Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactive life forms

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (probable sockpuppetry). — FireFox 11:31, 28 May '06

[edit] Interactive life forms

This article is about Fleshlight which already has an entry. It was prodded and removed without comment by an IP. The interview in this entry may very well be a copyright violation. IrishGuy 19:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I question Irishguy's claims of copyright ownership and said violation of same, and request that said user produce evidence supportive of these allgations. The linked reference in the original complaint clearly indicates that the article was NOT sourced by the website owner but taken from other sources, which may or may not be in the public domain.(LubeNLuv 22:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

• Substantiate Claim or remove AfD tag The referenced link in the AfD tag that infers that the article is a copyright violation provides no such evidence. Either substantiate the evidence of the claim or remove the AfD tag. (LubeNLuv 01:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

I have made no claims of copyright ownership and said violation of same. I specifically stated this entry may very well be a copyright violation which is clearly a suggestion, not a definitive claim. Nor will an AfD tag be removed before the AfD is complete. IrishGuy 01:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well then...please explain on what evidence you base your "suggestion" that the article in question is based on copyrighted materials. I have already pointed out, multiple times, that the cited webpage clearly states that the material was not copyrighted by the website owner. So I assume you have other reasons to make such a suggestion? (LubeNLuv 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

As I noted below, any material that appears on any website is automatically under copyright to the owner of that website. To take that material and publish it elsewhere is a copyright violation. IrishGuy 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No merge, no redirect, just get rid of it. -- Kicking222 23:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and yes, it's also a copyvio. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non encyclopedic. It is an interview without any sources. --Starionwolf 04:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete ILF doesn't care, the interview is informative, it's not hurting anyone by existing, don't waste your time on an article that has no bearing on you or your daily life. -- Indubitablyk 10:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The above user is actually 67.185.215.223 and wrote this article, as well as recently attempted to remove the AfD tag. There is no user Indubitablyk IrishGuy 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - For above reasons NawlinWiki 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I want proof this is copyrighted, because The interview is from Xandria.com - not fleshlight.net - it is your burden of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.125.178 (talk • contribs)

comment any material that appears on any website is automatically under copyright to the owner of that website. To take that material and publish it elsewhere is a copyright violation. IrishGuy 19:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

comment If the material posted on a website clearly refers to having been originated from other external sources, it does not confer copyright ownership onto the website publisher. Please provide legal reference that merely copying someone else's words onto your own website makes you the new copyright holder. (LubeNLuv 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

• comment Please note that Bolt head has renamed and redirected this article twice since it was put up for AfD. IrishGuy 19:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete I would like to see the proof that this is a copyrighted article. Thus far, it's the owner of a website that sells Fleshlight-related merchandise claiming that it is, but their own source material also claims no copyrights. Provide evidence or shut up.(LubeNLuv 20:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

The above comment is the first edit for LubeNLuv. Possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy, just because I care enough to log a comment doesn't make me a sockpuppet. The only puppeteering going on here is your shilling someone else's words as your own for profit and then trying to keep it out of the public domain. (LubeNLuv 22:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Exactly how am I shilling someone else's words? Also, how am I profiting from Wikipedia (a free resource)? You have officially stopped making sense. IrishGuy 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Irishguy, the poster asking for deletion, references on the linked source of the alleged "copyright" source the following....Fleshlight History - Interview from S.E.X. zine; "This little article I saved should help you" (current website text image here: http://www.hidebehind.com/B5380D00, and to prevent the obvious legal threats which I'm sure will ensue, such use of this image is covered under the Fair Use ruling as I'm using it to make a point in this editorial comment. The actual website image is owned by the domain registrant for www.fleshlightvideo.net, although I question said registrants copyright ownership of all materials contained therein). The article is bordered by no less than 5 referral ads to the Fleshlight products. You are using the original article for commercial purposes. You are a shill. There is no use of the article here for commercial purposes, it is for informational purposes only. You obviously do not own the copyright of the source material, merely saving it from another now defunct source does not make you the owner of the material. Again, either produce evidence that it is copyrighted material or shut up. (LubeNLuv 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

OK. First off, I didn't put up the copyright violation notice. I put up the AfD tag, so you are barking up the wrong tree. Second, in what world would I be using the original article for commercial purposes? I am making no money here, and that is the very definition of using something for commercial purposes. Third, enough with the rudeness and the personal attacks. It isn't your place to tell people to shut up. The AfD will continue and people whom you disagree with don't have to shut up. IrishGuy 23:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you placed the AfD tag onto this article and referenced the source, then you clearly didn't note the source did NOT claim to be the copyright holder. It claims just the opposite. So your claims are baseless and your placement of the AfD tag is what is in question. Your continued commentary about which users opinions should be considered "questionabile" simply due to their lack of historical posting are supercilious and put your motives into question. The AfD must either provide evidence that the text is copyrighted or the tag is without merit. (LubeNLuv 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

I followed standard procedure. This article has been prodded twice and removed twice by an IP without comment. It ALWAYS goes to AfD when a prod is removed without comment. I noted that this article is unimportant and the subject already has its own article and that it is nothing more than an interview which is not what Wikipedia does. I remarked that it may very well be a copyright violation and it probably is. But frankly, the article should be deleted regardless because it isn't encyclopedic. Also, it is standard procedure to note when a brand new user makes a comment on an AfD page. It is usually a sign of sockpuppetry. IrishGuy 23:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please point me to the standard procedure FAQ for Wikipedia that encourages labelling first-time posters as "sockpuppets." Just like your claims of copyright violation, I believe that statement is entirely a fabrication of your own making. I can point you to the guidelines, I assure you it does not mention labelling first time posters as "sockpuppets" or even noting that they ARE first-time posters. Please read them for yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. (LubeNLuv 00:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

First off, those are talk page guidelines. This isn't an article talk page, it is an AfD page. Second, you yourself should have read that page before attempting to throw it at me. Note the rules on No personal attacks and Assume good faith, both of which you have broken it almost every one of your posts. If you have looked through any other AfD, you will note that first time editors are pointed out because they could be sockpuppets, they could be random people sent here to fill AfDs with don't delete votes, etc. Third, you really should stop going on about me claiming copyright violations as I have refuted this in pretty much every post above. No matter how loudly you say it, it won't make it come true. IrishGuy 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith would mean that first-time posters are real, sincere and expressing self-motivated thoughts and not "sockpuppetry" I would assume? Or does that only apply in special circumstances? And why assume first-time posters are here to spam "do not delete" posts versus "Please delete" posts? (LubeNLuv 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't need to assume good faith when brand new users show up, vote for this AfD and either disappear forever as SSHUBIN did, or only deal with this AfD as you do. A user must have a discernable edit history to illustrate that the aims of Wikipedia are important to him/her for their views in the discussion to carry any weight. If a new user arrived to post delete I would have pointed it out. Thus far, it hasn't happened. Anything else? IrishGuy 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• DO NOT Delete I am the original subject of the interview listed both here on WikiPedia and on the Fleshlightvideo website. This is not a copyrighted work and if it was, I'd share the copyright with the authors. It's also not an entirely accurate representation of the history of ILF, the makers of the Fleshlight. However, the individual who claims to "hold" the copyright to this work is dead wrong for claiming so and is well known to also claim "ownership" of other peoples videos and public-domain materials as their own for the sole purposes of driving personal click revenues via their website. I believe Wikipedia is a proper repository for this material and would like to see it remain here uncontested. SSHUBIN 20:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The above comment is the first edit for SSHUBIN. Possible sockpuppet. IrishGuy 21:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

commentAll the "sockpuppet" comments from user Irishguy are possible attempts to obfuscate that the copyright infringement claim is false and unsubstantiated. (LubeNLuv 23:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

Copyright isn't the basis for this AfD. It was a tag placed on this article by another editor. So let it go. You aren't helping yourself by being a nuisence. IrishGuy 01:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

comment I beg your pardon, but unless I have seriously defective eyesight, the huge, bolded "POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" notice that appears when you click on the Wiki link for Fleshlight History most certainly DOES indicate that the basis for the deletion is copyright violation. And my continuing message here is that original flag cited alleged evidence that is unfounded as the link points to text that is clearly marked as having originated from another source. And a "nuisance?" Please heed your own advice and kindly refrain from making derogatory commentary about my edits. (LubeNLuv 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

Here you will see where the copyright tag you continue to speak of was placed by Ohnoitsjamie and not me [1]. As for the reason for AfD, when prod tags are removed, it goes to AfD for discussion. May 23 a prod was placed about advertising by NawlinWiki and promptly removed by 24.180.125.178 without comment [2]. April 8th a prod was placed about copyright by Tangotango and promptly removed by Bolt head with no comment [3]. Now, this will be about the third time I have clarified this. You know this and I know this. Your continued comments as if this isn't the case is what is a nuisance. I haven't made derogatory comments about you or your edits...because you have made no edits. You have only made comments in this AfD. IrishGuy 01:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me the definition of the "EDIT this page" function if not to make edits? Or perhaps your screen shows a differently worded command? Also, thank you for calling out the earlier "edits," but you still fail to address that the current discussion pertains to the "POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" notice all users are greeted with upon attempting to read the "Fleshlight History" entry, where the cited reference for said "POSSIBLE COPYRIGHT VIOLATION" points to a non-copyrighted work. I repeat my claims because they continue to go unanswered. Why is this entry flagged as possibly violating copyright laws when the cited evidence does not claim copyright and, in fact, claims to be derived from other sources? (LubeNLuv 05:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC))

First, it is only Fleshlight History because it has been renamed twice since the AfD tag went up. Second, I didn't tag it as a copyvio so stop claiming that I did. Third, all pages have the same basic templates, but discussions on AfDs don't count as edits in any sense of the term. Any more strawmen you would like to set up? Also, I note that you completely avoided the multiple prods and the fact that I didn't put up the copyvio prod that you insist on accusing me of doing. IrishGuy 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bolt_Head: Sex Zine conducted the interview - and several sites use the interview as content - I can only assume that it is free for public use. I can rewrite a whole new article but it would be easier to just leave the current one alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt head (talk • contribs)

"THIS INTERVIEW IS NOT COPYRIGHTED, PLEASE NOTE "The interview is from Xandria.com" AND IS FREE TO COPY AND USE. Again the interview IS NOT COPYRIGHTED, the source was XANDRIA.COM - the same source I used for the article - which originally was from "The S.E.X Zine" - you are VERY WRONG, Jamie." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt head (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.