User talk:Kevin Mannerings

Copyright question raised over article on "Roger Casement and the Black Diaries"

Hello, Kevin Mannerings,

If you go to the Wikipedia article on "Roger Casement and the Black Diaries" (spun off not long ago from the article on "Roger Casement") you will see that a question has been raised there that the article may include copyrighted material from an article by you and a co-author. If this issue cannot be put to bed within a week or so, the entire article is apparently subject to being deleted.

My own guess is that the material from your article may very well have been incorporated into the original Roger Casement article by you, the copyright-holder, as I see from the Talk page that you have taken an interest in (and edited) that article. If so, I assume that you as copyright owen are entitled to re-use your own material. But if this is correct, it would undoubtedly be helpful if you could clarify to Wikipedia that you authorize the use of your own copyrighted material in the article.

Please note that I am not an administrator or anyone in authority (or even especially sophisticated in my knowledge of how Wikipedia works)-- merely a passer-by attempting to act responsibly. Thank you for your help with this matter. Nandt1 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NAndt1: Who are you? Why are you hiding behind anonynimity to try and excuse copyright theft?

The guesses and assumptions you make are wrong, pathetic and despicable. The Casement entry is about pushing an agenda of sectarian religious hatred.

I have pointed out the errors and lies in the Casement entry often enough. My work is being pilfered and adulterated by thieves.

The idea that by making an entry to Wiki authorises such theft is dispicable. Who are you?

This entire nonsense is a disgrace to Mr Wales and his associates.

My complaints have been misrepresented here by Wikipedia, which is a dishonest and evasive organisation, enpowering racism, anti-semitism and sectarian hatred.

Kevin Mannerings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.2.216.244 (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Wikipedia is an open, contributor-edited encyclopedia. No one contributor can expect to control what happens to the overall text, or avoid the expression of contrary points of view, though many seasoned contributors try to develop consensus among the community of contributors. Beyond this, when I personally come across anti-semitic material on Wikipedia, for example, I just edit it out.

My recollection is that, in contributing, all contributors indicate their acceptance that they are providing Wikipedia with the copyright to their contributions? I would suggest that it would be principled if you could confirm that any quotations in this article drawn from your work elsewhere were in fact made by you -- and that as such you did indeed, at the time you made them, susbscribe to Wikipedia's standard terms on copyright. Thank you for giving mature consideration to doing this, as otherwise others will be left to deal with the consequences. Nandt1 (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nandt1, Thank you for confirming that Wikipedia provides a platform for anti-semitic material. You seem to be having reading difficulties. I cannot confirm that I permitted the copyright theft, because I did not permit it. My work was stolen and adulterated. Please reveal who you are if you want any further replies. You may wish to spend your time correcting the work of those with a hate agenda using Wikipedia. My view is that Mr wales and his assocviates should have the common decency to take proactive measures to stop it. Kevin Mannerings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.113.86.92 (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Mannerings,

In practical terms, I am unclear on how Mr. Wales and his associates could run an open-editing encyclopedia on the scale of Wikipedia and at the same time micro-manage each article at the level of detail needed to prevent individuals from posting anything that you or I might find offensive. For the project to work, we users have to accept our responsibility, and I try to do my small part.

Beyond this, of course, the fact of the matter is that the article we are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with anti-semitism or other hate speech -- a complete red herring. The question of whether Casement was or was not, in addition to being a committed campaigner for human rights and a brave patriot, also an active homosexual who documented his own sex life privately, is ultimately an empirical one, susceptible to examination of the evidence (history is replete with individuals who achieved noble and great things while privately pursuing sexual activities that some might find shocking). The answer is not self-evident on either side, and it is an entirely legitimate question for debate. To review the evidence and competing views on this matter cannot reasonably be compared to hate speech.

The very simple question that I have not seen answered here clearly and unambiguously is whether you added your own material -- about which the copyright issue has been raised -- to the Casement article. Yes or no?

As for me, my editing record on Wikipedia is entirely open: I have always edited from the same named account and have not -- unlike some -- moved between using a named account and using various different IP addresses. There is an extensive record and it is transparent. I see no reason to provide my personal name and address to any and every crank and obsessive who might come across my entries and be tempted to contact me offline. Anyone, however, is free to contact me about my entries via Wikipedia talk pages. I will just add that my name would in any case mean nothing to you -- we have never met and my published work is not in the field of twentieth century Irish history.

I of course understand that my protection of my own privacy provides you with a convenient pretext for continuing to evade the simple question above. You can prove me wrong, but somehow I don't believe you will. Nandt1 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously no, it is a really stupid question. And definitely my last answer to your preposterous and idiotic comments. Kevin Mannerings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.223.1 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not stupid and the answer is not obvious. Nandt1 (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking to clarify disputed material

Mr. Mannerings,

An administrator has now clarified that the issue over the black diaries article arose due to a complaint made by you, a point that had not been made explicit hitherto, at least to me.

She has suggested, as a starting point for efforts to reconstitute the article without infringing your copyright, requesting you to look at the content as it previously existed here and tell us all what specific text you are claiming as your own.

Thank you for your help in getting this straightened out. Nandt1 (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]