User talk:IndependentPatriot1976

March 2023
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * IndependentPatriot1976, please read this Precautionary Principle. "It is found all over the internet" does not mean something is in the public domain or otherwise has been released under creative commons licensing. These are specific legal things which require explicit declarations from the copyright holder. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was merely stating this is the same image that has been on this Wikipedia for years. I only added it back, Ballotpedia does not own the image as well, in fact they only add images given to them by candidates. I pulled the image from them only because that was where I found it, but I knowledge of where it came from originally as these were photos used by the News and Observer and published by them for use by candidates. Since it seems we had an issue with this and you wanted to create a unneeded note for "edit war" I found an image from Peter Boykin's own website that is his picture so there would be no copyright issues. I hope this satisfied your doubts. IndependentPatriot1976 (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All content on that website would, by default, be copyrighted and unavailable to us unless the copyright owner took the unusual (but not unheard-of) specific action of releasing the image to the public domain. I want to restate what you've been told above. Just because the image appears on that website categorically does not mean it is public domain. Quite the reverse, in fact. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that on the website at the footer of PeterBoykin.com he has voiced a disclaimer: PeterBoykin.com and Peter Boykin Releases images created for this website for use in the public domain by informational websites (ie, Ballotpedia, Wikipedia, etc.), media websites including citizen journalists, for the purpose of promotion, news reporting, articles, and for informational uses. For further clarification, you can reach out to peterboykin@peterboykin.com IndependentPatriot1976 (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. 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:. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

 * I started writing the following message before declined your unblock request. His decline message actually covers my main points, but since I have written this, I may as well let you see it. It may still help to clarify things for you.


 * Your editing may or may not have violated copyright law, but it certainly violated Wikipedia's copyright policy. If you read Image use policy, you will see that you need to be able to prove that an image is licensed under suitable free licensing terms or is in the public domain: it is not sufficient for someone who has created a Wikipedia account to assure us that it is. (There is a very simple reason for that: anyone can create a Wikipedia account and make any claim they like, and every day we get people making false claims, some of them dishonestly, others in good faith believing that what they say is true, but being mistaken.) It is perfectly possible that you are right about the copyright status of the images you have posted, but you need to prove it.


 * My advice is to rewrite your unblock request so as to show you understand those points, and won't do the same again.


 * Although it is not relevant here, it is probably worth pointing out that Wikimedia Commons, where you uploaded the images, has an even stricter copyright policy than Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you I have written a response and included the proof that I have permission to use the image. IndependentPatriot1976 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I now see the copyright release at the bottom of PeterBoykin.com. It actually itself doesn't make any sense. Since I suspect you are close with Boykin (and should declare any conflicts of interest you might have with this topic per our policy at Conflict of interest), I suggest you communicate to him that if a photo is in the public domain in the US it can be used by anyone for almost any purpose. "For use ...by informational websites" is a restriction itself which contradicts the public domain licensing (since public domain status means no restrictions). PD licensing would mean anyone could use it on a personal website blog with no informational purpose, for example. As this stands, I still don't see how any of the media there is useable. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, in order to get his permission to use the image as requested I had to reach out to him to get the permission, I did let him know what you are talking about. But, establishing a COI because I was asked to reach out to him is going too far. I am not close to him, I do not know him personally, I have only talked to him through social media and email. I only wanted to help the website and instead I get blocked. What would you suggest he puts on his website in case someone else comes along and wants to use his images in the future? IndependentPatriot1976 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You are not "permanently banned", you are blocked without an end date, there is a difference between a block and a ban. I'm not seeing the "conflict" you say you see. I don't see where you were asked to contact Mr. Boykin, maybe I missed it; you were asked to prove that an image was properly licensed, which does not necessarily require contacting the copyright owner. I realize that the copyright regarding the image says it can be used on websites like Wikipedia, but it must be usable for any purpose including commercial, and Mr. Boykin limited the use to "promotion, news reporting, articles, and for informational uses". As I said above, that may not seem very restrictive, but it is a restriction. 331dot (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I see where some of the confusion may be coming in. Wikipedia requires (with rare exceptions) that material on it be freely licensed. This means that anyone may use the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes, without needing to ask anyone for permission or pay any fees or royalties. (Free licenses may require that attribution be provided, and/or that derivative works must not be put under any more restrictive license). The copyright holder saying "It's okay to use this image on Wikipedia" would be legally sufficient for us to use it, but it would still not meet that standard of free licensing and we would not be able to use it (again, unless it met those standards for when we do rarely permit nonfree work, and that wouldn't apply here.) Our standards for what we will use are much stricter than just "The law would allow us to use this". Does that help to clear things up? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)