User talk:Barts1a/Yell/Archive1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Continuing the unblock thread you deleted

No, having a separate complaints page makes no sense, and I'm not going to do that. What other unblock requests have you reviewed? How long have you been doing it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the 2nd unblock request I had handled. The other one is located here if you wish to review it Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 04:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur regarding having a second complaints page, this makes changes harder to monitor for other users who likely don't have this page watchlisted. Also, unblock requests are for admins, you are not an admin. This is obvious from the template which reads "This unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator." You have been her long enough and seen enough requests to know that. N^oformation ^Talk 04:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was advised on IRC by MULTIPLE users (Including admins) that it was OK to review and decline requests where said decline is obvious. I just want to help! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 04:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care what people say on IRC. I do not trust your judgement, and you are not to review any more unblock requests. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Despite the fact that my judgement was correct in both cases I shall stop declining unblock requests where said decline is blatantly obvious and leave those trivial declines for the overworked admins to deal with. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article PIRACY???

What the heck is article PIRACY??? This is WIKIPEDIA! All works are released into PUBLIC DOMAIN CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and are not "yours". Also, I notified you when I posted the article at this edit time stamped a good 4 hours before it got denied at AfC. Also giving bogus warnings about your fictional "article piracy" is not really productive and if you think I would fall for that then your wrong. Also if you would take a second to think that maybe I posted the article to help you so that it would show up and you could make the edits there. I think your handling this very wrong and if I made you upset then I apologize, but you need to take a second look at all of this. Hghyux (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite, no, WP content is not in the public domain. All content is owned by the creator but released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (not commenting on your issue with Barts, just pointing out the copyright error). N^oformation ^Talk 20:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Due to the licence that retains MY ownership of the work and the fact that I did NOT give permission for my work to be reused it IS effectively piracy! Next time AT LEAST TRY to open a dialogue with me BEFORE circumventing proper process like that! And also: The article was AWAITING REVIEW at AFC before you SPAT IN THE FACE OF PROPER PROCESS and posted it to mainspace WHILE it was AWAITING REVIEW! Next time you NEED to AT LEAST WAIT FOR THE AFC RESULT before posting the draft into mainspace! No thanks to your disgusting behavour you PREVENTED ANY chance of the article being accepted and AUTOMATICALLY MOVED INTO MAINSPACE! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You did not in any way specify attribution as something that you requested if somebody wanted to copy your work and thus I did not have to attribute it to you. If it was awaiting review, then yes I can admit I made a mistake there. BUT that does not give YOU the right to throw out insults and scream at me per WP:Etiquette. And bear in mind that I did everything that I could to be nice. I DID notify you when I posted the article and you should be satisfied that I took the time to do so as it is an indication that I did it in good faith. By you not assuming so, that is a violation of WP:AGF! I did NOT have to take the time to notify you at all, and to be honest, I could have even gone a step further and because I added a few lines, could have claimed it as my own work and called you crazy. But no. I did things the CIVIL way, thus making my behavior NOT disgusting as you claim. I admit that I make mistakes, and I'm SURE that you make mistakes too as you actually have a page that people can complain about you which tells me that you have your fair share of screw-ups too. So don't make it seem that I'm the only one that messes up. And again, don't make up stupid rules like "Article Piracy" because I can find no such rule. Also, since there is no such rule, there is no reason for you to threaten that I get blocked for it. Maybe I can get blocks for making bad articles, and a bunch of other stuff, but if I were to get warned, I would need to get a link to the rule I violated. You should have vented your anger at me in a different way because let me tell you. I am a very smart person. I am not dumb and not will I be intimidated by bogus warnings and BS rules that just don't exist. Hghyux (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hghyux appears to be correct here, there really can't be such a thing as article piracy on WP because, as every edit page says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." The worst offense an editor could commit is probably mis-attribution. N^oformation ^Talk 01:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe he is. CC-by-SA specifies that attribution must be present in re-use or remixing of a CC work. Our page on re-using Wikipedia content specifies that "To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors." ([1]). Hghyux did none of those things when he created an article using Barts1a's work - he didn't hyperlink to the AfC entry, he didn't link to a mirror, and he didn't attribute the work to Barts1a. Adding a few lines, changing a few words, changing headings...none of those void the attribution part of the license Barts1a's work was protected by, Hghyux. You've violated his copyright. We have a few ways to deal with this: you can have an administrator perform a history merge of Barts1a's version and Hghyux's version, which will show that Barts1a originated the content, or you can perform a null edit to the article noting that the original text was created by Barts1a. Or, I suppose, we could speedy delete the article under CSD criterion G12 as a blatant copyvio, but that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In any case, what you can't do, Hghyux, is leave the article using his work unattributed. I suggest you pick an option for attributing the origin of your work, and put it into motion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

this rule States that pages without propor attribution do not generally need to get deleted. Since his name is at the top of the revision history of the article, that attributes the work to him. Hghyux (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I just attributed the article to him now. So no more complaining. Hghyux (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Drop it or I call for you to be blocked. Enough is enough. You've SERIOUSLY overstepped the bounds of WP:CIVIL AND WP:AGF AND probably WP:NPA here. N419BH 05:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Who is that addressed to? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 05:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You. Proper attribution is the page history. So long as he didn't cut and paste the page and delete the page history in so doing he can do whatever he wants with your writing, including sell it. Read the edit page. It is all clearly spelled out (the last sentence spells out proper attribution):

By clicking the "Save Page" button, 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. Edit summary (Briefly describe the changes you have made)

This is a minor edit (what's this?)  Watch this page
   Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.

Clear? N419BH 06:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The thing is that I DID write the text of the article which was copied and SLIGHTLY modified by the copier to create the one up for deletion now. As such under the licence I am entitled to at least be properly attributed for it, which I was not. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 06:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You DID check the history of the two articles before typing your response right? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 06:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your name in the edit history? N419BH 06:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

At the absolute worst he has merely performed a copy-paste page move (likely because he does not know how to move a page) and the proper course of action is to request an administrator perform a history merge rather than immediately assume bad faith and start barking OMG COPYVIO with a few personal attacks to boot. It is NOT piracy because NO ONE "owns" WP:OWN ANYTHING on Wikipeida. Someone is perfectly entitled to change YOUR userpage (although we do have etiquette suggestions on when and why one should do that). N419BH 06:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.