User talk:24.147.103.146

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Blanking Pages

This message is in reference to the edits you have made to the articles on several Boston mafia personalities. Thank you for pointing out the copyrighted status of these articles. Going from the user logs it appears that users from the same physical location (a High School somewhere in boston, it appears) were responsible for replacing all of these articles with the excerpts from WRKO's web page. I am in the process of reverting these articles to the most recent non-copyrighted version. In the future, should you notice any other copyright violations please bring them up at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems, so that our community can find and correct them faster. If you want to remove the copyrighted content yourself as you have done today, you should either revert the article to the most recent non-copyrighted one, or simply replace the entire text with the following: {{copyvio|url=insert URL here}} ~~~~ This will insert This box automatically, which will both serve to advise readers that the article was removed, and it will automaticaly flag the page for the copyright team to look into.

Simply removing the article and adding your own line, such as you did, could be considered Vandalism.

Thanks again for bringing this issue to our attention. -Lanoitarus 04:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


  • I have completed my review of the articles you blanked. Several did have obvious violations, and I have placed violation notices or reverted these to uncopyrighted versions. A few did not contain any infringement on the sites you mentioned that i could find. If you could provide more detailed information that would be great. Please be aware specifically that Mug Shots are in the Public domain by federal law, so any of these which were taken from the site mentioned are not copyright violations. Thanks again for bringing this to our attention -Lanoitarus 05:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I have located the infringement sources for a couple more the the articles and reverted them to non-infringing versions. Again, in the future please use the {{copyvio|sitename.com}} tag or report the issue here, rather than posting your own messages on the articles in question. It is considered vandalism, even if the material removed was also prohibited. -Lanoitarus 05:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continued blanking

Regarding your continued blanking of the Jimmy Flynn article. Several wikipedia editors have now reviewed your claims and have found no copyright violation. If you disagree with this please feel free to report it to Wikipedia:Copyright Problems. If you believe that you yourself are the owner of copyrighted material being infringed upon, you can list it at Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation or can contact wikipedia's Designated Agent in accordance with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Continued blanking of this article is seen as Vandalism and WILL lead to you being blocked from editing wikipedia. -Lanoitarus 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

This is to let you know that there is a three-revert rule on Wikipedia. In short, you cannot make more than three reverts to a single article within a 24-hour period. On the Jimmy Flynn article, you have made four so far today. I would suggest being careful about future reverts. If you feel strongly about the issue, you may consider requesting mediation or arbitration. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been reported for a 3RR violation at Jimmy Flynn and have been temporarily blocked from editing. If you feel this is unwarranted, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your copyright removal request

You requested that Image:JimmyFlynn.jpg be removed for copyright at [[Wiki[edia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation]]. Your request was accidentally added to the top of the page, with the old (now resolved) requests dating from june. I moved it to The Bottom of the page, which is where new requests go and where people will actually notice it. Thanks for bringing this issue to the proper channels. -Lanoitarus 19:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How not to get blocked

Hi there,

I just un-did a block on you for your behavior in volation of a number of our rules here. Now I'll explain those rules to you, for future reference:

  • Wikipedia:3RR - this states that edit warring, by changing an article more than three times in one day, is not permitted.
  • Page blanking is considered vandalism.
  • Do not remove copyright information from image templates
  • Pursue copyright violations in the appropriate process; I see you have started this, please continue rather than resuming the behaviors above. I urge you to accept the responses you've received, which are based in U.S. copyright law. See public domain.
  • Please do not make threats, I consider it uncivil. (See Wikipedia:Be civil.) Also in case you were thinking of making further threats past the existing ones, see Wikipedia:No legal threats.

If you continue edit warring and page blanking on this issue, I will certainly block you. (Under the rules, in fact, I already could.) Thanks for your cooperation. -- SCZenz 19:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged copyright violation

I don't know copyright law, but I believe that several users' contention is that public domain images can't be owned, even high quality duplicates, and that where they might have been copied from is irrelevant. This has been explained to you already, but for all I know it could be completely wrong. You are more than welcome to complain to whomever you like, as long as you obey the rules about how to edit appropriately in the meantime. Thanks. -- SCZenz 02:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Let me just quickly outline for you the avenues you can pursue if you wish regarding this alleged violation. You can bring it up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems or can contact wikipedia's Designated Agent (Jimbo, the big boss) in accordance with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Again, it is the assertion of many users that this image is in the public domain, but if you wish to persue the matter further, these are the places to go. What you may not break our rules in the meantime, as SCZenz said. If I can be of any help feel free to let me know; i'm not trying to target you here, just to follow the law and our regulations and maintain the Encyclopedia to its fullest potential. I went through every article and image which you claimed infringed on copyrights, and agreed with you (and removed) nearly all of them. Feel free to contact me Here if you find any other article you'd like me to take a look at. Thanks again for bringing so many infringing articles to our attention. -Lanoitarus 02:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] December 11th - Continued Blanking

You have been warned by several users and at least one administrator against continuing to blank wikipedia articles such as Alex Rocco and Howie Winter. The proper forums for copyright allegations have been brought to your attention. If you continue to blank articles on Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. You are welcome to continue contributing as long as you abide by the rules which have been outlined for you. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 21:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You are now blocked for 48 hours, per the ample warnings above. If you have any questions, you can write them here on your talk page, and I'll see them. -- SCZenz 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You are no more than a thief

Write your own material, don't steal it. What is your name and address?

[edit] AN/I

I have listed the blanking/copyright events involving 24.147.103.146 (and later 204.169.116.1 at WP:AN/I. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mugshot image concerns

I think i have found a simple solution which should solve the concerns over the images at Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi and Howie Winter. I have simply replaced the images with the very similar ones from the CourtTV site. Since those images are identified as Mugs by CourtTV there should no no question over their copyright status, and since they are very similar switching them doesnt affect the quality of our article. I think this solution should be to everyone's satisfaction, let me know if not. Thanks. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Also, as an aside, if in the future you type four tildas ~~~~ after your comments on talk pages, it will be much easier for other editors to distinguish where your comments end and others begin. This will automatically add a date/signature line like mine here: -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 20:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Salemme

  • Regarding placing a copy vio of the above, unless the article was copied word for word from the credited website (an article which is considerably incomplete in the first place) a copyright violation has not taken place as those facts listed are a matter of public record (at least, as per my understanding). While I had only transferred the article from the IP submitted page, there was certainly a bit more then "a few words changed" and the source material was provided. I would be more then happy to rewrite the article, however I hope in the future you might notify myself or the original submitter before calling for a deletion of an article. MadMax 05:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

The following is taked from a complaint issued. This is not a case of fact being taken, it's the theft of original material.

Example #3

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernard_%22Bernie%22_McLaughlin&oldid=31082308

Bernie McLaughlin was an Irish-American mobster and the boss of the Charlestown, Massachusetts' gang The McLaughlin Brothers. He started out as a loanshark and legbreaker and eventually made enough money to move out of Charlestown and into Melrose. When members of The Winter Hill Gang beat up his brother George McLaughlin, he went to James "Buddy" McLean and demanded that Buddy turn over his guys. Buddy told Bernie his brother had been out of line, and refused. The next night, Bernie tried to plant a bomb in the car used by Buddy’s wife. That kind of provocation could not go unavenged, and the next day Buddy tracked Bernie down to City Square in Charlestown and shot him in the back of the head in front of dozens of witnesses, all of whom declined to make a positive ID. The getaway car was driven by Russell Nicholson, a crooked MDC cop who would later be murdered by the McLaughlins.

[1]

--216.20.1.215 19:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


This taken from:


http://thebrothersbulger.com/Bernie%20McLaughlin.htm


Bernie McLaughlin was the boss of the Charlestown crew that bore his family’s name. He was a loanshark and legbreaker, and had amassed enough money to move to Melrose. When members of the Winter Hill Gang beat up his brother Georgie, he went to Buddy McLean and demanded that Buddy turn over his guys. Buddy told Bernie his brother had been out of line, and refused. The next night, Bernie tried to plant a bomb in the car used by Buddy’s wife. That kind of provocation could not go unavenged, and the next day Buddy tracked Bernie down to City Square in Charlestown and shot him in the back of the head in front of dozens of witnesses, all of whom declined to make a positive ID. The getaway car was driven by Russ Nicholson, a crooked MDC cop who would later be murdered by the McLaughlins.


[edit] RFC

Guy, the procedures (and link to a template) for filing an RFC are very clearly shown on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. If you don't follow the procedure, your postings WILL be deleted, by me and any other editor/admin wandering by the page. Do it even halfway right and there'll be no problem; continually doing it completely wrong gets you bupkis. --Calton | Talk 13:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Howie Carr

Hey, just wanted to let you know that the bit on the howie carr article about the spat with mike barnicle has been re-added (not by my, although i would have if someone else hadnt first). Although you may be right about it not being terribly significant in the long run, our goal with wikipedia is to amass all the available factually accurate information possible on any given subject. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 03:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy

Please take note of the arbitration ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy. If you wish to continue the edit war regarding these fatboy.cc links you are subject to blocking.. Gamaliel 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my user talk page

If you wish to post a message on my user talk page, please follow the simple instructions I have left at the top. If you do not wish to follow them, simply do not post there. Gamaliel 22:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio?

What makes you think that Image:Smurfs.jpg is not fair use? In what way isn't it a fair use image? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the law, [1] How is the posting by [2] a use of commentary and criticism? It's not. Though the admin claimed fair use, it was in no way as such. The violation was reported to the copyright holders, info@smurf.com and the hosting company for Wikipedia, Abuse@Cogentco.com, to James Wales jwales@wikia.com. Violations of copyright law are criminal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs).

Firstly it's not criminal. Yo can't go to prison for it. Secondly the smurf article has the following paragraph.

In 2005 an advertisement featuring the Smurfs was aired in Belgium, in which the Smurf village is annihilated by warplanes [1]. Designed as a UNICEF advertisement, and with the approval of the family of the Smurfs' late creator "Peyo", the 25-second episode was shown on the national evening news, after the 9pm timeslot to avoid children seeing it. The scene starts with happy peaceful smurfs and butterflies, who are then bombed by warplanes, ending with a lone baby smurf surrounded by prone (presumably dead) parents. The final frame bears the message: "Don't let war affect the lives of children." It was the keystone in a fund raising campaign by UNICEF's Belgian arm, to raise £70,000 for the rehabilitation of former child soldiers in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- both former Belgian colonies. The episode was controversial and upset some children, parents and concerned citizens. However, UNICEF spokesman Philippe Henon had stated that 70% of all feedback was positive.

This looks like comment and criticism to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, you are wrong. Here in the US it IS criminal and you are not looking at where the image was used in violation properly. Look here and you will see how this was used in violation of US Copyright law [3] In addition, the fact that it remains in history is also a violation. As to the penalties, see [4] Up to 5 years in prison, etc. Also, don't think that any individual is in any form protected by Wikipedia.org. Each user is liable for thier actions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs).

  • Although I will be the first to admit (see pretty much every conversation on this users page) that this user has frequently made copyright claims that were incorrect, many of his claims have also been completely substantiated. In this case, he is completely correct that the use of the Smurf's screen shot on a user page is NOT fair use. I dont think he was challenging that it is fair use in the article itself. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 05:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right I wasn't looking at where the image was used. When I looked at the image it wasn't linked to anything (presumably it had been unlinked) so I didn't realise it was being used in the userspace and I assumed it was being used in the Smufs article. I will delete the image. Having said that your reaction way waaaaay OTT. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont know if images can be undeleted, but I really dont think deletion was warranted. The image as it was used in the article on Smurfs was totally kosher fair use and extremely relevant and informative. It should be removed from userspace but not from wikipedia. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 08:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The image (under another name) Is being used in the Smurf page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade

Hello, i'm looking over your copyvio addition to Crusade (which had already been reverted by someone else), and I cant find any merit to your claim. You provided two seperate infringement source links: [5]. The first link I can't seem to find any copied information, although I'll admit both articles are very long so I may have missed it. Can you be a bit more specific about which sections? The second link is virtually a perfect match, but that is not a copyvio because the second page was copied from wikipedia. The dead giveaway is the disambig tag still in the second pages article at the top, but with no link. Not that the second page has committed any crime: copying wikipedia articles is totally fine, but we arent about to take them down once someone does :) They are licensed under the GFDL. If you can be a bit more specific about which part of the first article was the problem id be happy to help you out on this. Thanks! -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 04:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, I went and found the copied sentence you mentioned, but it has been removed from the article since then anyway. Was it just that one sentence? As for your blocking, I do think it was a bit out of turn, especially since noone seems to have bothered to notify you or warn you on your talk page. However, I am not an admin so I have no power to unblock you, but I'll see what I can do. In the future, especially with obscure copyvios like this, I think it would help your cause allot if you provided the specific violation detail up front. You can add this to the article talk page or directly below the copyvio tag. Frankly, given how hard the one copied sentence was for me to find in the article, if I didnt know you had a history of finding valid copyvios, I would have thought it was senseless vandalism too. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you still blocked, incidentally? I can't tell. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, Adam Bishop has agreed to unblock you, but I should warn you that in the future, if you are adding copyvio tags, being as specific as possible will reduce the chances of your edits being percieved as vandalism :) Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks

Appreciate your help. I think in the future I'll just notify the copyright holders of how to register a complaint with the FBI & hosting company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs).

  • Theyd probably have much faster results contacting jimbo or through our mechanism Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, but you can certainly advise people however you like. Feel free to contact me directly in to future, too, Im always happy to look into copyright issues. Just a personal tip: I think youre likely to do much better if you register a username. IP addresses make to many people think vandalism without really checking carefully. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for 48 hours for breaching your article ban per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for one week per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy. Gamaliel 04:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/4/2E/User_talk%7E24.147.103.146.html"