851:
no sense, to even discuss it. 2) Situational context: willfully and intentional infringement may have been true if I continued to place it in the article page, but it was placed in the talk page because I wanted to demonstrate that it was not the case, and it would hard for others to subject the site for a more intensive review if I could not even mention the site by name. I daresay it is even
Kafkaesque. 3) Necessity is an affirmative defense: It would have be hard to aid in my own defense, if I were not allowed to present exculpatory evidence, namely the suspect site. It violates all bounds of "due process". Moreover, if the suspect site, were as sensitive as the offended party claims, then he should have provided a means where such information could be presented in confidence. In a legal context, a judge would have cleared the courtroom, or asked it to be discussed in camera, or in judge's chambers. If such a facility does exist (as far as I know Knowledge (XXG) does not have such an option), it was up to offended party to clearly express where such information should be presented. I think the offended party should have been more judicious, instead of insisting upon a blind blanket application of policy. He should have taken care to distinguish the "letter" and the "spirit" of said policy. 4) Finally, in order to establish a consensus, as oppose to fiat, find a mutual beneficial for a community, it requires a frank and open discussion, which is a little hard to do when censorship is in play
694:
mean that simply using an archive can overcome a copyright violation made by the original site", it seems like your substituting your judgement with wikipedia policy, an overinterpretation of the policy. If there is guidance to that supports your analysis, please provide the link 2)The original research concern, if you read closely, my homage reference was rectified by providing a link to "inverse.com"; Finally you have a very offensive name "Boing! said
Zebedee", it can be easily interpreted or even misinterpreted as a taunt, the point of a block is to correct not disparage users. Case in point " ...And if you post such a link again here, you will have your talk page access revoked." That is uncalled for:guidance as oppose to dominance. The only reason the copyright violation came up was incidental, is that I was trying to illustrate my attempt to resolve the matter by lifting a passage I wrote as supporting evidence, the violation was part of the passage.
741:, a Knowledge (XXG) policy with legal considerations, states that "knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". The passage about the Wayback Machine is stating that we are pretty sure that the Wayback Machine is not in violation of copyright when they archive copyright websites. This statement does not create a loophole that permits you to violate the copyright policy by linking to a copyright violation via the Wayback Machine rather than directly. Our fair use guideline does allow short excerpts from copyright material, but that guideline is trumped by the copyright policy, which clearly states that we are not to link to websites that are in violation of copyright. On a side note, 'Zebedee' is a character (a jack-in-the-box) from a TV show called
417:. It states "discuss the episode". Usually when a book or other work is reviewed, it is done by one person, but the way the site is set up the "transcript" is provided, so it can be reviewed en masse, by way of user comments on a forum. So it is a way of democratizing the process of review, so that if a user raises an issue they can be heard by all , a similar mission to that of Knowledge (XXG), which is trying to democratize knowledge. It has hard to prove or disprove for the sake of discussion whether a page meets the criteria, if an admin decides unilaterally that it can't be mentioned. Please note that this heavy-handed enforcement occurred as a result of being in the talk tab as oppose to the article tab; I was hoping at the very least, to explore the concerns the user may have had, but it seems he may have made a "rush to judgement"
890:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a court of law), (c) wikilawyer round in circles in attempts to justify your opinion that
Knowledge (XXG) policy should permit things that it doesn't, rather than address the issue of your defying Knowledge (XXG) policy, (d) refuse to accept unambiguous consensus (including unanimous consensus from four administrators who have posted to this page about the matter), (e) etc etc... Doing this wastes time of the administrators who come here to review your unblock requests, who could instead be spending that time on more productive tasks. I am therefore going to remove your talk page access for the duration of the block.
238:
765:
519:
319:
140:
25:
492:
permission from the copyright holder. It doesn't matter what they claim the copyright is for using their page, the fact is they don't own the copyright of that text and therefore can't give any permissions or copyrights over it. Stanford copyright is irrelevant to this conversation, this is about
Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright policies which you've been informed of several times at
671:" is that it is unclear whether the archive site is in breach of any copyright legally held by the site it is archiving - it does not mean that simply using an archive can overcome a copyright violation made by the original site. You are going to have to forget about using that transcript page completely (and I see the content you were using it for has been challenged as
955:
If you want to get yourself unblocked, you need to agree not to post any links to web pages that contain copyright violations. Also, a warning - if you continue on this course with no indication that you will adhere to
Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright policy in the future, you stand a risk of having this
876:
You repeatedly posted links to a site which infringes copyright after it had been made abundantly clear to you that doing so was contrary to
Knowledge (XXG) policy. You edit-warred in order to do so. The substantial content of your unblock requests amounts to giving your reasons why you think policy
693:
Two points 1) With respect to linking, the clause that comes after what you cited is "It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the
Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time", where on that page does that say "it does not
611:
Let me say this much, its nice that other parties can provide links to policies or the use of esoteric terms like "rvin" that can only be understood by "wikipedia insiders", but if you do not provide context or you are not willing to make the effort to make sure policies or amendments are understood
415:
page on copyright concerns. I am specifically concerned with this statement "If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted workâfor instance, writing a book reviewâfair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism
195:
on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's workâwhether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each timeâcounts 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
39:. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as
850:
1) First of all, the user (or users) who found fault with my entry created the impression that it was "potential" copyright issue, and that it should be discussed in the talk page, which I did and I invited said parties to talk page. If it is a foregone conclusion, it is a futile endeavor, it makes
736:
The copyright holder of the script of a movie or TV show is the person who wrote the script, or the corporation that paid for it to be written. Copying a script to a fan forum such as sadgeezer.com does not change who owns the copyright, nor does archiving a sadgeezer.com via the
Wayback Machine.
889:
You have persistently posted fairly long messages here, some but not all formatted as unblock requests, which (a) indicate total failure to understand what has already been said to you, in some cases several times, (b) dwell on irrelevances (such as what you think would happen in a court of law:
491:
There really is nothing to discuss about the link (which I note you've linked to yet again in the above posting again violating
Knowledge (XXG) copyright policies in your unblock request.) It was a link to a forum and fan site that contained the entire script transcript for a TV episode without
404:
It is hard to talk about a questionable page if you can't mention what it is, the user which blocked me is engaging in censorship, as oppose to free discussion, which prevents us from getting at the heart of the matter, Also here is my concern which I have raised in the
612:
by all members of wikipedia, you are forced to guess what the intentions of other parties are, if your forced to jump through bureaucratic hurdles,it's more likely to make users to become apathetic and "turn off" any future participation in this forum.
941:
1) It was a violation of
Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright policy. It says so clearly on that policy page, and you have been told so by multiple people who understand copyright policy - including one of our top experts in the subject. There is nothing to
608:, I am able to "cure the defect", with a link to an archived version of the transcript, namely the Wayback Machine by way of the Internet Archive. The link is available upon request, and I hope I am able to satisfy the needs of all parties.
731:
I stand corrected on the unblock issue, I was under the impression, the only way a "blocked user" can add anything was through this unblock syntax, I never recieved a block before, and I still trying to make "heads or tails" of it.
708:(There's no need to put every reply in a new unblock request.) I was trying to help you avoid further problems, but that's clearly not welcome so I'll stop now and leave it to the next reviewing admin to decide - but I'll go ask
623:
Linking to a copyright violation on the Internet Archive instead of on the original site doesn't change anything at all. As you think this is sufficient, it would clearly be inappropriate to unblock you at this time.
877:
should allow you to post such a link. Irrespective of the merits or demerits of your case on that point, it is utterly irrelevant, because your unblock requests need to be judged on the basis of what policy
432:
is what counts here, not Stanford University's take on fair use or your ideas of "democratizing the process of review". And if you post such a link again here, you will have your talk page access revoked.
712:, who's an expert in copyright and who might want to offer something. As for my "offensive" username, please feel free to complain about it at the appropriate venue if and when you get yourself unblocked.
666:
No, you are not allowed to link to a wayback archived version if the original contained a copyright violation. The policy page is, I can see, unclear on that point. But what I'm fairly sure it means by
47:, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Knowledge (XXG) takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators
75:
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article
255:
930:
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.
658:
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.
467:
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.
737:
Sadgeezer.com or similar websites are in violation of copyright when they publish such scripts without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder.
82:
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article
254:
by copying text or images into Knowledge (XXG) from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against
163:
154:. 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
915:
643:
452:
274:
805:
559:
359:
113:
Final warning. You will be blocked from editing Knowledge (XXG) if you post a link to a site containing copyrighted material again.
251:
155:
428:
That link is not "questionable", it is simply not permitted by Knowledge (XXG) copyright policy, and there is nothing to discuss.
948:
3) The reviewing admins here can clearly see the link in question even after it has been deleted, so there's no problem there.
171:
175:
961:
800:
717:
680:
554:
438:
354:
263:
92:
If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead.
778:
532:
332:
246:
183:
50:
772:
526:
326:
226:
777:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
531:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
331:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
504:
300:
208:
121:
100:
956:
block extended to indefinite (and you would then not be unblocked unless and until you make such a commitment).
267:
188:
167:
151:
957:
713:
676:
434:
738:
605:
36:
901:
222:
166:
for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
259:
159:
819:
573:
373:
493:
429:
497:
293:
201:
114:
93:
951:
4) There is no consensus needed, as it was a clear violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright policy.
412:
852:
783:
695:
537:
474:
337:
68:
If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article
945:
2) A copyright violation is still a copyright violation on whatever kind of page it is posted.
897:
753:
416:
include". Now look at bottom of the page of questionable <copyright violation redacted: -->
406:
83:
76:
69:
924:
652:
461:
280:
62:
violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
629:
237:
672:
192:
258:, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our
746:
709:
147:
32:
885:. Since you cannot or will not accept that, I am declining your unblock request.
200:âshould your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
162:
among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See
139:
24:
625:
669:
The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear
273:
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the
277:, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:
44:
40:
965:
905:
860:
757:
721:
703:
684:
633:
511:
482:
442:
307:
230:
215:
128:
107:
191:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
31:
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to
763:
517:
317:
236:
138:
23:
912:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
640:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
449:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
932:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
660:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
469:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
833:
829:
823:
814:
810:
796:
792:
788:
587:
583:
577:
568:
564:
550:
546:
542:
387:
383:
377:
368:
364:
350:
346:
342:
182:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
771:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
525:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
325:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
174:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
411:As for the copyright violation, please consult the
266:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
158:to work toward making a version that represents
198:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
745:that was broadcast in the UK some time ago. â
264:policies regarding how to use non-free content
35:, please ensure that the external site is not
8:
221:I was just coming here to warn of the same.
150:shows that you are currently engaged in an
79:with a link to where we can find that note;
7:
489:Note to MrX2077 and reviewing admin.
58:If you believe the linked site is
14:
893:The editor who uses the pseudonym
37:violating the creator's copyright
187:âespecially if you violate the
146:Your recent editing history at
20:Linking to copyright violations
1:
250:temporarily from editing for
966:08:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
906:11:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
861:08:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
758:11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
722:07:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
704:07:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
685:06:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
634:11:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
606:linking to copyrighted works
512:01:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
483:00:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
443:01:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
308:22:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
231:19:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
216:18:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
129:18:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
108:13:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
881:, not on the basis of what
775:, who declined the request.
529:, who declined the request.
329:, who declined the request.
981:
883:you think policy should be
739:Knowledge (XXG):Copyrights
252:violating copyright policy
916:guide to appealing blocks
644:guide to appealing blocks
453:guide to appealing blocks
275:guide to appealing blocks
268:make useful contributions
856:
699:
478:
604:Upon closer reading of
768:
522:
407:Blade Runner talk page
322:
241:
143:
28:
820:change block settings
767:
574:change block settings
521:
374:change block settings
321:
285:Your reason here ~~~~
240:
142:
27:
743:The Magic Roundabout
184:blocked from editing
958:Boing! said Zebedee
714:Boing! said Zebedee
677:Boing! said Zebedee
435:Boing! said Zebedee
413:Stanford University
769:
523:
323:
242:
172:dispute resolution
144:
29:
895:
189:three-revert rule
972:
929:
923:
891:
839:
837:
826:
808:
806:deleted contribs
766:
751:
657:
651:
593:
591:
580:
562:
560:deleted contribs
520:
508:
502:
466:
460:
393:
391:
380:
362:
360:deleted contribs
320:
304:
298:
288:
260:copyright policy
212:
206:
125:
119:
104:
98:
980:
979:
975:
974:
973:
971:
970:
969:
935:
927:
921:
920:, then use the
909:
864:
827:
817:
803:
786:
779:blocking policy
764:
749:
663:
655:
649:
648:, then use the
637:
614:
581:
571:
557:
540:
533:blocking policy
518:
506:
500:Canterbury Tail
498:
472:
464:
458:
457:, then use the
446:
419:
381:
371:
357:
340:
333:blocking policy
318:
315:
302:
296:Canterbury Tail
294:
291:
290:
278:
271:
210:
204:Canterbury Tail
202:
176:page protection
137:
123:
117:Canterbury Tail
115:
102:
96:Canterbury Tail
94:
22:
12:
11:
5:
978:
976:
953:
952:
949:
946:
943:
910:
871:
867:Decline reason
848:
844:Request reason
841:
762:
761:
760:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
688:
687:
638:
621:
617:Decline reason
610:
609:
602:
598:Request reason
595:
516:
515:
514:
447:
426:
422:Decline reason
410:
402:
398:Request reason
395:
316:
314:
311:
272:
244:You have been
243:
235:
234:
233:
223:Walter GĂśrlitz
136:
133:
132:
131:
90:
89:
88:
87:
80:
73:
55:
21:
18:
16:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
977:
968:
967:
963:
959:
950:
947:
944:
940:
939:
938:
937:My thoughts:
934:
933:
926:
919:
917:
908:
907:
903:
899:
894:
888:
884:
880:
875:
870:
868:
863:
862:
858:
854:
847:
845:
840:
835:
831:
825:
821:
816:
812:
807:
802:
798:
797:global blocks
794:
793:active blocks
790:
785:
780:
776:
774:
773:administrator
759:
755:
748:
744:
740:
735:
734:
733:
723:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
692:
691:
690:
689:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:
664:
662:
661:
654:
647:
645:
636:
635:
631:
627:
620:
618:
613:
607:
601:
599:
594:
589:
585:
579:
575:
570:
566:
561:
556:
552:
551:global blocks
548:
547:active blocks
544:
539:
534:
530:
528:
527:administrator
513:
510:
509:
503:
501:
495:
490:
487:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
471:
470:
463:
456:
454:
445:
444:
440:
436:
431:
425:
423:
418:
414:
408:
401:
399:
394:
389:
385:
379:
375:
370:
366:
361:
356:
352:
351:global blocks
348:
347:active blocks
344:
339:
334:
330:
328:
327:administrator
312:
310:
309:
306:
305:
299:
297:
286:
282:
276:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:
239:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
214:
213:
207:
205:
199:
194:
190:
186:
185:
179:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
141:
134:
130:
127:
126:
120:
118:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
105:
99:
97:
85:
81:
78:
74:
71:
67:
66:
65:
64:
63:
61:
56:
54:
53:from editing.
52:
46:
42:
38:
34:
26:
19:
17:
954:
936:
931:
913:
911:
898:JamesBWatson
892:
886:
882:
878:
873:
872:
866:
865:
849:
843:
842:
815:creation log
782:
770:
742:
730:
710:User:Diannaa
668:
659:
641:
639:
622:
616:
615:
603:
597:
596:
569:creation log
536:
524:
505:
499:
488:
473:
468:
450:
448:
427:
421:
420:
403:
397:
396:
369:creation log
336:
324:
301:
295:
292:
284:
245:
209:
203:
197:
181:
180:
148:Blade Runner
145:
122:
116:
101:
95:
91:
59:
57:
48:
33:Blade Runner
30:
15:
494:WP:COPYLINK
430:WP:COPYLINK
168:noticeboard
811:filter log
565:filter log
365:filter log
914:read the
830:checkuser
789:block log
675:anyway.)
642:read the
584:checkuser
543:block log
451:read the
384:checkuser
343:block log
160:consensus
156:talk page
84:Talk page
77:Talk page
70:Talk page
942:discuss.
801:contribs
555:contribs
355:contribs
283:|reason=
262:and our
196:warringâ
170:or seek
152:edit war
49:will be
925:unblock
853:MrX2077
824:unblock
784:MrX2077
747:Diannaa
696:MrX2077
653:unblock
578:unblock
538:MrX2077
475:MrX2077
462:unblock
378:unblock
338:MrX2077
313:Unblock
281:unblock
247:blocked
193:reverts
51:blocked
45:Sci-Hub
41:YouTube
256:policy
918:first
673:WP:OR
646:first
626:Yamla
455:first
962:talk
902:talk
857:talk
754:talk
718:talk
700:talk
681:talk
630:talk
507:talk
479:talk
439:talk
303:talk
227:talk
211:talk
124:talk
103:talk
900:" (
887:(2)
874:(1)
834:log
781:).
588:log
535:).
388:log
335:).
178:.
164:BRD
135:3RR
60:not
43:or
964:)
928:}}
922:{{
904:)
879:is
869::
859:)
846::
828:â˘
822:â˘
818:â˘
813:â˘
809:â˘
804:â˘
799:â˘
795:â˘
791:â˘
756:)
750:đ
720:)
702:)
683:)
656:}}
650:{{
632:)
619::
600::
582:â˘
576:â˘
572:â˘
567:â˘
563:â˘
558:â˘
553:â˘
549:â˘
545:â˘
496:.
481:)
465:}}
459:{{
441:)
424::
400::
382:â˘
376:â˘
372:â˘
367:â˘
363:â˘
358:â˘
353:â˘
349:â˘
345:â˘
289:.
287:}}
279:{{
270:.
229:)
960:(
896:"
855:(
838:)
836:)
832:(
787:(
752:(
716:(
698:(
679:(
667:"
628:(
592:)
590:)
586:(
541:(
477:(
437:(
409::
392:)
390:)
386:(
341:(
225:(
86:;
72:;
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
