User talk:Whaledad

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hi, welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy! -- Cirt (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Copyright[edit]

Hi Whaledad, apart from the Wikiquote:Requests for adminship/Mdd, I have two questions. First could you explain your prove of the accusation "Mdd's articles violating copyright rules by indiscriminatingly copy large chunks of text to do so (he actually quoted other encyclopedias in his wikiquote articles. "?

Second, if I am not mistaken you were talking about the articles like Albrecht Thaer, Jacobus Albertus Uilkens and Cornelis Zillesen, which indeed contained larger text from 19th century sources. Are you (still) not aware that text that old is in the public domain, and you indeed have the right to copy these text (as long as you like) into Wikiquote article? -- Mdd (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Mdd, I'm not going to rehash the lengthy discussions on the subject that we've had on nl.wikiquote. You know full well, that the copyright issues did NOT pertain to PD texts but to texts that were clearly still copyrighted. You also know full well that 100s of your articles have been removed from nl.wikiquote by an Admin (Romaine) a good chunk of which for reasons of copyright violation. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 13:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Whaledad, it is unacceptable that today here on the English Wikiquote you published the accusation Mdd's articles violating copyright rules by indiscriminatingly copy large chunks of text to do so, and you now refuse to prove this accusation.
    You are now claiming "the copyright issues did NOT pertain to PD texts but to texts that were clearly still copyrighted". Please name the articles, you are referring to. -- Mdd (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Mdd, you are not the person to determine what is and is not acceptable. There have been very lengthy discussion in the nl.wikiquote Kantine (that I have linked to when making that comment here at en.wikiquote) that had numerous examples and links to those issues. Those discussions were concluded. After you left nl.wikiquote the people staying behind have cleaned up after you (see the "Werklijst" links "before" and "after"), which took about 10 months. Mdd, you are not the person to determine what is and is not acceptable. There have been very lengthy discussion in the nl.wikiquote Kantine (that I have linked to when making that comment here at en.wikiquote) that had numerous examples and links to those issues. Those discussions were concluded. After you left nl.wikiquote the people staying behind have cleaned up after you (see the "Werklijst" links "before" and "after"), which took about 10 months. And, well, OK, as you provided a link to an Archive.org example anyway, here's a link to a Wikipedfia-type article that you created on nl.wikiquote: [1], which uses (among many others) a quote from the 1993 "Grote Winkler Prins" (a Dutch printed encyclopedia) which is very clearly not in the public domain. To provide definitial text in your article. More importantly: not coincidentally the article nl:Wereldeconomie on nl.wikipedia was one of the many article on which you had conflicts with numerous other users on what should and should not be in the article. When you could form nl.wikipedia to the site that YOU wanted it to be, you took "your wikipedia articles" and tried to recreate them in the form of quotes on nl.wikiquote. It would seem like you may start to develop plans to now take this effort to en.wikiquote: User:Mdd/sandbox. I would seriously advise against that. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 14:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I am within my rights to demand you to prove here and now the accusation you made here today. Do you claim the article Wereldeconomie (version Feb 2, 2012) is an example of such a copyright violation by me? -- Mdd (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I claim that the use of literal text from one (non-PD) encyclopedia, to create an encyclopedic article elsewhere is a copyright violation. I also claim that the creation of an encyclopedic article (this example is NOT a quote collection page even if it was located on Wikiquote; it's content and layout made it an encyclopedic page) SOLELY based on (definitional, NOT "remarkable" or "quotable") quotes from other works (most of which in this case were NOT public domain) is copyright violation. And note that an Admin removed said page (any many like it) from nl.wikiquote for exactly this reason ([2]). W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 14:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
One more tip: go to [3], click Ctrl-F and type "copyvio". You'll find 84 hits that almost all pertain to your articles. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 14:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Albrecht Thaer is an excellent example of articles that are completely unacceptable not because of copyright reasons, but as it has nothing to do with the purpose of Wikiquote. Would you defend that article here and now as a correct and valuable Wikiquote article? W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 14:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here are the facts as I see them:

  1. Today you here at 03:03 accussed me of having violated copyright on the Dutch Wikipedia by stating: Mdd's articles violating copyright rules by indiscriminatingly copy large chunks of text to do so
  2. You admit (14:47) that the article Wereldeconomie (version Feb 2, 2012) is an example of such a copyright violation
  3. Your idea about copyright is:
    ...the use of literal text from one (non-PD) encyclopedia, to create an encyclopedic article elsewhere is a copyright violation. I also claim that the creation of an encyclopedic article (this example is NOT a quote collection page even if it was located on Wikiquote; it's content and layout made it an encyclopedic page) SOLELY based on (definitional, NOT "remarkable" or "quotable") quotes from other works (most of which in this case were NOT public domain) is copyright violation
  4. You admits that you and others last year on the Dutch Wikipedia here suggested there where at least 84 cases of copyright violation.

Now my opinion is, that writing the word copyvio numerous times doesn't mean a thing, your ideas about copyright are wrong, there is no copyvio in the article Wereldeconomie, and your accusation is unfounded. -- Mdd (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I know that this is your opinion. My opinion however was shared by all other nl.wikiquote users and by an Admin and led to removal of the 84 articles. This discussion and the one on nl.wikiquote on the same topic earlier are excellent examples of you not knowing how to handle criticism and instead digging your heals in the sand and hold your ground even in light of solid arguments. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 18:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed a rather tragic fact that most (or all) of those 84 articles are removed, but that is still no prove of me and my "articles violating copyright rules by indiscriminatingly copy large chunks of text to do so".

Now in your past 3 comments you haven't delivered any proof... and you can't deliver that proof because there isn't any. Therefor I ask you take it back, to rectifier and apologize.

If not will turn to the Wikiquote:Administrators' noticeboard to get it corrected and get you blocked for "extreme unwillingness to even consider other opinions, and tried to steer both into his very specific and unique direction", or something like that. -- Mdd (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • I think I have more than adequately responded to your requests for clarfication and substantiation. I have also (unintendedly) given you all opportunity to show that you haven't changed in your behavior, specifically where dealing with criticism is concerned. Feel free to do whatever you deem necessary and thereby further proving my point. W\|/haledad (Talk to me) 20:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I am sorry we are unable to resolve this ourselves, and have taken this to the next level, see here. -- Mdd (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)