Stumpy2121
Welcome edit
Hello, Stumpy2121, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking 
or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Schwede66 06:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
Murder of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope edit
You've substantially added to the Murder of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope article and asked for it to be reassessed. It's already C class and the only rating that's higher and can be done by any editor is B class. Beyond that, an article can became GA and from a cursory look, it may well pass. GA has a formal assessment process; please have a look at WP:GA first and WP:GAN next. Does that help? Schwede66 06:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC) It does, thank you for the guidance--Stumpy2121 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright edit
Hello Stumpy2121! Your additions to Murder of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- If you add more copyright violation images to any Wikipedia articles, you will be blocked. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I contacted Ian wishart directly asking how to get copyright for the photos added. He confirmed that the police photos are public domain and his publisher needed no permission to publish them in his book. The photos used were all provided by Wishart. I have a copy of this conversation. I'm new to Wikipedia, could you advise what else I need to do? There is no copyright holder. Stumpy2121 (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- When you respond to another editor on your talk page, you need to "ping" them, e.g. like so: Nick-D That will notify them that you have replied. See WP:PING. Schwede66 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- i appreciate the guidance, thank you Schwede66--Stumpy2121 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- I very much doubt those images are in the 'public domain' as Wikipedia defines the term and requires - e.g. free for anyone to use in any way at all - given they're credited to news stories and court exhibits. 'Public domain' in this context does not mean that the images have simply been distributed, despite this being a common usage of the term in Australia and NZ. If the copyright holder wants to release them under a Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia friendly licence, advice on how they can do so is at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D I recognise that my uploads were not within policy. I believe that the photo of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope does qualify for 9 of the ten criteria listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. The Exception would be that i have been unable to locate the original copyright holder for the image. As you have threatened a block, if i were to figure out which License it should be properly uploaded under and re-upload (using unknown, released to media from police, January 1998 or similar) would i be risking a ban?--Stumpy2121 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Non-free images should only be added where they add considerable value. Unless this photo has significance in its own right, I don't see how that's the case here given it's a low quality holiday snap. Non-free images shouldn't be uploaded simply to show what people look like. If the image is of significance, it will need to be uploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free image, with the creator, copyright holder and the specific source clearly identified. It seems unlikely that the creator of the image is the NZ police as is stated at Commons. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D this seems to be at odds with other Wikipedia articles about famous missing person cases. A cursory search seems to show that other users have used my rationale above to include publicly released images that identify the missing persons, even when the exact photographer is not known. Some high profile examples Disappearance of Natalee Holloway,Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Death of JonBenét Ramsey. How do i reconcile this with your insistence that i cannot do similar? The photo does add significant value in my opinion, it was released to the press and identifies the missing couple.--Stumpy2121 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- The photo of JonBenét Ramsey is somewhat iconic, as her involvement in child beauty pageants was a much-discussed part of the case. Similarly, there has been lots of discussion and media coverage of photos of Madeleine McCann. I am not familiar with Natalee Holloway and the significance of photos of her, but it is possible that the fair use claim is invalid. I don't think that the photo you are seeking to add meets criterion b in the relevant section of the non-free use policy (WP:FREER) given that the low quality photo doesn't depict anything which can't be described in the text. This then overrides the discussion of allowances for images of deceased people in criterion 10 at WP:NFCI. It's important to stress that Wikipedia takes a very conservative stance on copyright issues, as it does not have much capacity to fight copyright cases or offer legal support to editors who are accused of violating copyrights. If anyone wants to know what these people look like, they can just Google the topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- That said, there are WP:FAIRUSE photos of the victims in at least two other articles about prominent NZ murder cases: Murder of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe and Murder of Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen. —Muzilon (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Muzilon, Nick-D, My original three examples have been featured on the front page of Wikipedia after the images were added under fair use, which would imply (in the mind of a novice user such as myself) that the articles are largely in line with Wikipedia standards. All of the images highlighted as examples are easily accessible via google and could be described in text, despite this they appear to be accepted as fair use. The photo of Olivia and Ben was widely publicised, widely discussed and is strongly associated with the case. It is my belief that a photo of the victims does significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and is in line with commonly accepted practice on this site.--Stumpy2121 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- That said, there are WP:FAIRUSE photos of the victims in at least two other articles about prominent NZ murder cases: Murder of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe and Murder of Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen. —Muzilon (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- The photo of JonBenét Ramsey is somewhat iconic, as her involvement in child beauty pageants was a much-discussed part of the case. Similarly, there has been lots of discussion and media coverage of photos of Madeleine McCann. I am not familiar with Natalee Holloway and the significance of photos of her, but it is possible that the fair use claim is invalid. I don't think that the photo you are seeking to add meets criterion b in the relevant section of the non-free use policy (WP:FREER) given that the low quality photo doesn't depict anything which can't be described in the text. This then overrides the discussion of allowances for images of deceased people in criterion 10 at WP:NFCI. It's important to stress that Wikipedia takes a very conservative stance on copyright issues, as it does not have much capacity to fight copyright cases or offer legal support to editors who are accused of violating copyrights. If anyone wants to know what these people look like, they can just Google the topic. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D this seems to be at odds with other Wikipedia articles about famous missing person cases. A cursory search seems to show that other users have used my rationale above to include publicly released images that identify the missing persons, even when the exact photographer is not known. Some high profile examples Disappearance of Natalee Holloway,Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, Death of JonBenét Ramsey. How do i reconcile this with your insistence that i cannot do similar? The photo does add significant value in my opinion, it was released to the press and identifies the missing couple.--Stumpy2121 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Non-free images should only be added where they add considerable value. Unless this photo has significance in its own right, I don't see how that's the case here given it's a low quality holiday snap. Non-free images shouldn't be uploaded simply to show what people look like. If the image is of significance, it will need to be uploaded to Wikipedia as a non-free image, with the creator, copyright holder and the specific source clearly identified. It seems unlikely that the creator of the image is the NZ police as is stated at Commons. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nick-D I recognise that my uploads were not within policy. I believe that the photo of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope does qualify for 9 of the ten criteria listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content. The Exception would be that i have been unable to locate the original copyright holder for the image. As you have threatened a block, if i were to figure out which License it should be properly uploaded under and re-upload (using unknown, released to media from police, January 1998 or similar) would i be risking a ban?--Stumpy2121 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- I very much doubt those images are in the 'public domain' as Wikipedia defines the term and requires - e.g. free for anyone to use in any way at all - given they're credited to news stories and court exhibits. 'Public domain' in this context does not mean that the images have simply been distributed, despite this being a common usage of the term in Australia and NZ. If the copyright holder wants to release them under a Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia friendly licence, advice on how they can do so is at: Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- i appreciate the guidance, thank you Schwede66--Stumpy2121 (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message edit
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Three revert rule edit
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dubiousources (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)