| Revision as of 20:49, 6 June 2009 editAllstarecho (talk | contribs)Rollbackers41,096 edits Undid revision 294848687 by Frank (talk) Please don't remove my retirement notice, I'm not editing anywhere else but here on my talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:47, 6 June 2009 edit undoFrank (talk | contribs)Administrators19,999 edits →ZOMG!: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| :::I think this is a case where an example of how something was called copyright and finding equitable solutions to serve both this editor and our readers would make sense. FWIW, ASE and I and many others have had to endure campaigns of deletion of various items for what amounted to - this is not a copyright issue, this is fine. To me this is endemic of confusing and byzantine uploading instructions that have been shown - even in recent studies - to thwart newby editors from even participating. Meanwhile rampant deletion, even of items that were uploaded in good faith and according to policies at the time, fells swaths of content thus adding to the frustration. Don't like it? You must then fight for an overturn at DrV. This seems to fly in the face of Misplaced Pages's ethos of being welcoming and civil but I digress.<br/> My hunch is some of this may fall into the misunderstanding area but was escalated out of a constructive dialog. ASE can get quickly heated but so can many of the other folks so let's see how we can keep both a generally good wikipedian and stay within policies. ASE, if you're up to it point me to a test case or two and I'll see what's up. IMHO, I often have to choose between rewritting and quoting something to avoid OR and it can be painful and time-consuming. With statistics my hunch is putting blatant ] so readers/other editors can easily see it may have helped but I'll await further development in hopes we can ease the pain of this. Don't let it get you down, no matter what mistakes have been made they will get cleaned up and even deleted content can be reviewed and reworked if an article needs it. Don't sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff. ] 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC) | :::I think this is a case where an example of how something was called copyright and finding equitable solutions to serve both this editor and our readers would make sense. FWIW, ASE and I and many others have had to endure campaigns of deletion of various items for what amounted to - this is not a copyright issue, this is fine. To me this is endemic of confusing and byzantine uploading instructions that have been shown - even in recent studies - to thwart newby editors from even participating. Meanwhile rampant deletion, even of items that were uploaded in good faith and according to policies at the time, fells swaths of content thus adding to the frustration. Don't like it? You must then fight for an overturn at DrV. This seems to fly in the face of Misplaced Pages's ethos of being welcoming and civil but I digress.<br/> My hunch is some of this may fall into the misunderstanding area but was escalated out of a constructive dialog. ASE can get quickly heated but so can many of the other folks so let's see how we can keep both a generally good wikipedian and stay within policies. ASE, if you're up to it point me to a test case or two and I'll see what's up. IMHO, I often have to choose between rewritting and quoting something to avoid OR and it can be painful and time-consuming. With statistics my hunch is putting blatant ] so readers/other editors can easily see it may have helped but I'll await further development in hopes we can ease the pain of this. Don't let it get you down, no matter what mistakes have been made they will get cleaned up and even deleted content can be reviewed and reworked if an article needs it. Don't sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff. ] 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::A lot of the shit she is claiming is copyvio, while it may be, was not put in the articles by me. I just went through her contribs and she's removing shit left and right that I didn't even touch, stuff that's been in articles long before I even contributed to the article but because I happened to contribute to an article which contains questonable content, the articles are being practically wiped out. Some of the shit she's removing is because of dead links. We don't remove content just because a damn link is dead. No, we find a new link. But her edit summary? "404 dead link source and since he's a copyviolator, remove it, do not restore it!". Ridiculous. '''-''' ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] @'''</sub> 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC) | ::::A lot of the shit she is claiming is copyvio, while it may be, was not put in the articles by me. I just went through her contribs and she's removing shit left and right that I didn't even touch, stuff that's been in articles long before I even contributed to the article but because I happened to contribute to an article which contains questonable content, the articles are being practically wiped out. Some of the shit she's removing is because of dead links. We don't remove content just because a damn link is dead. No, we find a new link. But her edit summary? "404 dead link source and since he's a copyviolator, remove it, do not restore it!". Ridiculous. '''-''' ]<span class="Unicode" style="color:#FF72E3;">▼</span>'''<sup>]</sup>''' <sub>'''] @'''</sub> 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| There are a number of points here that can use some bright light shed upon them: | |||
| #The main article that led to this investigation was deleted outright because it was a copyright violation of six pages on an external site. This page had been created in the last few weeks, after you had been an editor here for two years, give or take, and had been warned about copyright violations a number of times in that period. When alerted, your initial reaction was to claim it wasn't even a violation: Your was to copy the content to your user space; presumably you suspected it would be deleted shortly. It was not, and as I alerted you when I first mentioned it, for most other editors, I would have deleted it on sight and I don't think it's a stretch to say that most admins would have. I ] you would react well to a "word to the wise" and respond accordingly. Nine minutes later, you retreated from your position somewhat: You did not do so, although I am not claiming no effort was made - but the end result was that permission to use the content was not received. I waited a full 24 hours before templating the page, and alerted you as well. | |||
| #When you were alerted to the copyvio, you promptly removed the notice and asserted that it was not a copyvio, which it was. That you do not acknowledge that it was a copyvio means that you are either unwilling or unable to comply with the simple unblock terms that were laid out in good faith, given your previous valued contributions. | |||
| #You are not being stalked; however, since a noticeable portion of your contributions are copyvios, your contributions ''are'' being used as a roadmap to find copyvios. If the material in an article is copyvio and you didn't put it there, it still has to be removed. It is irrelevant whether or not you were the one that put it in the article, and whether you edited the article before or after the copyvio occurred. The point is the ''copyvio'', not ''you''. | |||
| #You are not retired. "Retired" from Misplaced Pages is understood to mean "not editing". You are blocked, and may only edit this page. You have asked to be unblocked twice and it was declined, and you have continued to assert that your contributions either were not copyvios or don't matter because they weren't your work. | |||
| #There are at least three prime examples of copyvios that are still visible for anyone to see: ], which is a direct copy of , ] and ]. In the case of Lazy Magnolia, your copyvio was so blatant that you did not even bother to capitalize the name "mark" which remains similarly uncapitalized on the original site. The of the Nix article, which you created in August 2008, was a direct copyvio of page. The was lifted wholesale from . That copyvio is so blatant that it would result in failing any college course for a first offense, and possibly further action. You can assert ignorance (one time only; now the jig is up) in the case of a corporate web site with no copyright notice. You can try to use the "you can't copyright facts" dodge a few times, but you've used those few times up now as well. (It's the way it's written, not the facts, that are copyrighted). But you cannot reasonably expect anybody on Misplaced Pages to believe your claim that copying 90% of the content from a New York Times obituary is anything but a blatant copyright violation, and it occurred over 15 months ago. And it's not the only one. | |||
| Finally: there are admins who would have blocked you when they found the LMBC page, without warning. There are some who view adherence to the policies of Misplaced Pages and copyright laws of the United States, where it operates, as hammers to be wielded like weapons. As I was the one who found it, and as that is not my personality, I approached you first, presuming you would fix the problem yourself. At every turn you have refused to do so in good faith; dropping f-bombs, leaving snarky edit summaries, borderline disruptive behavior, removing copyright templates, claiming that ] was deleted because of your request to do so rather than because of it being a copyright violation (articles like that are generally not simply deleted at user request), and, most recently, repeatedly insisting that you are "retired" rather than '''blocked''', which is the plain, simple fact of the matter. | |||
| While you have seared the edges, I would ''not'' say you have ''burned bridges'' to Misplaced Pages yet. My advice to you is to truly take a few days '''completely away''' and calm down about this. Come back in a few days and discuss it from a different point of view, and let's see where that goes. I can assure you that continued insistence that you were not violating copyright will not get you anywhere you want to go; the law and Misplaced Pages policy are clear on the matter. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">] {{!}} ]</span></small> 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:47, 6 June 2009
 | This user has retired - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 03:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) |
Allstarecho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Per the block statement Anyone may unblock if he promises not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore, I promise not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore since I am retired from Misplaced Pages. Additionally, no need in an indef block of a retired user.
Decline reason:
you are not retired from wikipedia, you are quite clearly still here. Viridae 08:58, 6 June 2009 (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.
Allstarecho (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Retirement isn't a condition of my being unblocked. The block reason specifically said Anyone may unblock if he promises not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore and I specifically promised not to copy and past copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore. I am abiding by the specific statement that said I could be unblocked. So now, unblock me.
Decline reason:
I am declining this one too because it doesn't address the reason why the first one was declined. You stated "I promise not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Misplaced Pages anymore since I am retired from Misplaced Pages", since your promise not to copy copyrighted material into[REDACTED] hinges on you being retired, and you clearly aren't retired (which is why the first unblock request was declined). Viridae 10:52, 6 June 2009 (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.
Viridae, my retirement is a non-issue as it's not a stipulation that was given in the stipulation for being unblocked. It doesn't matter whether I am retired, not retired, still editing, not editing.. the stipulations say if I promised not to add copyrighted material anymore, I can be unblocked. I promised not to add copyrighted material. I abided by the stipulation given. So now I should be unblocked, period. I'm afraid you not honoring the stipulation as it was set, is bad faith and speaks to other motives of keeping me blocked. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 20:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
ZOMG!
I'm very sorry I missed this and even more so that in the holiest of months you've left in digust. Please consider taking a wee break and coming back with your digust of copyright intact but your steadfastness in following the bureaucratic and often bizarre rales of content even stronger. The way I feel better about it is that ultimately free content can be seen by all instead of just those whose countries handle copyright issues more constructively. I certainly hope you have an excellent pride month and I really hope you decide to return - you have been a good Wikipedian and helped many other folks and the LGBT project as well. -- Banjeboi 08:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Most of it was a misunderstanding. I still don't see how statistical facts can be copyrighted. Facts are facts, period. Nevertheless, I've had my fill of the bureaucratic atmosphere and am retiring. I may return for general wikignome type stuff but I'm done contributing any content to Misplaced Pages. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 10:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you're sending mixed signals, by saying I will / I won't retire, and by posting a logo that suggests you don't believe in copyrights even though you promise to "sin no more". Baseball Bugs carrots 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what kind of signals I send about my retirement, retirement is not a stipulation for being blocked. Read the block and what was said that I need to do to be unblocked. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is a case where an example of how something was called copyright and finding equitable solutions to serve both this editor and our readers would make sense. FWIW, ASE and I and many others have had to endure campaigns of deletion of various items for what amounted to - this is not a copyright issue, this is fine. To me this is endemic of confusing and byzantine uploading instructions that have been shown - even in recent studies - to thwart newby editors from even participating. Meanwhile rampant deletion, even of items that were uploaded in good faith and according to policies at the time, fells swaths of content thus adding to the frustration. Don't like it? You must then fight for an overturn at DrV. This seems to fly in the face of Misplaced Pages's ethos of being welcoming and civil but I digress.
My hunch is some of this may fall into the misunderstanding area but was escalated out of a constructive dialog. ASE can get quickly heated but so can many of the other folks so let's see how we can keep both a generally good wikipedian and stay within policies. ASE, if you're up to it point me to a test case or two and I'll see what's up. IMHO, I often have to choose between rewritting and quoting something to avoid OR and it can be painful and time-consuming. With statistics my hunch is putting blatant WP:Attribution so readers/other editors can easily see it may have helped but I'll await further development in hopes we can ease the pain of this. Don't let it get you down, no matter what mistakes have been made they will get cleaned up and even deleted content can be reviewed and reworked if an article needs it. Don't sweat the small stuff and it's all small stuff. -- Banjeboi 20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)- A lot of the shit she is claiming is copyvio, while it may be, was not put in the articles by me. I just went through her contribs and she's removing shit left and right that I didn't even touch, stuff that's been in articles long before I even contributed to the article but because I happened to contribute to an article which contains questonable content, the articles are being practically wiped out. Some of the shit she's removing is because of dead links. We don't remove content just because a damn link is dead. No, we find a new link. But her edit summary? "404 dead link source and since he's a copyviolator, remove it, do not restore it!". Ridiculous. - ALLST✰R▼ wuz here @ 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, you're sending mixed signals, by saying I will / I won't retire, and by posting a logo that suggests you don't believe in copyrights even though you promise to "sin no more". Baseball Bugs carrots 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a number of points here that can use some bright light shed upon them:
- The main article that led to this investigation was deleted outright because it was a copyright violation of six pages on an external site. This page had been created in the last few weeks, after you had been an editor here for two years, give or take, and had been warned about copyright violations a number of times in that period. When alerted, your initial reaction was to claim it wasn't even a violation: Text from a web site is perfectly acceptable when one has permission to use said text. Thanks. Your next edit was to copy the content to your user space; presumably you suspected it would be deleted shortly. It was not, and as I alerted you when I first mentioned it, for most other editors, I would have deleted it on sight and I don't think it's a stretch to say that most admins would have. I figured you would react well to a "word to the wise" and respond accordingly. Nine minutes later, you retreated from your position somewhat: I guess I'll have to get some sort of submission to OTRS, which shouldn't be too hard since the company and myself are both in Mississippi. You did not do so, although I am not claiming no effort was made - but the end result was that permission to use the content was not received. I waited a full 24 hours before templating the page, and alerted you as well.
- When you were alerted to the copyvio, you promptly removed the notice and asserted that it was not a copyvio, which it was. That you do not acknowledge that it was a copyvio means that you are either unwilling or unable to comply with the simple unblock terms that were laid out in good faith, given your previous valued contributions.
- You are not being stalked; however, since a noticeable portion of your contributions are copyvios, your contributions are being used as a roadmap to find copyvios. If the material in an article is copyvio and you didn't put it there, it still has to be removed. It is irrelevant whether or not you were the one that put it in the article, and whether you edited the article before or after the copyvio occurred. The point is the copyvio, not you.
- You are not retired. "Retired" from Misplaced Pages is understood to mean "not editing". You are blocked, and may only edit this page. You have asked to be unblocked twice and it was declined, and you have continued to assert that your contributions either were not copyvios or don't matter because they weren't your work.
- There are at least three prime examples of copyvios that are still visible for anyone to see: User:Allstarecho/SandboxLMBC, which is a direct copy of , Tyrone Nix and Frank Frost. In the case of Lazy Magnolia, your copyvio was so blatant that you did not even bother to capitalize the name "mark" which remains similarly uncapitalized on the original site. The original version of the Nix article, which you created in August 2008, was a direct copyvio of this page. The version of Frost you created was lifted wholesale from this obituary. That copyvio is so blatant that it would result in failing any college course for a first offense, and possibly further action. You can assert ignorance (one time only; now the jig is up) in the case of a corporate web site with no copyright notice. You can try to use the "you can't copyright facts" dodge a few times, but you've used those few times up now as well. (It's the way it's written, not the facts, that are copyrighted). But you cannot reasonably expect anybody on Misplaced Pages to believe your claim that copying 90% of the content from a New York Times obituary is anything but a blatant copyright violation, and it occurred over 15 months ago. And it's not the only one.
Finally: there are admins who would have blocked you when they found the LMBC page, without warning. There are some who view adherence to the policies of Misplaced Pages and copyright laws of the United States, where it operates, as hammers to be wielded like weapons. As I was the one who found it, and as that is not my personality, I approached you first, presuming you would fix the problem yourself. At every turn you have refused to do so in good faith; dropping f-bombs, leaving snarky edit summaries, borderline disruptive behavior, removing copyright templates, claiming that Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company was deleted because of your request to do so rather than because of it being a copyright violation (articles like that are generally not simply deleted at user request), and, most recently, repeatedly insisting that you are "retired" rather than blocked, which is the plain, simple fact of the matter.
While you have seared the edges, I would not say you have burned bridges to Misplaced Pages yet. My advice to you is to truly take a few days completely away and calm down about this. Come back in a few days and discuss it from a different point of view, and let's see where that goes. I can assure you that continued insistence that you were not violating copyright will not get you anywhere you want to go; the law and Misplaced Pages policy are clear on the matter. Frank | talk 21:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)