Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2018 May 10: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:12, 10 May 2018 editSheriffIsInTown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,139 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:20, 10 May 2018 edit undoCapitals00 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,265 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:::*Doesn't even matter what you consider as copyvio, and especially when you have yourself no firm opinion on this issue you should just avoid this matter and "exploring contribs" is also unconvincing given your above comments. People have access to books or they can ask for it. Quotes are often used by people for pushing a particular POV and such is the case here. ] (]) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)		:::*Doesn't even matter what you consider as copyvio, and especially when you have yourself no firm opinion on this issue you should just avoid this matter and "exploring contribs" is also unconvincing given your above comments. People have access to books or they can ask for it. Quotes are often used by people for pushing a particular POV and such is the case here. ] (]) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
	::::*I do not think it is a violation but if we find out today that it is then I do not think it was done intentionally as many editors learn from other editors and it's quite possible that NadirAli might have learned from Kautilya3 to include quotes in citations to avoid any ambiguity. I would not include quotes in the citations myself if I do not think those are necessary to avoid ambiguity or any future content dispute as you might know it involves a lot of manual effort to type that up, you cannot directly copy paste content from Google Books, it being in an image form. ] \| ] \| 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)		::::*I do not think it is a violation but if we find out today that it is then I do not think it was done intentionally as many editors learn from other editors and it's quite possible that NadirAli might have learned from Kautilya3 to include quotes in citations to avoid any ambiguity. I would not include quotes in the citations myself if I do not think those are necessary to avoid ambiguity or any future content dispute as you might know it involves a lot of manual effort to type that up, you cannot directly copy paste content from Google Books, it being in an image form. ] \| ] \| 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
			:::::*You don't have to depend on what you "think", unless you have a firm opinion. You can wait for the outcome without even replying and derailing this page. It also doesn't matter whether it was done with intent or not because that's something we would never know and certainly the violation involves a long term copyright violator. He restored same copyright violation by providing misleading edit summary which shows the copyright violation was deliberate. ] (]) 16:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

	* {{pagelinks\|Template:User Mason}} Userbox includes school logo. ] (]) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)		* {{pagelinks\|Template:User Mason}} Userbox includes school logo. ] (]) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:20, 10 May 2018

History of Balochistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Copyright violation started from this diff and it was removed recently with this diff. I am seeing thousands of words were copy pasted from books in form of "quotes" in references that are actually supposed to be short. Capitals00 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Same copyrights violating editor has now restored the copyright violation and provided a misleading edit summary. Given he has been topic banned from uploading files for his copyright violations, I would urge admin to block him for his continued copyright violations. Capitals00 (talk) 06:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the blatant case of copyright violations. Kautilya3 was kind enough to explain the concern in their edit summary. Urging for a straightway block is likely due to bad blood between them. samee converse 09:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a blatant case of violation of copyrights involving over thousands of words. NadirAli was already warned for his copyright violations, to which he replied and still he restored the copyright violation. Given his history, it should result in another indefinite block, just like it happens with many others. Why NadirAli couldn't defend himself here? Looks like he told you to come here and misrepresent the entire issue for him. Capitals00 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Samee. Looks like a retaliatory request because of this. I could not find any copyright violations. These are just quotes inside the citations. They are not any more of a copyright violation than this. This is an article related to a content dispute between these users on Talk:Princely state, so the frustration from there is spilling over. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Making up nonsense would result in sanctions against you. You know that NadirAli has WP:CIR issues, just like you do, and they will have to be dealt with as appropriate. 1947 Poonch rebellion is not a copyright violation about which you have been told before and your another stale buddy (KA$HMIR) was blocked for making same false claims. It is just interesting to see how two accounts here are engaging in disruption by defending copyright violations from a multiple times indeffed blocked editor. You both have just confirmed it that the issue is serious and a block for copyright violations is warranted. Capitals00 (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:CIVIL, WP:IDHT, WP:PERSONALATTACK and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also keep WP:AE in mind. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hope you are ready for WP:BOOMERANG. You can keep the wikilawyering nonsense with yourself because it is not going to turn deliberate copyright violation into non-violation. Next time don't participate in a discussion about evident violation of copyrights by a long term copyright violator. Given your own lack of understanding about copyrights, you should definitely avoid this area. Capitals00 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any copyright violations in the diffs provided. I only see quotes in the citations and those in no way can be qualified as copyvio. According to my understanding, that is an allowed practice and I have seen many editors do the same. I also see User:Capitals00 is making personal attacks on other editors specially on NadirAli and JosephusOfJerusalem and request admins to stop them from doing so, pinging @Bbb23:, (not sure if this is your area but see if you can stop them from making personal attacks). I believe WP:BOOMERANG is in order as well here for Capitals00 if this report is found to be misleading as described by me above. NadirAli have also asked Kautilya3 for evidence of copyvio but they have provided none and I am pretty sure if evidence was provided, NadirAli would have refrained from doing the same. If quotes inside citations are considered copyvios then following edits by Kautilya3 should be considered a copyvio as well, , and . Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Your participation has been least helpful here. You don't have to tell you don't see "any copyright violations" if you can't restore the copyright violation yourself. Like I have already said, the participation from editors who generally help NadiAli push his POV, while having no earlier edits on this entire namespace (Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems) before, clearly confirms that there is a serious issue that needs to be solved and solution is to block NadirAli for his copyright violations since he has proven zillions of times that he does not understand what is a WP:COPYVIO. Defending copyright violation is a sanctionable offense. You seem to be repeating what JosephusOfJerusalem and if you really have problems with other articles then open a request about them. I believe though that you have no issue with them since your actual motive is to defend NadirAli, no matter what you have to say. Capitals00 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not consider quotes in the citation a copyvio, that is the purpose of that parameter so other editors know that content is not being faked. I just used Kautila3’s edits as an example and have no intention to report them as I do not think they were violating copyrights and neither do I think was NadirAli. I have seen many editors do that. I am also an ardent observer that Diannaa is always on alert for copyrights violations and if quotes in citations were a violation, not many editors would have been doing that. You also need to be less suspicious of others intentions, I was exploring contribs of some users regarding another issue and was lead to this from there. I decided to comment because I found your report egregious. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't even matter what you consider as copyvio, and especially when you have yourself no firm opinion on this issue you should just avoid this matter and "exploring contribs" is also unconvincing given your above comments. People have access to books or they can ask for it. Quotes are often used by people for pushing a particular POV and such is the case here. Capitals00 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it is a violation but if we find out today that it is then I do not think it was done intentionally as many editors learn from other editors and it's quite possible that NadirAli might have learned from Kautilya3 to include quotes in citations to avoid any ambiguity. I would not include quotes in the citations myself if I do not think those are necessary to avoid ambiguity or any future content dispute as you might know it involves a lot of manual effort to type that up, you cannot directly copy paste content from Google Books, it being in an image form. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to depend on what you "think", unless you have a firm opinion. You can wait for the outcome without even replying and derailing this page. It also doesn't matter whether it was done with intent or not because that's something we would never know and certainly the violation involves a long term copyright violator. He restored same copyright violation by providing misleading edit summary which shows the copyright violation was deliberate. Capitals00 (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:User Mason (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Userbox includes school logo. Hoppyh (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:12, 10 May 2018 editSheriffIsInTown (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,139 editsNo edit summaryTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:20, 10 May 2018 edit undoCapitals00 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers9,265 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	:::*Doesn't even matter what you consider as copyvio, and especially when you have yourself no firm opinion on this issue you should just avoid this matter and "exploring contribs" is also unconvincing given your above comments. People have access to books or they can ask for it. Quotes are often used by people for pushing a particular POV and such is the case here. ] (]) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)		:::*Doesn't even matter what you consider as copyvio, and especially when you have yourself no firm opinion on this issue you should just avoid this matter and "exploring contribs" is also unconvincing given your above comments. People have access to books or they can ask for it. Quotes are often used by people for pushing a particular POV and such is the case here. ] (]) 15:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
	::::*I do not think it is a violation but if we find out today that it is then I do not think it was done intentionally as many editors learn from other editors and it's quite possible that NadirAli might have learned from Kautilya3 to include quotes in citations to avoid any ambiguity. I would not include quotes in the citations myself if I do not think those are necessary to avoid ambiguity or any future content dispute as you might know it involves a lot of manual effort to type that up, you cannot directly copy paste content from Google Books, it being in an image form. ] \| ] \| 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)		::::*I do not think it is a violation but if we find out today that it is then I do not think it was done intentionally as many editors learn from other editors and it's quite possible that NadirAli might have learned from Kautilya3 to include quotes in citations to avoid any ambiguity. I would not include quotes in the citations myself if I do not think those are necessary to avoid ambiguity or any future content dispute as you might know it involves a lot of manual effort to type that up, you cannot directly copy paste content from Google Books, it being in an image form. ] \| ] \| 16:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
			:::::*You don't have to depend on what you "think", unless you have a firm opinion. You can wait for the outcome without even replying and derailing this page. It also doesn't matter whether it was done with intent or not because that's something we would never know and certainly the violation involves a long term copyright violator. He restored same copyright violation by providing misleading edit summary which shows the copyright violation was deliberate. ] (]) 16:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

	* {{pagelinks\|Template:User Mason}} Userbox includes school logo. ] (]) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)		* {{pagelinks\|Template:User Mason}} Userbox includes school logo. ] (]) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)