|
WRFEC ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
An external link does not violate wp:copylink simply because one person says it does. There must be some evidence or at least a general consensus and there is none in this case so the benefit of the doubt is appropriate. This is a classic example of an experienced user attacking a new user
Decline reason:
I reviewed Talk:Ayu Mayu, and couldn't find the consensus that it would be helpful to add this link. Your argument, that "Scanlation can also be performed under license from the copyright holder," doesn't seem to include any evidence that it is licensed by the copyright holder in this particular instance. Wikipedia really doesn't publish or link to copyright violations, period. Looking at the site, I see the material in question was added by three different users, that the page does not include any statement that publication permission has been granted, and no reason at all to think that these are anything other than some fan's uploaded scans. The burden is not on other users to reach 'consensus' not to break copyright law- that consensus has already been reached. The burden is on you to prove that this particular set of images does not break copyright law. Frankly, I'd support a much longer block if you added links to copyright-violating material again in the future- your unblock request doesn't seem to understand that this is a legal matter, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to follow the law. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 14:15, 6 July 2010 (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.
WRFEC ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to clarify and expand upon my earlier request because I do not feel I did an adequate job of explaining it so that user:FisherQueen would understand. First I would like to point out that the stated reason for my block is edit warring, however wp:3rr clearly states that 3 reverts are ALLOWED in any 24 hour period. I reverted the page exactly 3 times and no more and therefore did not violate wp:3rr and thus wp:ew does not apply. Second I would like to clarify my position regarding the applicability of wp:copylink to the contributions I made to the Ayu Mayu page. FisherQueen evidently did not find the intellectual property heading on [1] where the website explicitly states that it owns or licenses the rights to all content displayed. Furthermore FisherQueens statement that the burden of proof is on the editor to proove that it is NOT a copyright violation is an extremely dangerous policy. The overwhelming majority of citations on wikipedia could not be PROVEN to be free of copyright violations. Anything could be plagerized, used without permission, etc, and we would have no way to know. Therefore under her concept of policy virtually all wikipedia citations would have to be removed. I do not believe this is consitent with wikipedia intent. A policy whereby it is assumed that the material is not in violation of copyright unless proven otherwise seems a more responsible approach. Wikipedia could not possibly be held legally responsible for linking to copyrighted material unless it could be proven that it was known to us that it was a copyright violation.
Decline reason:
" wp:3rr clearly states that 3 reverts are ALLOWED in any 24 hour period" -- no, actually, it says just the opposite: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I won't even bother addressing your misconceptions regarding copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (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.
WRFEC ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am deeply saddened and disappointed that the ideology of the community seems to fail in practice. While I have been lurking for over a year, occasionally contributing a new article, I have never edited another article until yesterday. In less than 24 hours I have seen that there is no discussion, no consensus building, no dispute resolution, and certainly no assumption of good faith. I have witnessed clearly that the predominant attitude is that any opinion different than your own is wrong and should be crushed. I thought it would be clear to any observer that I tried to improve the article I was editing and save it from premature deletion, that I acted in good faith and following the guidelines as best as I understood them. Im left dissapointed. I hope that an admin with a more open mind will read this and vindicate me, but I fear that will not happen. I will not request unblock again either way, I dont think it matters anyways since clearly editing articles is not for me Thanks anyway WRFEC ( talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am sorry that your impression of wikipedia is so negative. Had you been prepared to accept the statements made to you by experienced administrators, especially FisherQueen, it might have been better. And still could be if you submit an unblock request taking the points made to you on board. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 19:03, 6 July 2010 (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.
The link you added wouldn't do anything to avoid deletion, in any case. Is that why you were fighting so hard to keep it? The citations you need are published sources, like newspapers, magazines, and books that discuss the importance of the subject. Linking to pictures of it only verifies that it exists, not that it meets the notability criteria. It's important not to get so emotionally attached to our edits that we feel we've been personally rejected when an article we've worked on gets challenged. If the impression you've gotten is that 'any opinion other than your own gets crushed,' rather than 'the rules are adhered to fairly, even when I'd rather they weren't,' then you've misunderstood what was happening- taking personal offense where none exists. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if it could be said "I see where your coming from but I disagree with you about copyright. Our intepretation seems to be more consistant with current consensus and in the interest of protecting wikipedia from legal danger. Thanks for your contribution but please dont use that link again" instead of "Your ideas are misguided, you are blocked" Maybe that would help keep it from being so personal. Thanks WRFEC ( talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
|
WRFEC ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
An external link does not violate wp:copylink simply because one person says it does. There must be some evidence or at least a general consensus and there is none in this case so the benefit of the doubt is appropriate. This is a classic example of an experienced user attacking a new user
Decline reason:
I reviewed Talk:Ayu Mayu, and couldn't find the consensus that it would be helpful to add this link. Your argument, that "Scanlation can also be performed under license from the copyright holder," doesn't seem to include any evidence that it is licensed by the copyright holder in this particular instance. Wikipedia really doesn't publish or link to copyright violations, period. Looking at the site, I see the material in question was added by three different users, that the page does not include any statement that publication permission has been granted, and no reason at all to think that these are anything other than some fan's uploaded scans. The burden is not on other users to reach 'consensus' not to break copyright law- that consensus has already been reached. The burden is on you to prove that this particular set of images does not break copyright law. Frankly, I'd support a much longer block if you added links to copyright-violating material again in the future- your unblock request doesn't seem to understand that this is a legal matter, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to follow the law. FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 14:15, 6 July 2010 (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.
WRFEC ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I would like to clarify and expand upon my earlier request because I do not feel I did an adequate job of explaining it so that user:FisherQueen would understand. First I would like to point out that the stated reason for my block is edit warring, however wp:3rr clearly states that 3 reverts are ALLOWED in any 24 hour period. I reverted the page exactly 3 times and no more and therefore did not violate wp:3rr and thus wp:ew does not apply. Second I would like to clarify my position regarding the applicability of wp:copylink to the contributions I made to the Ayu Mayu page. FisherQueen evidently did not find the intellectual property heading on [1] where the website explicitly states that it owns or licenses the rights to all content displayed. Furthermore FisherQueens statement that the burden of proof is on the editor to proove that it is NOT a copyright violation is an extremely dangerous policy. The overwhelming majority of citations on wikipedia could not be PROVEN to be free of copyright violations. Anything could be plagerized, used without permission, etc, and we would have no way to know. Therefore under her concept of policy virtually all wikipedia citations would have to be removed. I do not believe this is consitent with wikipedia intent. A policy whereby it is assumed that the material is not in violation of copyright unless proven otherwise seems a more responsible approach. Wikipedia could not possibly be held legally responsible for linking to copyrighted material unless it could be proven that it was known to us that it was a copyright violation.
Decline reason:
" wp:3rr clearly states that 3 reverts are ALLOWED in any 24 hour period" -- no, actually, it says just the opposite: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I won't even bother addressing your misconceptions regarding copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (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.
WRFEC ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I am deeply saddened and disappointed that the ideology of the community seems to fail in practice. While I have been lurking for over a year, occasionally contributing a new article, I have never edited another article until yesterday. In less than 24 hours I have seen that there is no discussion, no consensus building, no dispute resolution, and certainly no assumption of good faith. I have witnessed clearly that the predominant attitude is that any opinion different than your own is wrong and should be crushed. I thought it would be clear to any observer that I tried to improve the article I was editing and save it from premature deletion, that I acted in good faith and following the guidelines as best as I understood them. Im left dissapointed. I hope that an admin with a more open mind will read this and vindicate me, but I fear that will not happen. I will not request unblock again either way, I dont think it matters anyways since clearly editing articles is not for me Thanks anyway WRFEC ( talk) 18:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am sorry that your impression of wikipedia is so negative. Had you been prepared to accept the statements made to you by experienced administrators, especially FisherQueen, it might have been better. And still could be if you submit an unblock request taking the points made to you on board. -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 19:03, 6 July 2010 (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.
The link you added wouldn't do anything to avoid deletion, in any case. Is that why you were fighting so hard to keep it? The citations you need are published sources, like newspapers, magazines, and books that discuss the importance of the subject. Linking to pictures of it only verifies that it exists, not that it meets the notability criteria. It's important not to get so emotionally attached to our edits that we feel we've been personally rejected when an article we've worked on gets challenged. If the impression you've gotten is that 'any opinion other than your own gets crushed,' rather than 'the rules are adhered to fairly, even when I'd rather they weren't,' then you've misunderstood what was happening- taking personal offense where none exists. - FisherQueen ( talk · contribs) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if it could be said "I see where your coming from but I disagree with you about copyright. Our intepretation seems to be more consistant with current consensus and in the interest of protecting wikipedia from legal danger. Thanks for your contribution but please dont use that link again" instead of "Your ideas are misguided, you are blocked" Maybe that would help keep it from being so personal. Thanks WRFEC ( talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)