|
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 16:55, 11 July 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
This is kind of a left-field question...and it's not necessarily Wikipedia-related,it might be more of a larger, ethical-edge issue. But it comes after years of trying to talk my kids out of listening to music that was clearly pirated. Supposing a Youtube song video is preceded by ads sponsored by what seem like major corporations? Home Depot or similar? Can we assume these were approved by the artist or the music publishing company that holds the rights? No hurry - it's just that I can't figure it out from G-searches. Hope you're enjoying spring, Novickas (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Can we assume they were approved? I would say not based on the ads preceding the video. The only time I think it would be safe to assume the publisher is involved is if the account posting the video is the official account for the artist/publisher/rights-holder, and even then it is tricky to confirm that: anyone can create an account called "Official <artist name>" which will stay there until someone discovers and reports it. CrowCaw 17:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Crow. I agree with you. Novickas, like many websites, Youtube maintains a passive approach to copyright issues. While Wikipedia has processes to clean up copyright issues no matter who identifies them, Youtube responds to copyright issues only when the copyright owner points them out. I'm no expect on advertising on YouTube, but it's my understanding that people who upload videos may choose to monetize them with streaming ads and that these ads are targeted to the geographical location of users, so it's not so much that an advertiser is sponsoring a specific video as the video uploader has opened the door to ads and the person viewing the video fits the demographic. YouTube may demand proof of commercial rights to content in videos prior to placing ads, but they may not. I did a quick search for "full album", as these are almost always copyvios on YouTube and found an Avenged Sevenfold album hosted by a person who openly acknowledges "this is not my music...it is property of A7x...i did not make any of it...i just put it together", and that video is fronted by an ad. After watching said ad, I reloaded the video--and got a different ad. :) I doubt the advertisers have any real idea what videos they're fronting - it's far more by the numbers than that, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Crow and Ms. M. It wasn't the answer I was hoping for :( but it's better to know. Regards, Novickas (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I mentioned you and your advice at User talk:Gamaliel and User talk:Adam Cuerden - about the user we were talking about, user:WPPilot's edits. Gamaliel is one of the main editors on Signpost and Adam is main editor responsible for Featured content at Signpost. I pointed out the issue in both places. I don't know if I succeded to explain how the correct attribution has to be done. I don't know that either. If it has to be done in the edit summary, then it is too late now. WPPilot is ideffed now, so I guess somebody else has to do this now. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Hafspajen. Anyone can fix this. :) What needs to be done is a null edit on page(s) with a note in edit summary noting the copying and wikilinking the source article. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia talks more about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I am confused now, Moonriddengirl. As I generally was; for the last month. What you are telling me here is that (list all possible things: )
- 1) there is not a problem here?
- 2) that I should fix it?
- 3) that I should ask someone to do it?
- 4) That I should ... do .. what...?
-
-
- Hi, Hafspajen. Sorry for confusing you. What I'm saying is that any problem that there is here based on copying from one Wikipedia page to another without required attribution is reparable, in a process described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and that you are certainly able to help repair it. :) There is no one whose responsibility it is to repair such issues unless it is the editor who made the mistake, and you say he is indefinitely blocked. Like everything on Wikipedia, it relies on the labors of volunteers. You can ask others to repair it if you like, but honestly whether they do it or not is likely to depend on their interest and their capacity. Some have one but not the other; others have neither. We've got a perpetual backlog in copyright cleanup (I bet we have literally hundreds of thousands of articles waiting for review), and I know of no copyright clerks or admins who are likely to have capacity themselves to pursue this particular cleanup project on their own. You can request a WP:CCI if you think the issue is extensive enough, but that's where the backlog largely is - so I'm afraid that if a CCI is opened, it isn't likely to be quick. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there IS already one investigation open, maybe it can be simply added... here- (?) I think if I ever return, (this is just cleanup edits) I probably start working on copyright issues.... User:Crow was trying already to involve me here. Sigh. Hafspajen (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, think I understand- null edit can be done by adding and then deleting a space (as fas as I remember). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Xanthomelanoussprog, thanks. :) Hafspajen, the page you link to is on the process board for single article issues. If you think the issue is widespread enough to merit a community-run copyright cleanup, please review WP:CCI and request assistance there. That said, again, that process is backlogged; there are investigations that have been open for years. If issues can be handled without that, it's certainly better. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With the risk of soundig stupid: I always believed that copyvio was not allowed. I thought that was a serious issue, that it was taken seriously. I tryied for a long time now to explain this to both for the user, with very little sucess, to the Signpost main editors, with very moderate sucess. I thought it was a serious issue... maybe I was wrong? Hafspajen (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hafspajen, based on what above are you concluding that copyvio is allowed or is not taken seriously? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I am only tired and sad. Maybe I don't understand this. I was fighting this issue for too long. What I understood now, that it is only one person's responsability: the person who actually commited copivio. The others may or may not care: "likely to depend on their interest and their capacity". I understand this as: yes, there is a copvio issue here. I think this is clear. From here onward I don't understand how to handle it. Possibly we don't need to do nothing at all? Hafspajen (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hafspajen, with a site like Wikipedia, we are all volunteers, and people who choose to take responsibility are the responsible parties. I can share your frustration and weariness, but I have no magic solution. :) The best I can do is tell you how to request review at the appropriate forum if you don't want to fix the problem yourself (that's WP:CCI). I wish I had the capacity to shoulder this and all the other copyright problems that come Wikipedia's way, but I don't. Due to issues in my personal life, my time volunteering is sadly truncated, and I spend almost every minute I have on here working on copyright problems. (I miss the days when I wrote an article every other day. Those were good times. :)) I know that there other volunteers who are similarly sinking in copyright work. Just look at the number of names we have listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. People care and care quite deeply, but there's just so few of us and so much to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I should start my springcleaning working with that Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations... I might became wiser after a while ... who knows. Thank you for your patiece. Hafspajen (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, Hafspajen, if would be wonderful to have more hands over there. Every so often, I post an appeal somewhere - usually on AN - and every person who picks up the work helps! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, OK. I can't promise anything 100%, I need to re-think this for let's say some weeks. For just two days ago I felt nothing is keeping me here any more... I stopped caring for most of the things I have done here. But this issue is interesting me enough now. Hafspajen (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- MRG, Hafspajen, I am just this far from asking for a CCI for WPP – he has four strikes that I know of, and I haven't finished looking. I don't know what the problem is here, but if a CCI would help then I'll go ahead and request one (but tomorrow ...). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Justlettersandnumbers: WPP wrote entries on the Featured Content page of the Signpost by cutting and pasting from the articles. There's probably very little trace left, as a lot was rewritten by others (sometimes it didn't make sense!) He restricted himself in the main to the Featured Pictures section. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of every issue of the featured content report, it says This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted to featured status from [date] to [date]. Text may be adapted from the respective articles and lists; refer to their page histories for attribution.
I'm getting a bit annoyed. Under my watch, FC turned from something where everything was copy-pasted blindly to where most things are rewritten. I changed the header because consistency with using quotes to attribute wasn't happening, but, otherwise, I think we've been managing fairly high-quality reports for a while.
I'm seriously considering giving it up, because Hafspajen has been deoing everything in their power to fling drama everywhere. Misquoting me, quoting me out of context, trying to pull me into disputes.
I'm largely on wikibreak, and I'm still having to deal with major wikidrama, and it's been going on for months. I cannot handle this.
Hafspajen: Drop the stick and step away. Please. This would have blown over three months ago if you hadn't made it your sole crusade to keep bringing it up over and over. And not to Gamaliel or anyone who could do anything, but to as many formerly unconnected people as you could drag in.
I don't ask for a lot of time off of Wikipedia. But when I am taking time off, it would be nice if I wasn't getting constantly pulled into squabbles anyway through being tagged, pulled in, criticized for not doing things when I'm not freaking here and, worst, regularly misquoted and made out to have opinions I don't have.
I wanted two months where I could just spend the little time I had for Wikipedia making sure Featured content worked, so I could spend time with my mother. What happens? Constant drama as Hafspajen actively picks a fight with another FC contributor, then brings people into it until he reacts, and they can use that as reason to ban him, throwing in a few other issues which never get discussed with him as everyone's rushing to help Hafs who started it.
I didn't want to say anything, but that it's still going on, and Hafs is actively opening new threads everywhere still is getting ridiculous. I have an anxiety disorder, and I don't want freaking Wikipedia to be causing me anxiety on top of everything else. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I concern with what Adam has said here. At no point did this user communicate to myself or User:Go Phightins! or User:The ed17 any problems they had with the way FC was being composed. In fact, they have steadfastly refused to participate in any attempt on our part to address the interpersonal issues they had with other FC contributors. This is clearly motivated by this interpersonal drama. Gamaliel (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be true (I'm on the sidelines here) but it's immaterial. Anxiety attacks can be prevented by properly following the license in the first place, which means proper attribution. So one way or another this needs to be fixed; it were better if it hadn't happened in the first place but that train has left the station. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I carefully made sure that it was clear the Signpost recycled some material. Also, you not using your admin powers against someone you were too involved with (as evidenced by your bizarre claims of promotion) has also left the station. I think you should lose your adminship. But I'm done here Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you. But that works out, cause I don't know what you're talking about either--"promotion"? But there's a CCI in the works, if it hasn't already happened, which means, simply put, that you are wrong. Now, feel free to bring my adminship up at AN: please put your money where your mouth is, or just shut up with your unfounded accusations. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Drmies_and_WPPilot Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonriddengirl: As a minor point of possible interest, you don't mean a null edit, you mean a dummy edit. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Mudwater. :)
- As to everything else above, I'm really a bit overwhelmed here and quite dismayed by the level of distress this situation (which seems to be larger than I know) is causing. I deal with copyright issues. These can become very heated and very personal, especially in areas where copyright & plagiarism get confused. They aren't the same thing at all. It is entirely possible to have a copyright problem with no plagiarism and it is equally possible to plagiarize without copyright infringement. Copyright is a legal question; plagiarism is a social one. With this particular situation, my involvement is simply on the question of best practices. With regards to WP:CWW, there are reasons, when taking is substantial, that it's a good idea to put a note in edit summary. (IANAL. This is my lay understanding.) Our licenses both require that attribution be given equitably in terms of prominence and placement. CC-By-SA notes that "at a minimum such credit will appear, if a credit for all contributing authors of the Adaptation or Collection appears, then as part of these credits and in a manner at least as prominent as the credits for the other contributing authors" and GFDL requires that the History section include new authors. Because of our TOU, our authors consent to be attributed by wikilink rather than by names, which simplifies this considerably. The question arises around when contributions are substantial. I can quote a sentence from, say, WP:NPOV without putting a note in the edit summary linking to NPOV. There's no plagiarism, because I'm quoting. I'm not misleading people into thinking that the text is my own. There's no copyright issue, because the taking is not substantial; what I'm doing falls well within fair use. The more substantial the content becomes, and the more central to what I'm saying, the higher the burden of giving equal prominence to attribution of those authors. Whether an excerpt from an individual article would require that level of attribution is something only a court could determine; there's no hard and fast rules at all to determine when use is fair. Edit summaries are cheap. It's easy to eliminate doubt, so that these larger excerpts don't risk skirting the line.
- But this is not, in my firm opinion, a moral issue. When any effort is made at attribution, you're clearly dealing with good faith, and there is certainly room for intelligent disagreement on questions of copyright. If there weren't, there wouldn't be so many court cases related to it. This particular problem, at least, seems to me like the kind of thing we should be able to discuss calmly, without people being upset or feeling harassed. This makes me feel like there must be more going on here than I understand - not just with WPPilot, as it's quite clear there's more there, but in general. And I'm so sorry to see unhappiness and ill-will among people who are just doing their best to build a great encyclopedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you removed some text from this article which was copied from the website of the organisation. I think I can send a permission about this text, as I am working for this organisation. Would it be OK? I am a long term editor here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Yann. Absolutely! :) I know you know your way around Commons, so I'm sure you're familiar with Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. They can also put a release on the site itself, of course. We recommend in that case getting the release archived so that we don't ever run into lost permission later. {{Text release}} is the way to go in that case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About my articles
Thank you for informing me about all the facts about copyright and etc. Yes, I apologise from all of you that, I had some problems in the past about copyrights of some photos and few articles. I think, all of them due to lacking knowledge about those stuff, because most of them did when I was just became a wikipedian very early times. But, now I have fixed all those wrong things and only my words are writing on created pages and existing pages. It is true that I got facts from many books, online newspapers, journals and other audio visual media, but I didn't cut and paste them. I photographed the photos that I uploaded now, but there were few incidents very early that I get directly from internet. But now, I can assure that recent photos that I uploaded are photographed by me. But, I never paste articles recently anywhere, only with my writing skills, I created the pages. So, apologize about previous copyright violations, but it will not be again.
Thank You...(Gihan Jayaweera)
Hi, MRG. I was just looking at the Morton Gould article, and came across the Library of Congress page for his collection there. As part of it, there's a striking publicity photo dating from 1963, which has more information about it here. It doesn't seem to fall under the staff photo exceptions listed here, so I assume it's still under copyright. There's currently a photo in the article dating from later in his life (1980s?) - do you think adding a second non-free photo would be excessive? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, User:SarekOfVulcan. :) I wish that I could help, but I'm afraid that I'm really not the one to ask about that; I'm not active at all in fair use image questions and have not uploaded a fair use image of living person in years because of my own confusion about our community standards. I have no clue whether that would be regarded as reasonable or not. If it were me, I'd take it to WT:NFC just to get other opinions, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Thanks for your help! :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hanswar32 (talk · contribs) is the subject of an edit-warring report that was archived without response from any admin, and only a single and brief response from any non-involved editors.
You had blocked him, and then removed the block after he promised, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me."
He decided to continue with the edit-warring a month later (
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]) and has continued through the past month (including
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] [15]
[16] [17]), more than a year later. I am planning to take the case to ANI, but thought it might be best to notify you first and get your thoughts. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moonriddengirl, please note that Ronz has grossly and in what seems bad-faith, mischaracterized and falsely portrayed all those diffs cited to achieve whatever personal ends he has in mind. I adequately defended myself against his half-truths and whole-lies in the report above and it would be pointless to redo that here, so please have a look and pay particular attention to the last few posts in which Ronz desperately and shamelessly tries to prolong the discussion with frivolous and unfounded claims. Although I'm disgusted by Ronz' behavior and have in fact warned him on his talkpage for his seemingly continuous obsession/harassment [18], I'm actually not disappointed in the least that he contacted you because of my respect for you as a reasonable admin. If anything, I hope you can advise me on how to prevent Ronz from continuing to harass me. Thank you. Hanswar32 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, Ronz and Hanswar32. I'm afraid I feel very underinformed to really have thoughts here. :/ This is evidently a fairly large dispute over how pornography articles should be handled, and it looks like it hasn't been settled since my minimal involvement over a year ago. (If it has, there should be a consensus to point to?) It looks like there was a 3RR violation on April 12th ([19] [20] [21][22][23]), although this was stale by the time the 3RRN was opened. Leaving aside all questions of other edits for the moment, please, Hanswar32, what's your take on what happened there? I have no intention of blocking you for crossing 3RR a month ago, but it would help in my general response. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response and you are spot on about this being fundamentally a policy dispute, one in which Ronz is trying impose his views/opinions on through bullying tactics by making false allegations & fabricated accusations to mask his agenda. I'm glad to cooperate and answer any of your questions and I apologize in advance for cluttering your talkpage but please allow me to cite the following that I have written from the archived report above in my defense to give you a better background on what has been going on:
Extended content
|
- I'd like to cite this talkpage [24] in addition to my own talkpage [25] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding...Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree.
- You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [26]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [27] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative....It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [28].
- What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that Scalhotrod justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone. I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time.
- Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: [29] --Ronz....Ronz Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. --Hanswar32
- Another revert [30] --Ronz...You conveniently missed reading the edit summary which I purposefully left expecting your continued harassment and specifically wrote to the editor that I'm not going to revert you to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, and I didn't. I've already warned you on your talkpage, so if you keep harassing me and continue with your pitiful lies, nothing would be more satisfactory than seeing you endure another prolonged block to your history. --Hanswar32
|
- The above should give you some insight to my and Scalhotrod's history with Hullaballoo particularly in bold and the reason for my April 12 reverts. It's my understanding that the 3RR applies to a single page over 24 hours, and whatever the case, regardless of the technicality of it, I seek to uphold the essence of the rule by avoiding confrontations and engaging in discussions to reach consensus as cited extensively above. Ronz however has failed to address or respond to anything in any satisfactory method, if at all, because he knows that what he's doing is a pathetic troll job to silence/harass an editor he disagrees with and it would be my pleasure to embarrass him once again if he decides to continue on with his foolishness and make a false report to ANI. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hanswar32, you're right; I didn't look closely enough. I saw the date and clear reverts and didn't notice the page title. So, no 3RR violation, although there is edit warring - but it's your contention that you're reverting across a swathe of articles to enforce consensus? Why not seek dispute resolution if somebody is repeatedly violating consensus? (I have to admit that I'm still not looking that closely. When at a skim I see stuff like "Ronz Is this another pathetic troll attempt?" I'm not reading. Not unless I'm evaluating for WP:NPA. I'd much rather concisely discuss the problem and focus on solutions.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To be quite honest, the reason I haven't investigated or explored seriously the idea of seeking dispute resolution specifically in regards to consensus violation is because there is no centralized crystal clear consensus to point to. There are several various discussions on numerous talkpages where an agreement between several editors including myself have been reached and we edit based on that. The only editor who had an issue with it was Hullaballoo up to about a month ago when Ronz suddenly appeared in the picture. And dealing with Hullaballoo, although frustrating at times, is not that bad because he usually informally agrees to disagree and edits other articles for a few weeks/months at a time before reappearing again and having to repeat the discussion somewhere new with the same results. This method has been working flawlessly for the past year and a half without incident and as such, I found no cause or motivation, neither did any other editor who agrees with me I suppose, to seek dispute resolution. But for the past month, ever since Ronz has shown up from seemingly nowhere, this harmony has been disrupted by his bullying/harassing behavior as he refuses to acknowledge the non-centralized consensus that exists between numerous editors over the issue. I cited a few talkpages in the report above where he's been a nuisance and went on and on talking to himself after every single editor disagreed with him and Scalhotrod can bear witness to this. Hanswar32 (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
I'm interested in volunteering in the IP area of this Wiki. I'm willing to take courses so that I can contribute in a valuable way. I'm looking into this course: https://welc.wipo.int/acc/index.jsf?page=courseCatalog.xhtml&lang=en&cc=DL001E#plus_DL001E. What do you think? --Syed Kazim (Talk | Contribs) 20:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, User:Syed Kazim. :) Unfortunately, my firewall software won't let me follow that link. :/ It indicates it isn't secure. I was able to find what I imagine is the same class through a Google search at [31]. Anything that improves your understanding of US copyright law is helpful, certainly. You then need to modify what you know to account for Wikipedia's approach to it; I've known a few attorneys who have been a bit thrown by our policies, which are intentionally conservative. We don't test boundaries there. :) You could probably also pick up the basics through the Stanford guide at [32], esp. including the sections on Copyright FAQs, The Public Domain, and Fair Use. This should be supplemented with Wikipedia:Copyvios, Wikipedia:NFC, WP:C, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, WP:CWW, Wikipedia:Copyright in lists and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. A good place to get some experience is at WP:SCV - infractions there are generally quite fresh, so you're less likely to run into false positives. (And, when you do, it usually means content was copied from another Wikipedia article - sometimes without attribution - which is a copyright problem, too!) Would be delighted to have more assistance in this area. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
