User talk:X4n6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Nikki Giovanni

Please don't list an entire poem inside the Nikki Giovanni article. If it's copyrighted, listing it is a copyright violation. If it isn't copyrighted, it should go to Wikisource. And besides, the use of "moving" is POV. Corvus cornix 23:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please stop unlisting the entire poem. It is a news item, and is relevant as such. Furthermore it has been posted elsewhere as such, therefore there are no copyright concerns. However, I will re-phrase the use of the term "moving".

No, I will not leave a copyright violation in an article. Corvus cornix 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence that it IS a copyright violation. If you persist I will report you.

Where is your evidence that it is not? I have already reported this at WP:ANI. You cannot add something to an article on the grounds "you haven't proven it's copyrighted, so it's okay to have here." Please see WP:3RR. You have violated that policy, and could be blocked for edit warring if you persist. Corvus cornix 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then I suppose we will be reporting each other. Your conduct is both insensitive and outrageous.

You want Ms. Giovanni suing Wikipedia? Corvus cornix 23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

She would have to sue FOX, MSNBC, CNN and a slew of other news providers first. If you noticed, I did offer proper citation. Rather than being difficult and outright deleting this, which as I say will only end up in arbitration, why not respect the fact that it is properly cited (although I will obtain more if you insist), and respect the fact that this is currently a newsworthy inclusion?

Warning: If you post the text of the poem again, you will be blocked. Wikipedia's obligation to follow copyright law is non-negotiable. Your point about her making the appearance on TV is irrelevant; do you suppose that a rock band loses the copyright to their music and lyrics by performing on television? Obviously not. Thatcher131 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are at least four other webpages where the poem is reprinted in it's entirety, including on news organizations. I indicated I would willingly amend the citation to include one or more or all of them.

http://www.richmond.com/news/output.aspx?Article_ID=4654611&Vertical_ID=23&tier=2&position=1

http://oursaviorhoneycreek.blogspot.com/

http://withonlineintegrity.blogspot.com/

http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech

What is your response now?


Doesn't matter. Two wrongs don't make a right, or in this case four wrongs. It may be that she has released the poem to the public domain, if so, a statement to that effect on her official web site or an email from her to the Foundation would solve the problem nicely. Or, she is tolerant of these copyright violations so as not to make a high profile stink about it at a senstive time. That is not the same as releasing it under a free license. Thatcher131 00:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that this is all a mountain out of a molehill - and as you say at a very "sensitive time". All Wiki needs to do is source it's material - ESPECIALLY if that source is a professional news agency. Once done, any copyright questions fall to the source. That is copyright law.X4n6 00:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not copyright law. Providing a source is a defense against a charge of plaigairism, not copyright. You can't take something you didn't create and convert it to another use without permission. Really your "source" argument makes no sense. Every poem Ms. Giovanni has ever published can be perfectly sourced to a book, literary journal or some such. Do you advocate republishing all of her poems? Or do you think that publishing on the web confers some different kind of status? It doesn't. There is no further point to this argument. You will be blocked if you persist in uploading the complete text of the poem. Thatcher131 04:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How can I be expected to have an intelligent discussion on plagiarism with someone who can't even properly spell the word? Let alone properly define it. Making empty threats does not make your arguments valid. My explanation of copyright law, while certainly not exhaustive, was both factually accurate and legally correct. I advise that you actually read some copyright law before offering yourself as an expert. Perhaps then you will stop embarrassing yourself. For your reference, I refer you to: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107. You may wish to pay specific attention to Sections 107 - 121. Section 107 specifically discusses libraries and public archive usage, but the remaining sections also offer important and relevant exceptions to copyright protection. Do try and learn something. X4n6 12:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

, 31 hours Rlevse 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PS...See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:X4n6_reported_by_User:Corvus_cornix_.28Result:31_hours.29. Rlevse 01:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Every effort was made to discuss changes. Those efforts were consistently rebuffed. Every effort was made to provide adequate and even additional sourcing. Each time, those efforts were ignored. Every effort was made to contact you and explain further. No response was forthcoming. In light of that, I find your suggestion that in future I attempt to make an effort to "discuss" my changes "further", to be more than a bit disengenuous. Where were the efforts to work with me?
It appears that some members of Wikipedia are far more interested in maintaining and protecting their little fiefdoms than in the larger picture, and yes, sometimes there is a larger picture. The U.S. has just experienced it's largest massacre (excluding 9/11), and members of a college community, the students of Virginia Tech, and a myriad of others who frequent the pages of this forum, flooded it in search of a remarkable poem entitled "We are Virginia Tech" by Nikki Giovanni, a respected poet and distinguished member of that faculty, who spoke to their anguish as one of them. The poem brought them comfort in their time of tremendous loss and greatest need. It is a poem that spoke directly to, and was specifically for them. A poem that moved a nation. Perhaps a world. But emotionalism aside (if that is even possible in this instance), this poem has subsequently been reprinted, blogged, audiocast & videocast on every major network, and picked up - in its entirety - by an extraordinary number of local news services, as well as ALL the major international wire services. Wikipedia had a very real opportunity to actually do some genuine good, and bring some urgent and immediate comfort in a much needed time to people who scoured the internet and came to these pages first - BEFORE everyone else eventually picked it up. Could there be a nobler purpose? Or a better reason to assist a member willing to work within the framework of the rules of this forum? I am penalized for reposting it 3 times, a violation (one that I was unaware of at the time). But I am delighted I did - because in those moments when it was instantly accessible, some people got it - and were grateful, as evidenced by the fact that at least one member wrote to THANK "US" for posting it. Apparently he has been "silenced" as well. But the fact that members of this community were oblivious to an interest larger than their own personal agendas is lamentable - and also quite telling.
Listen, I have respect for the rules of this forum, to the extent that they are reasonably and fairly applied in a situation-appropriate manner. I can see no virtue in their blind or anal application. But apparently that position is anathema here. People expressed copyright concerns here based purely on outright speculation, without even a rudimentary understanding of copyright law, or the appropriateness or proportion of their concerns in this instance. Instead I just got a bunch of robotic, myopic, rule spewers, each more pompous and immovable than the last. I mean is "two wrongs don't make a right" based on any real understanding of copyright law or legal theory? I'm sorry. How many times have you seen your local/network news cite their source to absolve themselves of any potential liability? That's how it works in the real world folks. But again, apparently not here.
But the real point here is that somehow and inexplicably so, the urgent and compelling nature of this tragedy, and a real interest in someone trying to make a difference with a contribution on this forum, just didn't seem to rise to the occasion for some self-appointed protectors of this forum. And that is truly, really, very sad. Clearly there are two sets of users here: those who come here to learn and research and access timely information - and probably never join or even contribute; and then there are those who utilize their knowledge of the "rules" of this forum to dictate, and enforce their own unique interpretation of free speech. I have made every effort to attempt to conform to the needs of both groups. Clearly I have failed. So in future I will stick to the larger forum - and the greater good. Luckily I am blessed to be in a position where this forum is not my only voice for reaching a larger audience.
So friends, there will be no need to try to muzzle me in future. I will have no further interest in any major contribution in future - nor use of this forum. But thank you for letting me address my concerns now. Perhaps they have done some good for the next hapless fool, and perhaps not. But either way, congratulations, you have won. But exactly what, I wonder. And at what cost? X4n6 04:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
See Robert Frost and William Shakespeare. None of their poems are there in full text. Wikibooks or Wikisource would be the place for that. You got into a revert war, which is exactly what 3RR is designed to prevent. At any rate, I've removed the block. It's not about winning nor any of the other accusations you make.Rlevse 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Your analogy, comparing the exigencies of this contemporary poem, and the current newsworthiness of this event, to the dated, previously published, easily accessible through other sources, and in no way urgent or relevant examples of 20th century Frost or 16th century Shakespeare, completely escapes me. But I think it does serve to illustrate my point that as regards this current event, you simply don't seem to get it. But whatever. X4n6 12:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't get it either, but whatever.Rlevse 15:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try one more time. This was a significant news event, not just a question on the publication of literature. Which is why all the news agencies that published the poem in its entirety, did so without fear of copyright infringement. The news exception to copyright protection is included in the link I posted above. It really can't get any more clear than that. X4n6 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that Wikipedia is a news agency? This is an encyclopedia, in it for the long haul, not a current events regurgitator. Corvus cornix 20:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The better question is where did you get the idea that Wikipedia is not constantly updated based on current events? (An idea repudiated here thousands of times daily.) Another question for you would be - since I posted the link to the actual U.S. Copyright Law above, have you read the sections I referenced? If you have, then you have discovered that your earlier assertions on that law are also repudiated, by the law itself. X4n6 10:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Jeff Coopwood.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jeff Coopwood.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)