User talk:MrX2077

Linking to copyright violations

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Blade Runner, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. 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 YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
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 Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
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 Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Canterbury Tail talk 13:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you post a link to a site containing copyrighted material again. Canterbury Tail talk 18:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Blade Runner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to warn of the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 22:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MrX2077 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 Blade Runner talk page :
As for the copyright violation, please consult the Stanford University page on copyright concerns. I am specifically concerned with this statement "If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work—for instance, writing a book review—fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include". Now look at bottom of the page of questionable <copyright violation redacted>. 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 Wikipedia, 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"

Decline reason:

That link is not "questionable", it is simply not permitted by Wikipedia copyright policy, and there is nothing to discuss. WP:COPYLINK 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MrX2077 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to MrX2077 and reviewing admin. There really is nothing to discuss about the link (which I note you've linked to yet again in the above posting again violating Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia's copyright policies which you've been informed of several times at WP:COPYLINK. Canterbury Tail talk 01:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MrX2077 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Upon closer reading of linking to copyrighted works, 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.

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 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.

Decline reason:

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. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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 "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear" 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 WP:OR anyway.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. MrX2077 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(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 User:Diannaa, 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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. Sadgeezer.com or similar websites are in violation of copyright when they publish such scripts without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder. Wikipedia:Copyrights, a Wikipedia 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 The Magic Roundabout that was broadcast in the UK some time ago. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MrX2077 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 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 Wikipedia 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 MrX2077 (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) 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 Wikipedia 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 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 is, not on the basis of what you think policy should be. Since you cannot or will not accept that, I am declining your unblock request. (2) 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: Wikipedia is not a court of law), (c) wikilawyer round in circles in attempts to justify your opinion that Wikipedia policy should permit things that it doesn't, rather than address the issue of your defying Wikipedia 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. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} 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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

My thoughts:

1) It was a violation of Wikipedia'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 discuss.

2) A copyright violation is still a copyright violation on whatever kind of page it is posted.

3) The reviewing admins here can clearly see the link in question even after it has been deleted, so there's no problem there.

4) There is no consensus needed, as it was a clear violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy.

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 Wikipedia's copyright policy in the future, you stand a risk of having this block extended to indefinite (and you would then not be unblocked unless and until you make such a commitment). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]