- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted also by user's own request ( G7). El_C 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Frobozz1/PA-design
This is a word-for-word copy of Stockholm syndrome with the name changed and the attribution history stripped. Guy Macon ( talk) 12:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete did not know how to attribute copied templates. Starting over.— Frobozz1 ( talk) 14:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I made this page and forgot to link the source. Please delete the page. Frobozz1 - owner
- Delete. At best this is a copyright violation, at worst this is a hoax. I can see no reason for keeping this - it's of no use for working on the Stockholm syndrome article and it's of no use for working on the Parental Alienation article. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, blatant copy-paste of Stockholm syndrome. — csc -1 15:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a combination of copyvio, hoax, and other issues. The conduct issue is pending at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Seem premature to nominate for deletion two days after user created the page and related discussion is occuring in at least two other places (WP:ANI and talk page). How about moving it to
User:Frobozz1/sandbox2.
Sun Creator(
talk) 20:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per
WP:UP#COPIES you are only allowed to have copies of main space articles in your userspace for short periods of time while working on them as having multiple copies of pages can result in content forking, parallel histories and problems with attribution. I don't see how anything of value going to come out of a copy of the Stockholm syndrome article that's been run through find and replace so IMO this should be deleted.
86.23.109.101 (
talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- But you are not allowed to have copyright violations in your user space, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Stripping the contributors list gives the impression that Frobozz1 is the author of material actually created by many other editors. That is a
WP:COPYVIO.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Helpful hint for anyone who wants to do editing experiments starting with an existing article: Save the article (copy from the edit window) as a text file on your own computer. Paste it to your sandbox, make your edits and use print preview to see the result but do not save the sandbox. When you are done editing copy the changed version to your local text file and exit your sandbox without saving. Doing it that way makes no edit to Wikipedia, leaves no record in your edit history, is invisible to other editors (including admins) and cannot possibly be a copyright violation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, ensuring proper attribution is sufficient to deal with the copyvio problem. This should generally be done when creating the copy, but it can be dealt with afterwards if necessary. Wikipedia wouldn't work if it wasn't possible, indeed it defeats the purpose of both our licences. Note that this isn't a reason to keep the copy, it simply means that the fact it is a copy of another one of our article doesn't make it a copyvio that has to be deleted. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- But you are not allowed to have copyright violations in your user space, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Stripping the contributors list gives the impression that Frobozz1 is the author of material actually created by many other editors. That is a
WP:COPYVIO.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per
WP:UP#COPIES you are only allowed to have copies of main space articles in your userspace for short periods of time while working on them as having multiple copies of pages can result in content forking, parallel histories and problems with attribution. I don't see how anything of value going to come out of a copy of the Stockholm syndrome article that's been run through find and replace so IMO this should be deleted.
86.23.109.101 (
talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the editors above. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The editor who created this strange derivative failed to attribute the source, therefore violating the copyright of the editors who created Stockholm syndrome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment to User:Frobozz1 - In your most recent post at WP:ANI, you ask, among other things, why some editors are trying to delete your test page. Perhaps it would be more useful for you to explain what you are trying to test and why you are conflating Stockholm syndrome and Parental alienation in a way that appears to infringe the copyleft on the article on Stockholm syndrome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This clearly has no encyclopedic purpose nor potential. Apparently it's just Stockholm syndrome, but with every instance of "Stockholm" replaced with "Parental Alienation" (apparently, even the bank which was robbed is in Parental Alienation, Sweden... funny, maybe, due to how blatant it is, but certainly not encyclopedic). The only potential this might have is as an unattributed and useless POVFORK; about a topic from which the creator probably needs a topic ban, and is likely to get one, per the ANI discussion. Hence still delete even in its current location. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Related:
- Comment - Frobozz1 has deleted the contents of the page, but the MfD should continue because their doing so does not rectify the COPYVIO problem.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 05:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- If they`ve blanked the page, than that is equivalent to WP:G7. Tagged. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
For those who may not be familiar with the copyright problem we are talking about, it all relates to the notice that is on the bottom of the page whenever you edit:
- "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
What this means is that anyone can copy your words but they have to attribute them to you. That's what the history tab does; you can go there and figure out who wrote any particular word on the page. Just copying the page loses the original history and creates a new history that makes it look like whoever did the copying wrote the whole page. Blanking leaves this misleading history intact. Deleting the page through a successful MfD deletes the misleading page history as well. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely a little WP:BITEY here. True, a user copied a whole article without attribution. But, attribution can be fixed, and in any case, this looks like short term sandboxing (well, that’s the normal proper purpose for doing copies into userspace), and per WP:UP#COPIES, this purpose is short term before being deleted (or blanked) soon. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don;t believe it can be fixed without deleting the page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted also by user's own request ( G7). El_C 20:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
User:Frobozz1/PA-design
This is a word-for-word copy of Stockholm syndrome with the name changed and the attribution history stripped. Guy Macon ( talk) 12:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete did not know how to attribute copied templates. Starting over.— Frobozz1 ( talk) 14:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I made this page and forgot to link the source. Please delete the page. Frobozz1 - owner
- Delete. At best this is a copyright violation, at worst this is a hoax. I can see no reason for keeping this - it's of no use for working on the Stockholm syndrome article and it's of no use for working on the Parental Alienation article. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 12:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, blatant copy-paste of Stockholm syndrome. — csc -1 15:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a combination of copyvio, hoax, and other issues. The conduct issue is pending at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Seem premature to nominate for deletion two days after user created the page and related discussion is occuring in at least two other places (WP:ANI and talk page). How about moving it to
User:Frobozz1/sandbox2.
Sun Creator(
talk) 20:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per
WP:UP#COPIES you are only allowed to have copies of main space articles in your userspace for short periods of time while working on them as having multiple copies of pages can result in content forking, parallel histories and problems with attribution. I don't see how anything of value going to come out of a copy of the Stockholm syndrome article that's been run through find and replace so IMO this should be deleted.
86.23.109.101 (
talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- But you are not allowed to have copyright violations in your user space, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Stripping the contributors list gives the impression that Frobozz1 is the author of material actually created by many other editors. That is a
WP:COPYVIO.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Helpful hint for anyone who wants to do editing experiments starting with an existing article: Save the article (copy from the edit window) as a text file on your own computer. Paste it to your sandbox, make your edits and use print preview to see the result but do not save the sandbox. When you are done editing copy the changed version to your local text file and exit your sandbox without saving. Doing it that way makes no edit to Wikipedia, leaves no record in your edit history, is invisible to other editors (including admins) and cannot possibly be a copyright violation. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, ensuring proper attribution is sufficient to deal with the copyvio problem. This should generally be done when creating the copy, but it can be dealt with afterwards if necessary. Wikipedia wouldn't work if it wasn't possible, indeed it defeats the purpose of both our licences. Note that this isn't a reason to keep the copy, it simply means that the fact it is a copy of another one of our article doesn't make it a copyvio that has to be deleted. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- But you are not allowed to have copyright violations in your user space, or anywhere on Wikipedia. Stripping the contributors list gives the impression that Frobozz1 is the author of material actually created by many other editors. That is a
WP:COPYVIO.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Per
WP:UP#COPIES you are only allowed to have copies of main space articles in your userspace for short periods of time while working on them as having multiple copies of pages can result in content forking, parallel histories and problems with attribution. I don't see how anything of value going to come out of a copy of the Stockholm syndrome article that's been run through find and replace so IMO this should be deleted.
86.23.109.101 (
talk) 20:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per the editors above. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 23:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The editor who created this strange derivative failed to attribute the source, therefore violating the copyright of the editors who created Stockholm syndrome. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Comment to User:Frobozz1 - In your most recent post at WP:ANI, you ask, among other things, why some editors are trying to delete your test page. Perhaps it would be more useful for you to explain what you are trying to test and why you are conflating Stockholm syndrome and Parental alienation in a way that appears to infringe the copyleft on the article on Stockholm syndrome. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Delete This clearly has no encyclopedic purpose nor potential. Apparently it's just Stockholm syndrome, but with every instance of "Stockholm" replaced with "Parental Alienation" (apparently, even the bank which was robbed is in Parental Alienation, Sweden... funny, maybe, due to how blatant it is, but certainly not encyclopedic). The only potential this might have is as an unattributed and useless POVFORK; about a topic from which the creator probably needs a topic ban, and is likely to get one, per the ANI discussion. Hence still delete even in its current location. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Related:
- Comment - Frobozz1 has deleted the contents of the page, but the MfD should continue because their doing so does not rectify the COPYVIO problem.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 05:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- If they`ve blanked the page, than that is equivalent to WP:G7. Tagged. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 19:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
For those who may not be familiar with the copyright problem we are talking about, it all relates to the notice that is on the bottom of the page whenever you edit:
- "By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license."
What this means is that anyone can copy your words but they have to attribute them to you. That's what the history tab does; you can go there and figure out who wrote any particular word on the page. Just copying the page loses the original history and creates a new history that makes it look like whoever did the copying wrote the whole page. Blanking leaves this misleading history intact. Deleting the page through a successful MfD deletes the misleading page history as well. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely a little WP:BITEY here. True, a user copied a whole article without attribution. But, attribution can be fixed, and in any case, this looks like short term sandboxing (well, that’s the normal proper purpose for doing copies into userspace), and per WP:UP#COPIES, this purpose is short term before being deleted (or blanked) soon. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- I don;t believe it can be fixed without deleting the page. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 14:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.