User:Ryan Vesey/Nyttend
please provide copy of page you just deleted
[edit]{{hat|Copyright infringement is illegal, and attempting to convince me otherwise is unwelcome.}} Nyttend, would you please provide by email or otherwise a copy of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) page which you just deleted. --doncram 04:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I received your negative reply. I believe it is your obligation as an administrator to provide a copy of the page that you deleted. You can certainly do so by email to me. I believe it is an abuse of administrator tools for you to delete an article like that without discussion, as I am rather sure that I would disagree with your assessment of copyright violation. And it is certainly an abuse to do so and to refuse to provide the material that you deleted. Please do send a complete copy of the article to me by email. --doncram 04:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am unsure about your rationale for deleting (again) Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). You initially deleted the article on September 27, because it "has no meaningful, substantive content." It was restored after doncram added to the content in his sandbox. By October, the article was a pretty decent start with a proper infobox, properly licensed photograph of the building, description of the architecture and some history, and citations to reliable sources. Your stated reason for deleting the article today was that it contained "an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material." However, the only quote in the article is a brief 10-word excerpt from the "Ohio Historic Places Dictionary," which was attributed and cited to its original source and author. This 10-word excerpt does not appear to be "excessive" and instead appears to fall quite readily within WP:FAIRUSE, which permits the use of such short excerpts: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks." Can you please take another look and explain further your reasoning for deletion? Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Talk-page stalker here... I sympathize with Nyttend's action, although I disagree with some of his reasoning.
- I agree with Nyttend's judgment that the quotation is excessive; the main thought could be quoted without quoting the entire sentence. However, I don't think that the copyvio is serious enough to justify a total embargo on the article.
- I can't read Nyttend's mind, but it appears to me that his real concern is that this article was repeatedly recreated or restored to main space without resolving the issues that had led to deletion. The most recent version still had essentially no substantive content, and footnotes like "From another book preview snippet available in Google search results" and "Note, however this would seem not to be covered in Ohio Historic Places Dictionary online book; there's nothing about all of Morrow County" are "not ready for prime time" (i.e., main space). This cited source would be a basis for a fine addition to the article Chesterville, Ohio, but it doesn't seem to say anything much about this particular building. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- No point in replying at someone else's talk page, since you're all here...Remember that the idea of fair use only permits irreplaceable content. It's excessive to quote anything nonreplaceable and thus a copyvio: unlike when we quote other people's words as a means of conveying their impressions of the subject of those words, this was quite obviously a method of using someone else's words needlessly to describe the article. Doncram has been warned about this in the past, so he knows the difference and is beyond excuse. I'd rather delete the copyvios than go through the hassle of another ANI, but if I find more copyvios, I'll eventually be dragged to the point of believing that deletion will be insufficient for preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, deterring the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Because we're all equal, we're all liable to sanctions for committing copyright infringement; if I did the same, I would deserve to have my creations deleted and my talk page filled with warnings. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nyttend -- We went through this previously at Talk:C. Ferris White. A single 10-word quote, properly attributed, is the epitome of appropriate fair use and is not a copyright violation. As Moonriddengirl and Dirtlawyer pointed out there, "the 'no free equivalent' provision of WP:NFCC applies only to 'other non-free content,' [e.g., photos, recordings] not brief textual quotations that are properly quoted and footnoted." Even more so here where the quote is not merely descriptive, but qualitative in nature, reflecting a recognized expert's view that the property in question is one of the finest in a particular area. I urge you to reconsider and restore the article. BTW, I do agree with some of Orlady's comments about a couple of the footnotes being "not ready for prime time," but that can be fixed without deleting the entire article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Definitely not. This quote was not being used transformatively; it was simply a quick way to expand the article by using someone else's words. Doncram's own words, paraphrasing the statement in question, would be quite capable of conveying the same sense. It quote blatantly fails the first point of WP:F: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose." Kindly stop belaboring the point. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nyttend -- I'm not belaboring it, but you seem to be ignoring what you've been told here and at Talk:C. Ferris White by Moonriddengirl, Dirtlawyer and others. Will you reconsider and restore the article? Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- No. Will you reconsider and stop attempting to get me to restore a copyright infringement? You cannot convince me to engage in contributory copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be listening. The very passage you have quoted above makes clear in its introductory language that it only applies to non-textual material. It says, "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." I will not comment further here, but your interpretation appears to be plainly incorrect and does not justify deletion of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Very well. Try reading Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which says nothing about the medium in question, and which stipulates "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." I am quite weary of repeated attempts to convince to participate in copyright infringement; further attempts to convince me will be removed from this page, further copyright infringements will be deleted summarily, and those committing infringement will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- You don't seem to be listening. The very passage you have quoted above makes clear in its introductory language that it only applies to non-textual material. It says, "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." I will not comment further here, but your interpretation appears to be plainly incorrect and does not justify deletion of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- No. Will you reconsider and stop attempting to get me to restore a copyright infringement? You cannot convince me to engage in contributory copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nyttend -- I'm not belaboring it, but you seem to be ignoring what you've been told here and at Talk:C. Ferris White by Moonriddengirl, Dirtlawyer and others. Will you reconsider and restore the article? Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Definitely not. This quote was not being used transformatively; it was simply a quick way to expand the article by using someone else's words. Doncram's own words, paraphrasing the statement in question, would be quite capable of conveying the same sense. It quote blatantly fails the first point of WP:F: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose." Kindly stop belaboring the point. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nyttend -- We went through this previously at Talk:C. Ferris White. A single 10-word quote, properly attributed, is the epitome of appropriate fair use and is not a copyright violation. As Moonriddengirl and Dirtlawyer pointed out there, "the 'no free equivalent' provision of WP:NFCC applies only to 'other non-free content,' [e.g., photos, recordings] not brief textual quotations that are properly quoted and footnoted." Even more so here where the quote is not merely descriptive, but qualitative in nature, reflecting a recognized expert's view that the property in question is one of the finest in a particular area. I urge you to reconsider and restore the article. BTW, I do agree with some of Orlady's comments about a couple of the footnotes being "not ready for prime time," but that can be fixed without deleting the entire article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- No point in replying at someone else's talk page, since you're all here...Remember that the idea of fair use only permits irreplaceable content. It's excessive to quote anything nonreplaceable and thus a copyvio: unlike when we quote other people's words as a means of conveying their impressions of the subject of those words, this was quite obviously a method of using someone else's words needlessly to describe the article. Doncram has been warned about this in the past, so he knows the difference and is beyond excuse. I'd rather delete the copyvios than go through the hassle of another ANI, but if I find more copyvios, I'll eventually be dragged to the point of believing that deletion will be insufficient for preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, deterring the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Because we're all equal, we're all liable to sanctions for committing copyright infringement; if I did the same, I would deserve to have my creations deleted and my talk page filled with warnings. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am unsure about your rationale for deleting (again) Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). You initially deleted the article on September 27, because it "has no meaningful, substantive content." It was restored after doncram added to the content in his sandbox. By October, the article was a pretty decent start with a proper infobox, properly licensed photograph of the building, description of the architecture and some history, and citations to reliable sources. Your stated reason for deleting the article today was that it contained "an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material." However, the only quote in the article is a brief 10-word excerpt from the "Ohio Historic Places Dictionary," which was attributed and cited to its original source and author. This 10-word excerpt does not appear to be "excessive" and instead appears to fall quite readily within WP:FAIRUSE, which permits the use of such short excerpts: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks." Can you please take another look and explain further your reasoning for deletion? Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I too agree that it can be considered an abuse of administrative privilege to condenm -an entire article- when only a small portion of it represents CV. At best it would be a failure to behave collegiately among the community. The most appropriate course of action, given the attention this is receiving, would had been/be to restore the article, without the alleged CV fragment and tag the article with any appropriate notices while simultaneously starting up a section in the article's Talk Page about the CV issuue/s in question for community consensus. I am perfectly aware that CV rules allow for immediate deletion of material -and my record will show that I take article CV very seriously myself- but, again, to condenm the -entire- article, was not the way to go in this instance. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.
{{hab}} {{hat|TLDR}} Nyttend, I asked a narrow question "Nyttend, would you please provide by email or otherwise a copy of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) page which you just deleted." You replied at my Talk page:
No, I will not. You included an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material, and I will not commit copyright infringement by copying it. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Administrators are under no obligation to provide copies of deleted content. When the content has been deleted because of a copyvio, it would at the minimum be contributory copyright infringement, so I will not break the law by restoring your copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't respond to your entire message. It is not a abuse of administrative tools to delete pages containing copyright infringement; otherwise every G12 speedy deletion would be an abuse of administrative tools. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
The narrow question is answered, i.e. that you refused. And another administrator has emailed a copy of the page to me, so I no longer need it from you. I learned from browsing about administrator responsibilities that an administrator is not in fact obligated to provide a copy of copyvio material (tho there seems to be disagreement on whether there is a copyvio, and if there is copyvio, you would be free to provide a copy). Otherwise, I don't know what anyone is learning here.
Maybe on one basic level, I wonder if you can accept my saying that if you want to exercise administrative privileges to enforce standards on NRHP articles in Ohio, which you closely monitor, then you need to be open somehow to discussion on what those standards are, and you need to communicate about what you perceive as violations of your standard. If you don't want to be involved in communicating and learning about copyright policy or other matters that come up, then IMHO you should not be exercising administration powers in this area.
I personally am willing to make some effort to meet some possibly higher standard for Ohio NRHP articles that you wish to enforce, if you would participate in some give-and-take, including at a basic level your simply articulating what you want and what you don't want, in words. Even though I don't agree that you have any absolute right to enforce an arbitrary standard, I am trying to nonetheless show some respect for your wish that Ohio articles start at some higher level than is required by general wikipedia policies. Signalling this (though you probably did not notice), I put into the wp:NRHPhelp guide some advice that I thought I was discerning from you, i.e. that you think anyone should check the Ohio Historic Places Dictionary in any new NRHP Ohio article (that advice is now directly available at shortcut wp:NRHPhelpOH.) I would be willing to agree to do that, i.e. either to use that source or to indicate it provides no info in a given case, as part of settling something with you.
In the very article that you deleted, I had made a point to indicate that I had tried and failed to find anything in that dictionary (i wrote: "this would seem not to be covered in Ohio Historic Places Dictionary online book; there's nothing about all of Morrow County"). That was a message to you, personally, left in a footnote for you to see, knowing you were watching this article topic, and I presume you did see that message. Obviously, the note could have been removed by you or anyone, and perhaps it should have been put originally on the Talk page instead, but i think i was not necessarily expecting you to look at a Talk page before reacting, when you found the re-started short article. (And then later, the footnote should have been removed by me or anyone, because i had in fact later found and referenced OHPD material about the place, after all.) I dunno, maybe you were in fact actually offended by the footnote somehow? I have little idea about what you want and don't want.
On your refusing to provide the article to me, I think you need to understand that you certainly could have provided it by email; your statements that you would be breaking a law by doing so are simply and completely incorrect. I think you need to get some clarification elsewhere, somehow, if you really believe that. It would be a pretty horrible world if we could not quote from anything, ever, even in private emails which clearly don't constitute any kind of public publication. It certainly undermines communication and discussion, if you delete and don't share and if you further seek to cut off discussion here. And, as suggested by your top-of-talk-page statement, I believe in general you are usually not willing to discuss things elsewhere. I recognize that you are a volunteer, like me, and that we do not have infinite obligations to participate in useless discussions, but I do think there's some useful discussion to have somewhere, sometime, that you and I and others could actually learn from, around copyright issues. E.g. what is short enough for a quote to be considered an acceptable short quote? (200 words, if you have to set a rule of thumb? 10 words?), what on earth is the "transformativeness" quality that moonriddengirl cited as desirable previously? (probably desirable), is there an operating requirement in wikipedia for quotes to be transformative? (i think not), was the quote I used here actually transformative (I think it was).
I thank the commenters in the now-closed previous discussion. I rather assume more discussion won't happen here, and maybe that is best. I guess that a deletion review would be the next step in a process to get more eyes on the question of this one article and its 10 word quote, as a small example to learn from. --doncram 15:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC) {{hab}}
At my Talk page, you asked me "to write substantially less". Okay, how about this: do you understand that, in the deleted article, I was actually trying to comply with what I thought you wanted? And that I wrote that into wp:NRHPhelpOH? What advice would you give to any editor starting Ohio NRHP articles? What would you change in wp:NRHPhelpOH? --doncram 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)