.
I'm not going to address the WP:NOR concerns, since that's about a specific article.
The fact remains: 4000 articles links from Wikipedia to YouTube, and a huge percent violate copyright law. I originally estimated about 60%, but as I've been working on this project I think it's more like 90%. That's a major legal concern.
any class of user can disapprove of how a project is conducted - yes, anyone can object. Thats why I've been responding to your concerns.
So, what would you rather me do? You don't like a message on the talk page requesting the editors review the link and you don't like me reeving them... But leaving links to copy-vio sources is not a long-term solution. What would you have me do? ---J.S (t|c) 02:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You may want to review the section of Help:Talk Pages where it talks about indenting comments. It makes discussions like this much easier to read. --you can fix my typos on your "project" page if they bother you, but thanks!
What I think you should do:
1. The template is all over the place, and shouldn't be used with the "99%" links baloney. It should say something more like, many YouTube links could be copyright violations, and some may need author-authentication. YouTube links can also be valuable additions to articles. Please discuss and review the YouTube link in this article, what it adds to the article, and contact the author if necessary.
2. Regular editors of articles should be left alone to handle the matter themselves--that means you should engage on talkpage as regular editor in consensus discussions about whether something is a copyvio--not delete-on-source-bias and direct objections here. Regular editors at articles generally care about the articles they edit, and will care if they have a copyvio in the article--and know more about both the subject and the link than you do. You should post a less biased template and leave, or join as an editor.
3. Any disagreements about whether something is V/C/NOR/RS etc should go to those policy boards, not to a project page you maintain after deleting. (You are not an "expert," and you have a self-admitted bias against YouTube links. It is not appropriate for you to imply to people that you are the TouTube Czar, who both deletes and then decides if the deletions were policy violations--that's ridiculous.)
Cindery 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, not formatting your comments is making this discussion very difficult. Please follow established policies in that regard.
"YouTube links can also be valuable additions to articles."
Sure, they could be. But 99% of the time they are not.
"Regular editors of articles should be left alone to handle the matter themselves
Thats all well and good, but the primary type of article I've been dealing with has no regular editors.
"Any disagreements about whether something is V/C/NOR/RS etc should go to those policy boards"
Actualy, thats what the article's talk page is for, but since I'm not watching these articles it's more likely to get my attention, and the attention of others, if they post it here.
"You are not an "expert"..."
You actualy have no idea if I'm an expert or not.
"imply to people that you are the TouTube Czar..."
Enough with the name calling please. First it's "YouTube Police" and next it's "YouTube Czar." Are you going to call me a "YouTube Nazi" next?
"who both deletes and then decides if the deletions were policy violations--that's ridiculous."
Actually, it's not. Wikipedia is currently in a crisis over copyright violations. Tens of thousands of links to GoogleVideo, YouTube and various Lyric sites currently violate the LAW. Our critics have been screaming for our heads over copyright violations.
What I think is ridiculous is your suggestion that when I come across the article "Jacki (song)" instead of deleing the link to a complete reproduction of the song on YouTube (obvious copy-vio), I should have left a note on the talk page. (Also note the article has been edited about 4 times in the last 5 months.)
When I'm running AWB, I'm looking at the context before I remove it. If the context suggests that the link is ok (such as to an official profile) I skip it. When it's obviously bad (for example, an article I ran across was linking to a copy of an entire news-interview).
Have you thought about filing the RFC? I'd even co-sign. ---J.S (t|c) 04:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
you're not an "expert" because nobody is an expert on Wikipedia they way you are implying you are an expert--you are not the last word on YouTube links (and you clearly have not shown expertise regarding NOR-- you have just shown a kneejerk YouTube bias.) My brief review of your work yesterday shows that you deleted commercials for a defunct digital TV station, and short clips from The International Fair Trade Association.

Re 99%--your own (highly biased and un-scientific) highest estimate is 90%. The template you have been using gives people the impression that YouTube should not be used, and that is not the case. Just mass-deleting with no notice is even worse. Articles need not be frequently edited for concerned editors to be watching them--that's a specious argument. Disagreements should go to V/C/NOR/and RS, not you. the problem with how you're conducting this project is that you're wrongfully giving people the impression that Wiki has a no-YouTube 99% of the time policy, and that is not the case; and you are wrongfully giving objectors (who own copyright!) the impression that they can only appeal to you. You are exaggerating the copyvio situation--there is not a panic or hysteria; any objectors who believe their copyright is being violated have clear redress to both YouTube and Wikipedia. What I am saying to you is that you don't need to exaggerate, go overboard, claim that 99% of the links shouldn't be used/imply YouTube should never be used/try to aggressively get rid of all YouTube links, or be rude or autocratic to people with rightful objections; try to bully them. I think the thing to do is not RFC, but to post notice on all the policy boards to attract attention to your project. A new template should be designed, that isn't as biased against YouTube as a source, and which directs people to policy boards if you delete links and they object and the discussion on the talkpage of the article doesn't resolve things. Cindery 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please indent you comments according to wikipedia policy.
Your example of ITV Digital is laughable. The link is dead.
I haven't used the template in a week and all your arguments about it are moot. It was changed days ago anyway.
I'm going to follow WP:BOLD in this endeavor. However, I encourage you to file a RFC on my actions here. I don't mind more input, even if I disagree with it. I put a note up on WP:AN a few weeks ago and got a huge amount of support. I put a message in the #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en and got nothing but support.
I don't think I'm exaggerating the copyvio worries. It's one of the few things Wikipedia could be ruined over. ---J.S (t|c) 07:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

..yes, 99%, as we have established, is exaggerating; and simple requests from copyright holders to YouTube or Wikipedia could easily solve any problem--litigation can't even legally begin without a cease and desist notice; there's no need to err so far on the deletionist side. Per ITV, if the link is dead, you should have put "dead link" in edit summary, alerting editors to replace it--not "removing per WP:EL..." I replaced an Imelda Marcos doc clip you removed also. I haven't had much time to review your work, but I have seen enough to know that you're being overzealous. What you keep evading is the criticim that: 1. the template is misleading--whether you have used it in the last week or not, it's up all over the place 2. you shouldn't be mass-deleting without notice--make a new, less biased template 3, your "review" process for objectors is not appropriate RFC is totally nonbinding third opinion--that's not an acceptable solution to these problems. I am going to post on all the policy boards, to get more community/admin oversight/involvement--I think there should be more general awareness about what you are doing and how you are doing it; and I am happy that this dialogue is here now so that people who come to object will see that they can go to policy boards instead. Cindery 08:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

1 & 3 are irrelevant since were not using the template any more, 2 I completely disagree with due to the reasoning I've given above.
I shall take your ignoring of proper formatting as a complete disregard for me and my person and I find it highly insulting. I'm no longer going to be responding until you show me the tiniest bit of respect. ---J.S (t|c)
Two things you should know: Wikipedia copyright policy is not based entirely upon our liklihood of being sued, or even copyright law. You seem to forget that one our foundational goals is to provide free content that may be reused and disseminated. Some people have suggested before that we shouldn't, for example, uphold the copyrights of Nazis for war posters, terrorists for web screenshots we use, or countries which aren't signatories to international copyright treaties, like Iran. All of these are false, because they are in conflict with out mission. In any case, it doesnt matter what the reasoning is, but this bit of copyright policy is Foundation and isn't negotiable. It doesn't matter what we think about the rationale, we are bound by it. Expertness is not an issue here. Now that we have that out of the way, the only concern here is whether individual links provide proper licensing information. If so, they don't have to go. Unfortunately, regarding YouTube, most does not presently comply with our standards. It does not mean that YouTube links, as a rule, must go, but only that they do tend to need to be removed at a much higher rate than most sites. Dmcdevit·t 04:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


No, Wiki copyright policy is very clearly derived from law, specifically US law: the laws of the state of Florida. Your project, furthermore is clearly not aligned with WP:C, which states:

If you find a copyright infringement: It is not the job of rank-and-file Wikipedians to police content for possible copyright infringement, but if you suspect one, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future.If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored. If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.

That means mass-deleting suspected copyright violations without article talkpage discussion/notice and/or reports to the Copyright problems board are not policy. I think all RS/C/V/ and NOR should be updated slightly to address YouTube/clearly explain what the valid exceptions are, how to use and evaluate YouTube links, and how authors can affirm that they license YouTube links under GDFL if they weren't the orginal YouTube publisher (and it should be made clear under NOR that the same author publishing on YouTube and then on Wiki is licensing under GDFL, not automatically OR.) In the mad rush to purge YouTube links, I think there's a serious risk that a lot of good links will be lost, because you're not explaining to anyone how they can affirm GDFL license per the copyright policy, you're just assuming that the content is not/cannot be licensed, based on source bias, and implying that "No-YouTube 99% of the time" is a Wiki policy when it's not. Cindery 09:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The section your talking about refers to article content, not clearly inappropriate external links.
GDFL requires that a notice be placed with the work of art. Your suggestion can't work. ---J.S (t|c) 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's text, image, or external link doesn't matter--and link is text. Editing Wikipedia is done under "you agree to license your content under GDFL." You don't actually know when you're deleting if the YouTube publisher and the Wiki publisher are the same author--you're making assumptions about GDFL, not queries. Cindery 16:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout ---J.S (t|c) 17:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that a link is text, I don't think a URL falls under copyright. By registering a domain name, or using a site that has a registered domain name, you are creating URLs that exist in the public domain. The text of the link itself is not copyrighted. If it were, it would be illegal to place any URL in your bookmarks or Favorites. If a linked page contains copyright infringing material, then it is the owner of that page's legal responsibility, not Wikipedia's. If this is taken to it's logical conslusion, there could be no links to news articles and other sources on Wikipedia, leaving it impossible to prove where the information is coming from. News sites and such all copyright thier material, and it is linked to millions of times within Wikipedia. I would probably concede that a link to a YouTube video needs to be relevant to an article, or an actual source of information, and not just a pointless link or vanity. If you feel a YouTube video is infringing, there is a mechanism available at YouTube for reporting the problem and getting it removed. Once that occurs, we can remove the link from Wikipedia, since it is no longer a source of information. I agree that mass removal is a Bad Thing. Engunneer 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
News sources copyright their own work, as almost all of our linked sources do. They do not, generally, infringe others' copyrights. That is a very different thing. In any casether isn't any pointarguing this, since it is Foundation copyright policy; you could submit your complaint to the Board. (Also, YouTube only lets copyright holders report infringement.) Dmcdevit·t 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
URLs cannot be copyrighted, but the text at the URL can. That is what we are worried about. By placing a URL to a website that is violating copyrights then we are by default violating copyrights as well.
We are engaging in mass-review. We are leaving all sorts of YT links on the wiki. ---J.S (T/C) 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
"By placing a URL to a website that is violating copyrights then we are by default violating copyrights as well." - That remains to be seen. Isn't this a grey area? Any precedent? Any references? Please review this discussion if you haven't yet: Talk:Barrington_Hall#YouTube_links, especially the last post.
"If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)[1]." - Case law or not, it's policy. ---J.S (T/C) 18:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not applicable case law OR policy. And you should consult a lawyer regarding libel and false accusations of copyvio/accusations without evidence, if you are so concerned with hypothetical liability--wiki has a clear policy on libel and living people. You might want to read up on the "intent" element of intent torts, in general. Cindery 07:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone want to check this out for me?

Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006) has two links which do not sound immediately blatantly illegit, however I would appreciate someone familiar with the site to check them out and see if they should be delinked. Thanx. 23:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Both -look- ok. The up-loader of the MJF one looks to be the campaign and so does the response add. I wasn't able to open the profile however, so I'm not sure on the second one. ---J.S (T/C) 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube/Google Copyright And You...


B. You shall be solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: (i) you own or have the necessary licenses, rights, consents, and permissions to use and authorize YouTube to use all patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other proprietary rights in and to any and all User Submissions to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service; and (ii) you have the written consent, release, and/or permission of each and every identifiable individual person in the User Submission to use the name or likeness of each and every such identifiable individual person to enable inclusion and use of the User Submissions in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successor's) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website.

From: WP:COPYRIGHT#Linking_to_copyrighted_works

Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content.

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)[2].

Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.


Simply linking an article to YouTube content does not infringe on any violation of Wikipedia policy unless item linked to is in abuse of someone elses copyright as it relates to non-wikipdedia site. I.e. if YouTube hosts unauthorized copyrighted material that is linked to from wikipedia this is contributory infringement only if orignial work on YouTube is in fact a violation of copyright as it relates to YouTube not Wikipedia. This is not a blanket statement that all content on YouTube is in violation of wikipeida policy that is linked. It is pretty safe to say that any content on YouTube that is a home movie is clearly not violating any laws as it relates to YouTube or original copyright holder as original holder is one who posted content in first place. Now "ripps" of Copyrighted TV shows, movies, news reports, etc are in violation of copyright. Can you give me a user created video on YouTube that breaks copyright law as it relates to YouTube?

YouTube/Google Copyright And You...Hackajar 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"This is not a blanket statement that all content on YouTube is in violation of wikipeida policy that is linked." - Why do people keep thinking that's the position I take?
"Now "ripps" of Copyrighted TV shows, movies, news reports, etc are in violation of copyright." - That is mostly what we are dealing with. This biggest offender is the article on music videos. Most of the time it's a clear case of "Blah Blah's music video". Here's one I just removed [3].
"Can you give me a user created video on YouTube that breaks copyright law as it relates to YouTube?" - That situation (YouTube user created video) represents about 1 out of 25 links I review. I leave any link that appears to be A. Legal (per WP:C) and B. otherwise appropriate and relevant to the article. (Per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:V & WP:NOT). A good example of a link I'd leave behind is the two in Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006). The videos appear to be legit, the up-loader appears to be legit and the video is highly relevant to the article.
Do you understand what we are doing here now? Have I been clear enough yet? Or are people going to continue to yell at me (like the blog) that "ZOMG U R DELZORS 4LL Y0UTUB3 LINKZ!!11ONE!1" *sigh* ---J.S (T/C) 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Take the YouTube video's on Brendon_Urie#External_links. I would not have chimmed into this disscussion with above information had those links not been removed. I would like commentary on how those are in copyright violation under are mutual agreement on copyright and YouTube as it relates to Wikipedia. Also note, I made above statement very diplomaticly, and you should not lump my statements with people who state "ZOMG U R DELZORS 4LL Y0UTUB3 LINKZ!!11ONE!1" because obviously I am above that non-sense. Lastly, understand there is a huge todo over Promotional Images and User Actions related to that, so people are a little touchy as your efforts can be overshadowed by people's bad taste due to promotional images debacal. I will give you mass Kudo's for having a disscussion page for your efforts, responding to all inqueries and having a "Ask questions first, shoot later" attitude towards the YouTube issue. THAT has not gone unseen;).(That is also why I took time to clarify YouTube/Wikipedia policy in professional manner).Hackajar 04:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean the "ZOMG" comment at you or anyone in specific... Just a general frustration. I do appreciate the time/effort you put in responding. ---J.S (T/C) 06:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm requesting that the BowieChick article be taken off your list. The article has just been cleaned up significantly, and the only You Tube link posted there now is for illustrative purposes only, is not provided as a source, and does not violate copyright. Thanks. x 19:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Stevie Ryan

I'm also doing a preemptive strike here regarding the article Stevie Ryan. I've provided several You Tube links there, for illustrative purposes only (not promotional); they're not being used as sources, and not violating copyrights. Because Ryan is specifically an online thing, it seems suitable to provide sample links that relate to sections of the article. Thanks again. x 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This page, and project, is inactive and basically only exists as an archive now. I will not be adding or subtracting anything from this page on the grounds that nothing is happening anyway. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)