User talk:Ken keisel

Witteman-Barling Bomber discussion

Thanks Ken, above and beyond...Bzuk (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I agree. Any chance I can get a consensus on changing the name to "Barling XNBL-1"? I have a couple editors suggesting that change. Most researchers will be searching for the "Barling Bomber" and may be confused if they only find an aircraft called the "Whittman-Lewis". I really think the Ho-229 naming convention applies in this case. The Barling was never called the Whittman-Lewis in operation. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Even though consensus is generally thought to be "vote counting" it really is a more complex system of decision-making. The actual result of a consensus is the acceptance of a decision, or at least one, everyone can live with. My reading of the discussion string is that the flow is now more of a concession that the official and unofficial combining of names will prevail. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

I think that as long as the "Barling" name is first I could live with that. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction, I just returned from the Air Force archives at Wright-Pat where I had them pull the airplane's original 1923 specifications book. It identifies the aircraft only as the "Barling Bomber". Bzuk, I will forward a copy of my scans to you tomorrow. - Ken keisel (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ken, you forgot to notify the other involved editors of the posting you made at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, so I did that for you this morning. JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was having difficulty getting the posting to appear. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Combining refs

Ken, please do not repeatedly paste the same ref into articles -- combine multiple occurrences of the same citation using WP:NAMEDREFS. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, I spent ten minutes fixing it and when I tried posting the work it was erased by an "edit conflict" generated by you. If you're not going to give me a chance to fix it before editing on it yourself you're just wasting my time. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And I've asked you before not to copy and paste my entire signature.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to help, please correct the spelling of the title for the article I just finished. It should be "Gerhardt Cycleplane", not "Gerhardt Cycloplane". - Ken keisel (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:Requested moves. While you're waiting, you can fix the rest of the typos in that article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if you were helpful, instead of just harrassing. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please actually explain what you're doing in the WP:EDITSUMMARY field, instead of putting "updated entry" for every single edit summary -- that's almost as unhelpful as omitting it altogether. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I used "reply" this time. You're welcome. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Per your request I moved the article to Gerhardt Cycleplane. I also used a named reference format per WP:NAMEDREFS. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC) – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ken keisel. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
Message added 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Miners Minors

Minors who edit Wikipedia are not required to disclose that they are minors. In fact, in many cases, minors who edit Wikipedia are advised not to self-identify as a minor. Demanding of an editor (or of those watching their talk page) that they specify whether or not they are a minor, as you did here, is unacceptable in my view. Please don't do it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately --SarekOfVulcan's stalking behavior has become so disturbing it was necessairy to establish if this editor is merely a child, or a real danger here. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

1. You don't get to "establish" if an editor is a minor. Not for any reason.
2. Is there some confusion between "stalking" and WP:HOUND here? Stalking is an activity that has real life implications, and may justify an assertion that "real danger" is involved. Merely commenting where another editor has also commented, is not stalking; it may or may not fall under WP:HOUND. There is a very significant difference between the two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Accusations of stalking. Thank you.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarek

Please do not accuse other editors of stalking you, as you did here. As was pointed out at Sarek's talk page, it is part of his (voluntary) job to check up on edits that may be problematic. If you have a dispute about content, discuss it in article talk. Thanks, --John (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the "talk page" on the Gerhardt Cycleplane and the Marshmallow sofa you will see that I have attempted to discuss SarakOfVulcan's problem edits with him there. He has never replied. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

O RLY? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You have never edited the former page, but I see your post at the latter. That's fine, but please don't accuse him of stalking you when he is only doing his job. --John (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Right now he's placing information that needs to be immediately deleted due to lack of references, or accuracy, on every article I edit. I don't believe this is his job. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see evidence of this and therefore I don't agree with you. --John (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggest you check out his edit history on Gerhardt Cycleplane and Marshmallow sofa articles. His claims and edits were found to be false. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I already did, and in fact I edited both articles when I saw you two discussing it on his talk page. There are two issues here; one is the content dispute (which I am not all that interested in) and the other is the issue of you making accusations about an admin which don't stand up to scrutiny. It is the second one you need to stop. You cannot win a content dispute by falsely alleging stalking. Do you understand? --John (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

John, I would be happy if he(?) just stopped editing every article right after I do. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

That's wikihounding (if that's what he's doing, consistently and without good reason), not stalking or "real danger". OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I'm not here to gang up on you. Quite the opposite. I'm here because I feel like this issue could be resolved if cooler heads prevailed. I don't think that Sarek has been going about this in the right way and I sympathize with the feeling of being wikihounded. It appears to me, that in several of these cases, Sarek has reverted your additions because he has been unable to verify the sources on his own. At times this has caused you to add the information back with different sources verifying the information. I have suggested to Sarek at AN/I that it would be more collegial not to revert, but discuss the referencing with you instead, especially if the issue is simply poor use of references as opposed to incorrect information. I'm sure you can appreciate the fact though that we do need to be careful to get the right sources up when we add accurate information to articles. Other editors will have no way to distinguish false information from accurate information if they can't find the information in the sources. So what can be done going forward? Do you think you could put Sarek's mind at ease by promising to be more meticulous with your sourcing? Perhaps then he can promise not to Wikihound your edits and to discuss edits with you instead of simply reverting you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ken, I wanted to apologize for taking quite a harsh tone with you there. I can see that you are not all that well-versed in how we work here and I know it can be a steep learning curve. You have made a good start by posting at article talk. The best thing is if you just post your proposed addition or change there, then try to convince other editors using good sources and the principles of our mission. Be friendly and polite, and remember that other editors will have their own sources and their own interpretations of policy. Be kind, erudite, thoughtful and patient and you will be able to contribute here. We really need folks like you who are smart and knowledgeable and can write. The hardest thing about editing here is the strain of working with other editors, but it can also be the most rewarding. Be nice to Sarek and I find he is one of the kindest and best admins we have. I'll be around if you need any help. Once again, sorry for the tone I took with you. --John (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank you. One problem I have is that there seems to be many styles for citing sources in articles. Each administrator seems to have their own personal style, and rejects the style of the others. I have been criticized for not using their style. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it shows the source, any style is acceptable. If the administrators wants to use different styles they are welcome to change it to suit them, but I wish they would stop trying the force one style on me over another. The other issue I have is that I often receive information on the current status of individual surviving aircraft. This information is not published (and not likely to be), but is very relevant to the article. I have no problem with having it tagged with {citation needed}, but certain editors are simply deleting my additions without discussion, for lack of a published reference. It is my understanding that deleting information that appears factual is discouraged. From what I've read on the Wikipedia rules page it should just be tagged. Am I correct? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy Vio Problem

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-15 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 104–05--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to Yak-17 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 110–11

Your addition to Yak-19 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 118–19

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-25 (1947) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 127–28

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-30 (1948) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, p. 128

Sturmvogel 66, in the future please identify yourself when you post a message. You can do this by typing the "~" key four times at the end of your post. Based on your message it does not appear that you are challanging the accuracy of the information you deleted, or the book that it was obtained from. Am I correct? If that is the case wouldn't the best approach be to simply re-edit it until you no longer consider it a violation? I don't see how it benefits these articles to delete 50% of their information simply because of how it was worded. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

He did sign on the first warning. Its your responsibility to make sure the text you add does not violate copyright, not other's jobs to clean up after you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see now that he did sign it near the top. Not where I'm used to seeing a signature. Perhaps he could have chosen a different format to make this posting. Regarding the text, I made significant changes to the original source text when I added my information, and I do not believe the material is in violation in any way, but as Sturmvogel 66 states he is currently doing a full re-write on the articles and will re-add the deleted information there seems little reason to argue the point. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don Chadwick

I just reverted all your recent edits, given that I could find no reason to change "Don" to "Gordon". Feel free to restore any accurate edits: I just couldn't tell which were which, so played it safe and restored the status quo.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do a google search for "Gordon Chadwick" and "Herman Miller" you find about a dozen results. He is commonly known as Don Chadwick, but his full name is Gordon. Wikipedia naming convention specifies that we use the common name if it is overwhelmingly familiar, as is the case here. There isn't much information in the article. I suggest that your time would be better spent researching more material to add to it, rather than deleting what little is, which could be verified by a simple search. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken, I hope you don't mind me interjecting here (I still have your talk page on my watch-list after leaving that other comment above). There might be some confusion here between Don Chadwick and Gordon Chadwick. The Gordon Chadwick that I get reference to when I Google as you suggested above might not be the Don Chadwick of the entry. I can't say for sure, but that Gordon Chadwick was a partner of George Nelson's in 1953. In that year Don Chadwick was 17 years old. I doubt he was a partner in an architectural firm. Is it possible they were related? Perhaps Don's name is Gordon, but he goes by Don specifically because there already was a notable architect/designer who had the name Gordon Chadwick. Anyway I hope that helps. Regarding the rest of the changes I think it would be helpful if they were sourced in some way. If they were I doubt Sarek would have reverted them. Remember that Don Chadwick falls under WP:BLP. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Gordon Chadwick is not the fellow who designed the Aeron Chair. That was Don Chadwick. Thank you for the assistance! - Ken keisel (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Typo fixing

I'm doing a swing through your contribution list looking for typos. To avoid swamping your watchlist, I'm not saving changes unless there's an actual spelling or markup issue to fix. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gurley Novelty

Ken -

The page as you've created it lacks a references/ tag at the end; I undertook to add it but was prevented from doing so by a spam filter warning that indicated that one or more of the references you've supplied is on Wikipedia's blacklist. Please figure out which it is and remove it so that the article can be properly sourced. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I find out which one is blacklisted? - Ken keisel (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. Looks like someone did it for you. The article's pretty thin on references now, though. You probably need to find some non-spam ones to substitute. JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ken and John: Yeah I came across the article and thought it just needed a "reflist" to get it working right. When I added that, the software indicated that two of the refs were on the spam blacklists and disallowed a page save. I double checked the lists to make sure it wasn't an error and they are on the blacklists, so cannot be used as refs. I added tags instead. - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the ezinearticles one isn't considered a reliable source for WP's purposes -- it doesn't look like it has editorial control.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The final citation remaining was to a website selling old product, and I removed it as not a reliable source; the article has no sources at all now and needs some bolstering. JohnInDC (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ezinearticles is blacklisted as spam on Wikipedia! I have also added a "notability" tag to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it using different references. Interesting that I didn't encounter any spam filters when I posted that reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It didn't trigger the spam filter because it wasn't an external link until Ahunt added the References section. At that point, the blacklist kicked in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That is my take on it too! The article is now a mess of duplicate refs and needs a serious clean-up and checking of references. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree - I'm not altogether confident in any of those refs and one or another reference tag probably should be restored to it in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

As always, it helps to just do a little research. It only took one visit to Amazon to find what you two have been spending so much time bantering about. SarekOfVulcan (talk), I would be glad to spend some time working with you on how to do your own research. I've looked at your contributions, and it doesn't appear that you are familiar with adding anything that you have researched yourself. You are very good at deleting other's additions, but with a little time spent researching a subject you could be making valuable contributions that are more than just simply challanges and deletions. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you own that book, Ken? If not then how do you know what it says? (I took a quick look at the parts that Amazon allows you to see and didn't see anything about Gurley Novelty - am I mistaken about that?) JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(I would add that, indeed it does help to do a little research -- better still to do it before the article goes live and before it's tagged for poor references and raised as an issue at the RS Noticeboard.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

JohnInDC, you are indeed mistaken, again, and it's becoming a trend. Pages 68 through 81 are devoted to Gurley candles. I find it disturbing that you are challenging the contents of a book that, by your own admission, you don't own and haven't read. Regarding your second comment, again you are mistaken. It is yours, and every user's, responsibility to search for and add good references to articles, not just the person who wrote it. I'm noticing from your edit history that you seem to spend more time criticizing other's work on Wikipedia than making any practical contribution to the articles yourself. I would also remind you that it was you who insisted that Navy bandleader Anthony A. Mitchell was not notable under the Wikipedia notability guidelines, a position in which you were unanimously voted to be wrong. As I said, I see a trend appearing here that is very disturbing - Ken keisel (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just confused, because you wrote the article with some pretty feeble sources; then when challenged on it eventually produced an apparently reliable source - but described it not as something that was in your library (and which presumably you would have offered up in the first place) but with an Amazon link that has nothing to do with Gurley Novelties. On top of that you complained to Sarek for failing to come up with this source when - again - the Amazon page doesn't mention Gurley. How was he supposed to find it? Anyhow it didn't make much sense. It still doesn't, actually, but if you do have the book in your library I'm not going to dispute what you say it says without my own copy. Next time please offer up the decent reliable sources that you have on hand rather than material that Wikipedia's own software rejects as unreliable. It is your job in the first place - see WP:Burden - and it would save the rest of us a good bit of time. (As for Anthony Mitchell. Indeed he turned out to be sufficiently notable - you'll recall I withdrew my nomination - and the article remains in place, as it should. But you misremember the discussion that led up to it. For a while in fact it looked like article might be deleted. Here's a link in case you want to go back to check. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN.) Finally, be careful with your insinuations. You accused me of "bias" on a prior occasion and were sharply criticized for it. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

JohnInDC, I'm still unclear why you disputed the contents of the book if you don't own it, and haven't read it? There are ethics issues cropping up here. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ken - I'm confused again. Where did I dispute the content? JohnInDC (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Kokosing Gap Trail. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ken keisel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is yet another action by SarekOfVulcan, in a long history of Wikihounding previously documented. For several months SarekOfVulcan has followed my edits on every article I have edited or created. His actions have been documented above in comments dated 16 September and 17 September in which other administrators have criticized his actions. His claims that I have violated copyright on the Kokosing Gap Trail article are unfounded, as I took information that had already been present in the article for months and modified it to avoid any copyright issues. SarakOfVulcan's behaviour has already been the subject of criticism, as noted above.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As you were the editor who originally added the material, are you saying that you did not copy it from the site you were presented with? You then appear to have simply reverted it back in even after having been confronted with the copyright violation, and then replaced it with a close paraphrase. Can you explain this series of edits in a different way; the one sentence you devoted to your actual block reason does not seem to be accurate as presented? Kuru (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Really, there wasn't criticism from others about his behaviour, just you complaining without evidence about his making sure you didn't violate copyright, again, as you had done so much in the past that many other admins would've just indef blocked you instead of taking the time to let you try and edit without violating copyright. Heck, Sarek only blocked you for a month instead of indefinately. He's acknowledging that you could be helpful to this site if you were a little more careful, but you just keep spitting in his eye. Shame on you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I edit conflicted with the decline above, posting what would have been my rationale as it is a bit more comprehensive: I've looked at the diffs, and it is abundantly clear that you either do not understand or are deliberately ignoring our policies on copyrighted material and plagiarism. Changing a word here and there is not re-writing something on your own words. Your edit summaries and talk page comments seem to suggest that you believe it is ok for you to go ahead and post such material and leave it to others to rewrite it so that it is not an infringement. That is not the case, you shouldn't be making such posts in the first place. Unless and until you can indicate that you understand and will abide by Wikipedia policy on these matters you will need to remain blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ken keisel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry , but you are misunderstanding me. I can understand that, because SarakOfVulcan is required by Wikipedia policy to confirm authorship before declaring that a copyright violation has taken place. Unfortunately, he failed to do that. I wrote the text in question for Wikipedia in 2008. I am the original author. Since 2008 portions of the text of the Kokosing Gap Trail article have been copied and pasted onto numerous amature travel and bicycling web sites. This sort of thing happens all the time, as virtually none of the information on Wikipedia can be copyrighted. It's nice when they give credit, but when the source is Wikipedia they rarely do. I spoke with Sandy Crow at the Knox County Chamber of Commerce and she informed me that the information currently on the site that SarakOfVulcan insists I stole from was posted in early 2011. She states that no one from Wikipedia had called her previously to check the authorship of that information. SarakOfVulcan was required to do that, since no author or credit is stated on the site. SarakOfVulcan is claiming that I stole a text that I wrote. He provided no proof that I was not the original author. He made no effort to identify the author before taking administrative action. He never contacted me before taking administrative action.

Decline reason:

As Jpgordon mentions above, blaming other editors will not get your block lifted early. Please read our guide to requesting unblocking and try again. TNXMan 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

http://web.archive.org/web/20100222181248/http://www.visitknoxohio.org/index.php?article=kokosing shows that the information was on the VisitKnoxOhio site on February 2010 and was credited there as "Written by Progressive Communications Inc". This is after the date that Ken keisel added the information to Wikipedia, so it doesn't firmly establish the original authorship.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

SarakOfVulcan, it is your responsibility to establish the original author BEFORE you take administrative action, not to block someone and then check to see if they were the original author. You even admit that the information was added to the site after it was written on Wikipedia. That alone should have been more than enough for you to have seen that this was a simple cut and paste from Wikipedia. - Ken keisel (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a link to the Kokosing Gap Trail in early October 2008, as shown at http://web.archive.org/web/20081014192406/http://www.visitknoxohio.org/index.php?article=attractions. However, the archivebot did not crawl the page at that time, so I can't establish what the content was then -- just that there _was_ content.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

BTW, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Copyrights, for that matter. "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." Stating that "virtually none of the information on Wikipedia can be copyrighted" is outright wrong -- practically all of it is.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek is not a copyright lawyer. If it apears to be a violation, then his responsibility is to protect the project. If you you are the author of the original source, then is is your responsibility to submit an WP:OTRS incident to prove such. Blaming the blocking admin for you not doing your job seems to be a little odd (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Here is the text of an email I recieved on a similar subject from Wikipedia;

• fromPermissions permissions@wikimedia.org
• toK Keisel <kkeisel@gmail.com>
• dateThu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:33 AM
• subjectRe: [Ticket#2011080310013936] Fwd: Message via washingtonpost.com - for use in *article "Anthony A Mitchell"
• mailed-bywikimedia.org
• Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.
• hide details Aug 4
• Dear Ken Keisel,
• Matt Schudel is correct that facts cannot be copyrighted. You are welcome to make

use of the Washington Post article as a source for an article, using it as a reference. Wikipedia encourages this, in fact. Reliable sources make Wikipedia more trustworthy and this article will provide the opportunity for readers to verify the information.

• Sincerely,
• Aaron Adrignola

U.S. copyright law prohibits the copyrighting of facts, ideas, or factual statements. It is not the users responsibility to search the web for information cut and pasted from their contributions. It IS an administrator's responsibility to get their fact straight BEFORE they take action. In this case it was clear that the material was added to the web site after it was placed on Wikipedia. - Ken keisel (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This e-mail has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If you had linked to a reliable source such as the e-mail suggests, no issues. You are instead claiming that you are the author of text that holds copyright - you must therefore provide proof of such ownership. This is pretty easy stuff Ken. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been contributing here since 2005, and I've never encountered a problem like this before. I wrote the information based on having worked on the crew that helped put the caboose on display. There was no reliable source to use, and it is not a contentious issue. From what I can see, the text has been added to over a dozen amature web sites. I see this happening all the time, especially on eBay, where many listings use cut and paste text from Wikipedia. They do this because they know the factual statements we place here cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law. Please stop being angry with me about that. It's nothing to do with me. That's just the law. If any of us were required to keep track of all the text we add here and report whenever it's used elsewhere there would be no one contributing here. It would take up all our time, and we're not getting paid for this. Plus, what would it accomplish? You can't ask them to take it down, it falls under fair use law. - Ken keisel (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Under US copyright law, ANY text is copyrighted to its creator the moment it is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." [1] Wikipedia's articles ARE copyrighted. However, they MAY be reproduced at will under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Under that license, any material contributed by any Wikipedia editor must be releasable under that license, as stated at the bottom of every edit page. There's a huge difference between licensing material under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and not having a copyright, especially since the latter does not exist as a matter either of statute or of case law in the United States. There's also a huge difference between the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and releasing material into the public domain, the latter of which appears to be what you are incorrectly asserting. If you wish to release your original writings into the public domain, well and good, but do not make the erroneous presumption that the text of a Wikipedia article to which you have added such public-domain material is also in the public domain. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, note that he claims that the text he authored here _was_ the original, not that he wrote it somewhere else and copied it here. It's harder to establish that nobody wrote it before you than it is to prove that somebody did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Block upped to indef for complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy. If you ever figure out how to properly contribute here, you can submit a new unblock request showing that you will work within policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have raised this for discussion at WP:ANI#Copyright block review needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

As long as you maintian the block I am unable to participate in this discussion. Based on your statements here it appears your argument is with Wikipedia, and the U.S. Copyright laws, not me. I have looked and I can find no Wikipedia rule requiring me to keep track of text that I add to Wikipedia, if it is cut and pasted onto private web sites. - Ken keisel (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

SarakOfVulcan, you have raised the issue of the Anthony A. Mitchell copywright violation on WP:ANI#Copyright block review needed. You have failed to mention that I received permission from the author to use that text. Please add that fact to your discussion. - Ken keisel (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Got an OTRS ticket number to that effect I can reference? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I see it now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that several administrators are struggling with the fact that Wikipedia's policy regarding copywright does not mirror the U.S. Copywright laws. There has been a suggestion that I do not understand the law because my interpetation is different from Wikipedia's, and that appears to be the basis for SarakOfVulcan's currect claim. Here is the complete text of an email I received from Thomas ASchwartz Ph.D., a professor of copywright law at The Ohio State University.

• Hi Ken Keisel,

• This is a difficult concept for my students to learn; it even seems to contradict the whole purpose (misperceived, as it is) of copyright law to the layperson.

• In your message to me, you don't distinguish between the facts and the expression of the facts, but I'm assuming you know this crucial difference. You can use the facts, ideas, etc. from the Post obituary, but not the exact wording, unless you're provide attribution and insert quotation marks.

• But overall you have it right. I'm surprised the Wikipedia folks didn't look at their own entries on the subject. Here's what it says at one of several places that explains this:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

Idea/expression dichotomyAn important limitation on the scope of copyright protection is the idea/expression dichotomy: While copyright law protects the expression of an idea, it does not protect the idea itself.The distinction between "idea" and "expression" is a fundamental part of U.S. law, but it is not always clear. From the 1976 Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102):In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.A paper describing a political theory, for example, is copyrightable; it may not be reproduced by anyone else without the author's permission. But the theory itself (which is an idea rather than a specific expression) is not copyrightable. Another author is free to describe the same theory in his or her own words without violating copyright law, and in fact need not even give credit to the original author (although failing to do so may be considered plagiarism, an ethical transgression). Courts disagree on how much of the story and characters of a copyrighted novel or film should be considered copyrightable expression.The link takes you to the respected online law library at Cornell University, which provides you with the exact sections of relevance, especially Section 102(b) of the U.S. Code:

• TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102Prev | Next§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In generalHow Current is This?(a)Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:(1)literary works;(2)musical works, including any accompanying words;(3)dramatic works, including any accompanying music;(4)pantomimes and choreographic works;(5)pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;(6)motion pictures and other audiovisual works;(7)sound recordings; and(8)architectural works.(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html

I hope this is what you wanted. If not, let me know.

• Best of luck,

• Thomas A. Schwartz, Ph.D.
• Associate Professor
• School of Communication
• Ohio State University
• Derby Hall 3074
• 154 N. Oval Mall
• Columbus, OH 43210
• (614) 292-1006

My statements above are based on having read the actual U.S. copywright laws described here. Note that they do not match the copywright laws that Wikipedia promotes. When working inside Wikipedia we can create any laws we want, and say they're real, but that doesn't make them real. In the case of the discussion we're having here, individuals who copy and paste text from Wikipedia are only responsible for following the laws of the United States, not the laws of Wikipedia. I am not agruing Wikipedia's rules, I'm merely pointing out that outside Wikipedia only the U.S laws apply. This may come as an eye-opener for some of you, but don't shoot the messenger. - Ken keisel (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Ken keisel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am the author of the text in question. It was cut and pasted onto the site in question at a later date

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=''I am the author of the text in question. It was cut and pasted onto the site in question at a later date'' |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=''I am the author of the text in question. It was cut and pasted onto the site in question at a later date'' |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=''I am the author of the text in question. It was cut and pasted onto the site in question at a later date'' |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}