User talk:Ken keisel/Archive 5

Combining refs
Ken, please do not repeatedly paste the same ref into articles -- combine multiple occurrences of the same citation using WP:NAMEDREFS. Thanks.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * SarekOfVulcan, I spent ten minutes fixing it and when I tried posting the work it was erased by an "edit conflict" generated by you. If you're not going to give me a chance to fix it before editing on it yourself you're just wasting my time. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I've asked you before not to copy and paste my entire signature.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to help, please correct the spelling of the title for the article I just finished. It should be "Gerhardt Cycleplane", not "Gerhardt Cycloplane". - Ken keisel (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:Requested moves. While you're waiting, you can fix the rest of the typos in that article. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you were helpful, instead of just harrassing. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Please actually explain what you're doing in the WP:EDITSUMMARY field, instead of putting "updated entry" for every single edit summary -- that's almost as unhelpful as omitting it altogether. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I used "reply" this time. You're welcome. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
Per your request I moved the article to Gerhardt Cycleplane. I also used a named reference format per WP:NAMEDREFS. – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC) – ukexpat (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Miners Minors
Minors who edit Wikipedia are not required to disclose that they are minors. In fact, in many cases, minors who edit Wikipedia are advised not to self-identify as a minor. Demanding of an editor (or of those watching their talk page) that they specify whether or not they are a minor, as you did here, is unacceptable in my view. Please don't do it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately --SarekOfVulcan's stalking behavior has become so disturbing it was necessairy to establish if this editor is merely a child, or a real danger here. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't get to "establish" if an editor is a minor. Not for any reason.
 * Is there some confusion between "stalking" and WP:HOUND here? Stalking is an activity that has real life implications, and may justify an assertion that "real danger" is involved. Merely commenting where another editor has also commented, is not stalking; it may or may not fall under WP:HOUND. There is a very significant difference between the two. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Accusations of stalking. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sarek
Please do not accuse other editors of stalking you, as you did here. As was pointed out at Sarek's talk page, it is part of his (voluntary) job to check up on edits that may be problematic. If you have a dispute about content, discuss it in article talk. Thanks, --John (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at the "talk page" on the Gerhardt Cycleplane and the Marshmallow sofa you will see that I have attempted to discuss SarakOfVulcan's problem edits with him there. He has never replied. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * O RLY? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have never edited the former page, but I see your post at the latter. That's fine, but please don't accuse him of stalking you when he is only doing his job. --John (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now he's placing information that needs to be immediately deleted due to lack of references, or accuracy, on every article I edit. I don't believe this is his job. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see evidence of this and therefore I don't agree with you. --John (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggest you check out his edit history on Gerhardt Cycleplane and Marshmallow sofa articles. His claims and edits were found to be false. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I already did, and in fact I edited both articles when I saw you two discussing it on his talk page. There are two issues here; one is the content dispute (which I am not all that interested in) and the other is the issue of you making accusations about an admin which don't stand up to scrutiny. It is the second one you need to stop. You cannot win a content dispute by falsely alleging stalking. Do you understand? --John (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * John, I would be happy if he(?) just stopped editing every article right after I do. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's wikihounding (if that's what he's doing, consistently and without good reason), not stalking or "real danger". OK? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken, I'm not here to gang up on you. Quite the opposite. I'm here because I feel like this issue could be resolved if cooler heads prevailed. I don't think that Sarek has been going about this in the right way and I sympathize with the feeling of being wikihounded. It appears to me, that in several of these cases, Sarek has reverted your additions because he has been unable to verify the sources on his own. At times this has caused you to add the information back with different sources verifying the information. I have suggested to Sarek at AN/I that it would be more collegial not to revert, but discuss the referencing with you instead, especially if the issue is simply poor use of references as opposed to incorrect information. I'm sure you can appreciate the fact though that we do need to be careful to get the right sources up when we add accurate information to articles. Other editors will have no way to distinguish false information from accurate information if they can't find the information in the sources. So what can be done going forward? Do you think you could put Sarek's mind at ease by promising to be more meticulous with your sourcing? Perhaps then he can promise not to Wikihound your edits and to discuss edits with you instead of simply reverting you. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ken, I wanted to apologize for taking quite a harsh tone with you there. I can see that you are not all that well-versed in how we work here and I know it can be a steep learning curve. You have made a good start by posting at article talk. The best thing is if you just post your proposed addition or change there, then try to convince other editors using good sources and the principles of our mission. Be friendly and polite, and remember that other editors will have their own sources and their own interpretations of policy. Be kind, erudite, thoughtful and patient and you will be able to contribute here. We really need folks like you who are smart and knowledgeable and can write. The hardest thing about editing here is the strain of working with other editors, but it can also be the most rewarding. Be nice to Sarek and I find he is one of the kindest and best admins we have. I'll be around if you need any help. Once again, sorry for the tone I took with you. --John (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. One problem I have is that there seems to be many styles for citing sources in articles. Each administrator seems to have their own personal style, and rejects the style of the others. I have been criticized for not using their style. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it shows the source, any style is acceptable. If the administrators wants to use different styles they are welcome to change it to suit them, but I wish they would stop trying the force one style on me over another. The other issue I have is that I often receive information on the current status of individual surviving aircraft. This information is not published (and not likely to be), but is very relevant to the article. I have no problem with having it tagged with {citation needed}, but certain editors are simply deleting my additions without discussion, for lack of a published reference. It is my understanding that deleting information that appears factual is discouraged. From what I've read on the Wikipedia rules page it should just be tagged. Am I correct? - Ken keisel (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy Vio Problem
Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-15 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 104–05--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your addition to Yak-17 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 110–11

Your addition to Yak-19 has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 118–19

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-25 (1947) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, pp. 127–28

Your addition to Yakovlev Yak-30 (1948) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Text was copied/closely-paraphrased from Gunston and Gordon, Yakovlev Aircraft Since 1924, p. 128


 * Sturmvogel 66, in the future please identify yourself when you post a message. You can do this by typing the "~" key four times at the end of your post. Based on your message it does not appear that you are challanging the accuracy of the information you deleted, or the book that it was obtained from. Am I correct? If that is the case wouldn't the best approach be to simply re-edit it until you no longer consider it a violation? I don't see how it benefits these articles to delete 50% of their information simply because of how it was worded. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He did sign on the first warning. Its your responsibility to make sure the text you add does not violate copyright, not other's jobs to clean up after you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see now that he did sign it near the top. Not where I'm used to seeing a signature. Perhaps he could have chosen a different format to make this posting. Regarding the text, I made significant changes to the original source text when I added my information, and I do not believe the material is in violation in any way, but as Sturmvogel 66 states he is currently doing a full re-write on the articles and will re-add the deleted information there seems little reason to argue the point. - Ken keisel (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Don Chadwick
I just reverted all your recent edits, given that I could find no reason to change "Don" to "Gordon". Feel free to restore any accurate edits: I just couldn't tell which were which, so played it safe and restored the status quo.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you do a google search for "Gordon Chadwick" and "Herman Miller" you find about a dozen results. He is commonly known as Don Chadwick, but his full name is Gordon. Wikipedia naming convention specifies that we use the common name if it is overwhelmingly familiar, as is the case here. There isn't much information in the article. I suggest that your time would be better spent researching more material to add to it, rather than deleting what little is, which could be verified by a simple search. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ken, I hope you don't mind me interjecting here (I still have your talk page on my watch-list after leaving that other comment above). There might be some confusion here between Don Chadwick and Gordon Chadwick. The Gordon Chadwick that I get reference to when I Google as you suggested above might not be the Don Chadwick of the entry. I can't say for sure, but that Gordon Chadwick was a partner of George Nelson's in 1953. In that year Don Chadwick was 17 years old. I doubt he was a partner in an architectural firm. Is it possible they were related? Perhaps Don's name is Gordon, but he goes by Don specifically because there already was a notable architect/designer who had the name Gordon Chadwick. Anyway I hope that helps. Regarding the rest of the changes I think it would be helpful if they were sourced in some way. If they were I doubt Sarek would have reverted them. Remember that Don Chadwick falls under WP:BLP. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. Gordon Chadwick is not the fellow who designed the Aeron Chair. That was Don Chadwick. Thank you for the assistance! - Ken keisel (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Typo fixing
I'm doing a swing through your contribution list looking for typos. To avoid swamping your watchlist, I'm not saving changes unless there's an actual spelling or markup issue to fix. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gurley Novelty
Ken -

The page as you've created it lacks a references/ tag at the end; I undertook to add it but was prevented from doing so by a spam filter warning that indicated that one or more of the references you've supplied is on Wikipedia's blacklist. Please figure out which it is and remove it so that the article can be properly sourced. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How do I find out which one is blacklisted? - Ken keisel (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dunno. Looks like someone did it for you.  The article's pretty thin on references now, though.  You probably need to find some non-spam ones to substitute.  JohnInDC (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ken and John: Yeah I came across the article and thought it just needed a "reflist" to get it working right. When I added that, the software indicated that two of the refs were on the spam blacklists and disallowed a page save. I double checked the lists to make sure it wasn't an error and they are on the blacklists, so cannot be used as refs. I added tags instead. - Ahunt (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect the ezinearticles one isn't considered a reliable source for WP's purposes -- it doesn't look like it has editorial control.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The final citation remaining was to a website selling old product, and I removed it as not a reliable source; the article has no sources at all now and needs some bolstering. JohnInDC (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * ezinearticles is blacklisted as spam on Wikipedia! I have also added a "notability" tag to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed it using different references. Interesting that I didn't encounter any spam filters when I posted that reference. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It didn't trigger the spam filter because it wasn't an external link until Ahunt added the References section. At that point, the blacklist kicked in. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is my take on it too! The article is now a mess of duplicate refs and needs a serious clean-up and checking of references. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree - I'm not altogether confident in any of those refs and one or another reference tag probably should be restored to it in the meantime. JohnInDC (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As always, it helps to just do a little research. It only took one visit to Amazon to find what you two have been spending so much time bantering about. SarekOfVulcan (talk), I would be glad to spend some time working with you on how to do your own research. I've looked at your contributions, and it doesn't appear that you are familiar with adding anything that you have researched yourself. You are very good at deleting other's additions, but with a little time spent researching a subject you could be making valuable contributions that are more than just simply challanges and deletions. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you own that book, Ken? If not then how do you know what it says?  (I took a quick look at the parts that Amazon allows you to see and didn't see anything about Gurley Novelty - am I mistaken about that?)  JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (I would add that, indeed it does help to do a little research -- better still to do it before the article goes live and before it's tagged for poor references and raised as an issue at the RS Noticeboard.) JohnInDC (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * JohnInDC, you are indeed mistaken, again, and it's becoming a trend. Pages 68 through 81 are devoted to Gurley candles. I find it disturbing that you are challenging the contents of a book that, by your own admission, you don't own and haven't read. Regarding your second comment, again you are mistaken. It is yours, and every user's, responsibility to search for and add good references to articles, not just the person who wrote it. I'm noticing from your edit history that you seem to spend more time criticizing other's work on Wikipedia than making any practical contribution to the articles yourself. I would also remind you that it was you who insisted that Navy bandleader Anthony A. Mitchell was not notable under the Wikipedia notability guidelines, a position in which you were unanimously voted to be wrong. As I said, I see a trend appearing here that is very disturbing - Ken keisel (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just confused, because you wrote the article with some pretty feeble sources; then when challenged on it eventually produced an apparently reliable source - but described it not as something that was in your library (and which presumably you would have offered up in the first place) but with an Amazon link that has nothing to do with Gurley Novelties. On top of that you complained to Sarek for failing to come up with this source when - again - the Amazon page doesn't mention Gurley.  How was he supposed to find it?  Anyhow it didn't make much sense.  It still doesn't, actually, but if you do have the book in your library I'm not going to dispute what you say it says without my own copy.  Next time please offer up the decent reliable sources that you have on hand rather than material that Wikipedia's own software rejects as unreliable.  It is your job in the first place - see WP:Burden - and it would save the rest of us a good bit of time.  (As for Anthony Mitchell.  Indeed he turned out to be sufficiently notable - you'll recall I withdrew my nomination - and the article remains in place, as it should.  But you misremember the discussion that led up to it.  For a while in fact it looked like article might be deleted.  Here's a link in case you want to go back to check.  Articles for deletion/LCDR Anthony A. Mitchell USN.)  Finally, be careful with your insinuations.  You accused me of "bias" on a prior occasion and were sharply criticized for it.  Thanks!  JohnInDC (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * JohnInDC, I'm still unclear why you disputed the contents of the book if you don't own it, and haven't read it? There are ethics issues cropping up here. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Ken - I'm confused again. Where did I dispute the content? JohnInDC (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted, as you did at Kokosing Gap Trail. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As you were the editor who originally added the material, are you saying that you did not copy it from the site you were presented with? You then appear to have simply reverted it back in even after having been confronted with the copyright violation, and then replaced it with a close paraphrase.  Can you explain this series of edits in a different way; the one sentence you devoted to your actual block reason does not seem to be accurate as presented?  Kuru   (talk)  23:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, there wasn't criticism from others about his behaviour, just you complaining without evidence about his making sure you didn't violate copyright, again, as you had done so much in the past that many other admins would've just indef blocked you instead of taking the time to let you try and edit without violating copyright. Heck, Sarek only blocked you for a month instead of indefinately.  He's acknowledging that you could be helpful to this site if you were a little more careful, but you just keep spitting in his eye.  Shame on you.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I edit conflicted with the decline above, posting what would have been my rationale as it is a bit more comprehensive: I've looked at the diffs, and it is abundantly clear that you either do not understand or are deliberately ignoring our policies on copyrighted material and plagiarism. Changing a word here and there is not re-writing something on your own words. Your edit summaries and talk page comments seem to suggest that you believe it is ok for you to go ahead and post such material and leave it to others to rewrite it so that it is not an infringement. That is not the case, you shouldn't be making such posts in the first place. Unless and until you can indicate that you understand and will abide by Wikipedia policy on these matters you will need to remain blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20100222181248/http://www.visitknoxohio.org/index.php?article=kokosing shows that the information was on the VisitKnoxOhio site on February 2010 and was credited there as "Written by Progressive Communications Inc". This is after the date that Ken keisel added the information to Wikipedia, so it doesn't firmly establish the original authorship.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * SarakOfVulcan, it is your responsibility to establish the original author BEFORE you take administrative action, not to block someone and then check to see if they were the original author. You even admit that the information was added to the site after it was written on Wikipedia. That alone should have been more than enough for you to have seen that this was a simple cut and paste from Wikipedia. - Ken keisel (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a link to the Kokosing Gap Trail in early October 2008, as shown at http://web.archive.org/web/20081014192406/http://www.visitknoxohio.org/index.php?article=attractions. However, the archivebot did not crawl the page at that time, so I can't establish what the content was then -- just that there _was_ content.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, see Donating copyrighted materials. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And Copyrights, for that matter. "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." Stating that "virtually none of the information on Wikipedia can be copyrighted" is outright wrong -- practically all of it is.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sarek is not a copyright lawyer. If it apears to be a violation, then his responsibility is to protect the project. If you you are the author of the original source, then is is your responsibility to submit an WP:OTRS incident to prove such. Blaming the blocking admin for you not doing your job seems to be a little odd ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 14:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not. Here is the text of an email I recieved on a similar subject from Wikipedia;

use of the Washington Post article as a source for an article, using it as a reference. Wikipedia encourages this, in fact. Reliable sources make Wikipedia more trustworthy and this article will provide the opportunity for readers to verify the information.
 * fromPermissions permissions@wikimedia.org
 * toK Keisel 
 * dateThu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:33 AM
 * subjectRe: [Ticket#2011080310013936] Fwd: Message via washingtonpost.com - for use in *article "Anthony A Mitchell"
 * mailed-bywikimedia.org
 * Important mainly because of your interaction with messages in the conversation.
 * hide details Aug 4
 * Dear Ken Keisel,
 * Matt Schudel is correct that facts cannot be copyrighted. You are welcome to make
 * Sincerely,
 * Adrignola


 * U.S. copyright law prohibits the copyrighting of facts, ideas, or factual statements. It is not the users responsibility to search the web for information cut and pasted from their contributions. It IS an administrator's responsibility to get their fact straight BEFORE they take action. In this case it was clear that the material was added to the web site after it was placed on Wikipedia. - Ken keisel (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This e-mail has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If you had linked to a reliable source such as the e-mail suggests, no issues.  You are instead claiming that you are the author of text that holds copyright - you must therefore provide proof of such ownership.  This is pretty easy stuff Ken. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 15:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been contributing here since 2005, and I've never encountered a problem like this before. I wrote the information based on having worked on the crew that helped put the caboose on display. There was no reliable source to use, and it is not a contentious issue. From what I can see, the text has been added to over a dozen amature web sites. I see this happening all the time, especially on eBay, where many listings use cut and paste text from Wikipedia. They do this because they know the factual statements we place here cannot be copyrighted under U.S. law. Please stop being angry with me about that. It's nothing to do with me. That's just the law. If any of us were required to keep track of all the text we add here and report whenever it's used elsewhere there would be no one contributing here. It would take up all our time, and we're not getting paid for this. Plus, what would it accomplish? You can't ask them to take it down, it falls under fair use law. - Ken keisel (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Under US copyright law, ANY text is copyrighted to its creator the moment it is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Wikipedia's articles ARE copyrighted. However, they MAY be reproduced at will under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Under that license, any material contributed by any Wikipedia editor must be releasable under that license, as stated at the bottom of every edit page. There's a huge difference between licensing material under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and not having a copyright, especially since the latter does not exist as a matter either of statute or of case law in the United States. There's also a huge difference between the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and releasing material into the public domain, the latter of which appears to be what you are incorrectly asserting. If you wish to release your original writings into the public domain, well and good, but do not make the erroneous presumption that the text of a Wikipedia article to which you have added such public-domain material is also in the public domain. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln)  (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * BWilkins, note that he claims that the text he authored here _was_ the original, not that he wrote it somewhere else and copied it here. It's harder to establish that nobody wrote it before you than it is to prove that somebody did.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Block upped to indef for complete lack of understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy. If you ever figure out how to properly contribute here, you can submit a new unblock request showing that you will work within policy.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have raised this for discussion at WP:ANI.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as you maintian the block I am unable to participate in this discussion. Based on your statements here it appears your argument is with Wikipedia, and the U.S. Copyright laws, not me. I have looked and I can find no Wikipedia rule requiring me to keep track of text that I add to Wikipedia, if it is cut and pasted onto private web sites. - Ken keisel (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * SarakOfVulcan, you have raised the issue of the Anthony A. Mitchell copywright violation on WP:ANI. You have failed to mention that I received permission from the author to use that text. Please add that fact to your discussion. - Ken keisel (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Got an OTRS ticket number to that effect I can reference? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC) Never mind, I see it now.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  16:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It appears that several administrators are struggling with the fact that Wikipedia's policy regarding copyright does not mirror the U.S. Copyright laws. There has been a suggestion that I do not understand the law because my interpetation is different from Wikipedia's, and that appears to be the basis for SarakOfVulcan's current claim. Here is the complete text of an email I received from Thomas ASchwartz Ph.D., a professor of copywright law at The Ohio State University.


 * Hi Ken Keisel,
 * This is a difficult concept for my students to learn; it even seems to contradict the whole purpose (misperceived, as it is) of copyright law to the layperson.
 * In your message to me, you don't distinguish between the facts and the expression of the facts, but I'm assuming you know this crucial difference. You can use the facts, ideas, etc. from the Post obituary, but not the exact wording, unless you're provide attribution and insert quotation marks.
 * But overall you have it right. I'm surprised the Wikipedia folks didn't look at their own entries on the subject. Here's what it says at one of several places that explains this:

Idea/expression dichotomyAn important limitation on the scope of copyright protection is the idea/expression dichotomy: While copyright law protects the expression of an idea, it does not protect the idea itself.The distinction between "idea" and "expression" is a fundamental part of U.S. law, but it is not always clear. From the 1976 Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 102):In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.A paper describing a political theory, for example, is copyrightable; it may not be reproduced by anyone else without the author's permission. But the theory itself (which is an idea rather than a specific expression) is not copyrightable. Another author is free to describe the same theory in his or her own words without violating copyright law, and in fact need not even give credit to the original author (although failing to do so may be considered plagiarism, an ethical transgression). Courts disagree on how much of the story and characters of a copyrighted novel or film should be considered copyrightable expression.The link takes you to the respected online law library at Cornell University, which provides you with the exact sections of relevance, especially Section 102(b) of the U.S. Code:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States

I hope this is what you wanted. If not, let me know.
 * TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102Prev | Next§ 102. Subject matter of copyright: In generalHow Current is This?(a)Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:(1)literary works;(2)musical works, including any accompanying words;(3)dramatic works, including any accompanying music;(4)pantomimes and choreographic works;(5)pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;(6)motion pictures and other audiovisual works;(7)sound recordings; and(8)architectural works.(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/102.html
 * Best of luck,
 * Thomas A. Schwartz, Ph.D.
 * Associate Professor
 * School of Communication
 * Ohio State University
 * Derby Hall 3074
 * 154 N. Oval Mall
 * Columbus, OH 43210
 * (614) 292-1006


 * The court's differ on what extent a text has to be modified in order to avoid copyright infringement, but on matters concerning names, dates, locations, and general descriptions of an actual event there is no protection offered. It is possible for someone to cut and paste a factual statement, sentence, and even a whole descriptive paragraph without facing any infringement so long as the contents are solely limited to an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery. My statements above are based on having read the actual U.S. copyright laws described here. Note that they do not match the copyright laws you are claiming that Wikipedia promotes. When working inside Wikipedia we can create any laws we want, and say they're real, but that doesn't make them real outside Wikipedia. In the case of the discussion we're having here, individuals who copy and paste text from Wikipedia are only responsible for following the laws of the United States, not the laws of Wikipedia. I am not agruing Wikipedia's rules, nor am I encouraging people to steal text from Wikipedia (though the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge for other's use), I'm merely pointing out that outside Wikipedia only the U.S laws apply. This may come as an eye-opener for some of you, but don't shoot the messenger. - Ken keisel (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken, have you not read what the good professor actually said. "In your message to me, you don't distinguish between the facts and the expression of the facts, but I'm assuming you know this crucial difference. You can use the facts, ideas, etc. from the Post obituary, but not the exact wording, unless you're provide attribution and insert quotation marks. "  And "Another author is free to describe the same theory in his or her own words "  Wikipedia policy - since you seem to have difficulty understanding it - says EXACTLY the same thing.  The problem is that this is not what you do. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Question
Ken. Regarding the copyright issue above is there any way you an prove your assertion about which came first? Have you tried contacting the people who run the website? Have submitted an WP:OTRS ticket as Bwilkins suggested above? If you are telling the truth I think you can resolve this, but arguing further with admins to unblock you until you do will not have a positive result. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since Ken claims that text was copied from Wikipedia after October 2008, but the text was actually on the website in 2001, as shown here, there is no good faith left to assume, and it's time to launch a full WP:CCI.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is pretty damning evidence. Ken I'd like to hear you respond to that. It's one thing to be confused about copyright, and to have made mistakes because of said confusion, but it is quite another to lie about authorship. If you are willing to own up to your mistakes and promise to work with a mentor to ensure that past copyvios are found and fixed, and future editing is copyvio free I'd think that things would end up in a positive light. However, if you fight like you have, against damning proof that you're not editing within policy, there is no hope. That's my advice. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very confused at this point. I've contacted Bryan, the director of Progressive Communications, Inc. (the company credited with authorship of the text on the page). He states that they have never worked for the Knox County Chamber of Commerce, and had nothing to do with writing this text. He says he's never seen this web site before. I will provide Bryan's phone # and email address to any employee of Wikipedia who wishes to look into this. I've also spoken with a representative of the Knox County Chamber of Commerce, who states that they have never worked with Progressive Communications, Inc. When I inquired about the authorship of the website before the current company took it over in 2011 they declined to answer any questions, or identify who was the web master before 2011. I've contacted the current website company, inquiring about authorship of this particular text, and they won't return calls. It's also interesting because the caboose wasn't on display in 2001. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still willing to assume some good faith. Ken, I'd suggest you get lines of communication going between yourself, your point of contact at Progressive Communications, and OTRS, and get the issues hashed out. I think this matter has progressed beyond what a "typical" admin is going to be able to handle, because of the potential for legal entanglements. If your POC can demonstrate to OTRS that the material is available under Creative Commons license, you'll be exonerated (for lack of a better word coming to mind). Note that I am NOT involved with OTRS; I'm offering this as the obvious (to me) path to take. Anyone else reading this, if I'm wrong, feel free to trout me, but I'm just calling it as I see it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, but because of the block I can't post onto the OTRS page. Bryan is willing to state in writing that his company didn't write the text, but he is also worried about liability for plagiarism too, so there is a limit to how far I can expect him to cooperate. My contact at the Law Dept. at Ohio State University looked at it and said the entire passage is too fact-based to be copyrighted. His comment was, if we're an encyclopedia, why we are trying so hard to restrict the use of the facts we provide? - Ken keisel (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly Ken, I don't believe you. Firstly, the archived page shows quite clearly that copyright in 2001 was claimed by The Knox County Convention and Visitor's Bureau, which is who I would expect to hold copyright on the text. The current copyright notice on the site  says that copyright is held by the Knox County Convention and Visitor's Bureau. I notice you're scrupulously avoiding asking the Knox County Visitor's Bureau who wrote that text. Secondly, you are so totally misrepresenting what your Law Dept contact said that it leaves me gobsmacked.  He said very very clearly that while facts were not copyright, the expression of facts would be copyright, and it was imperative to express the facts in your own words. You give me no confidence in anything you say. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a very subtle difference between facts and expression of facts, and as he pointed out, many of his students misunderstand this point. If I write "Joe Smith" as a person's name it is a fact, and can't be copyrighted. If Joe Smith's birth date is "1 April, 1999", than that is also a fact, and can't be copyrighted. The tricky part is this, if I merely say "Joe Smith was born on 1 April, 1999" that is a fact, and cannot be copyrighted. If instead I say, "Joe Smith is a really great guy. We used to have big parties on April first to celebrate his birthday," that passage can be copyrighted, because it is an expression, not merely a statement of fact. The important point to remember is that statements or passages that contain only facts about a subject (names, dates, locations, serial numbers, ideas, procedures, concepts, ect.), but are devoid of any expression of personal sentiment, cannot be copyrighted. - Ken keisel (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I did speak with someone at the Knox County Visitor's Bureau. I asked for the name and phone # of their web site's prior administrator. She said, "I can't comment about what was going on there before 2011, and I won't be able to give you any information about them." I asked if there was anyone else there who could, and she said "no". - Ken keisel (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but "the dog ate their homework" isn't convincing enough. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You've completely lost me there. - Ken keisel (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're looking for, but this has the administrative contact information for the 2000-2009 time period on the left column.. - SudoGhost 23:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This c. 1998 newspaper story retrieved from a 2001 archive has pictures of the caboose already in place on the Trail, and says that the caboose was moved to the site in 1997, where it was repaired on site. JohnInDC (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the contact phone # currently on the web site and reached them with it. JohnInDC, the caboose was there, but wasn't on display until finished in late 2002. It was pretty ratty when it arrived- Ken keisel (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeedy JohnInDC. And "The caboose was in poor condition and required serious repairs. Volunteers from the community constructed a new sub-floor, oak floor, double-pane windows and a seamless rubber roof. It was given a fresh coat of paint and now sits proudly beside the Trail as a reminder of the past and the importance that rail travel played in U.S. history" (from ) does not constitute "only facts about a subject ... devoid of any expression of personal sentiment." I fear Ken's trousers have become combustible. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with your point about "Joe Smith was born on 1 April, 1999" probably not being protected by copyright the text here is much more complicated than this and so very probably protected by copyright. I have to agree with User:Elen of the Roads that what's presented here is not just plain facts.  The first bit that, to me, immediately suggests some creative input is the listing of what was constructed - why is it listed in this order.  More importantly "now sits proudly beside the Trail" and the reminder of that sentence gives the authors opinion that the caboose is a reminder of certain things.  This is not a fact but an opinion.  To me this strongly suggests that what is on the website is copyrighted and what you posted on wikipedia is equally obviously a derivative work of that site and so also protected by copyright.  I accept that what is, and isn't, copyrightable is a grey area and that there's a slim chance (very slim in my opinion) that a court might find this isn't protected by copyright but that's not a risk we can afford to take. Dpmuk (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dpmuk, you're ignoring that Ken keisel clearly states above that he wrote the text on Wikipedia and that it was copied onto the Knox County site at a later date, when it was demonstrated to be on the Knox County site some seven years before Ken keisel claims to have written it. This isn't complicated at all.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that I was the one that raised the fact it had existed since 2001 at ANI I hardly think I can be said to be ignoring the fact. :-) I was simply responding to his copyright statements.  I think they should have to a) adequately explain their actions and statements here about them copying for us and b) show they understand our copyright rules before an unblock can even begin to be considered. Dpmuk (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that this is definitive proof, but archive.org seems to corroborate Ken's story. .--v/r - TP 01:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)  Nevermind --v/r - TP 01:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright laws vs. being dishonest
Ken, as someone who stood up for you and assumed a heck of a lot of good faith I'd like you to consider my advice here. Your discussions about what is or is not copyrighted above are completely unhelpful since the bigger issue here is with you original claim: "I am the author of the text in question. It was cut and pasted onto the site in question at a later date". All this talk about copyright is a sad diversion from the question that people ought to stay focused on. Did you or did you not copy the materials from the website? All the evidence suggests you did. Whether or not Wikipedia misunderstands copyright, as you can see from all the comments here, the community feels that copying text like this is plagiarism and that editors who do it consistently should be blocked. If you are willing to acknowledge having done so we might be able to move onto discussions about how you might come back to editing, if at all, but as long as you wiki-lawyer over the copyright issue you are simply going to be digging a deeper grave. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not copy any material from the Knox County Visitor's Bureau website. In fact, I've never seen that site before this was brought to my attention. What I posted on Wikipedia was based on a brief description of the caboose that came with it when it was donated. The description was displayed for a time inside while the restoration work was being done. I don't have the text of that description anymore, but as I recall it stated something like "This Chesapeake & Ohio caboose (#90776) has been donated by the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad to be permanently parked at the former Gambier Train Stop. It was built in November 1924 by the Standard Steel Car Company of Baltimore, Maryland, and was active until 1979. In October 1997 it was donated to the Kokosing Gap Trail." It came from C&O, but was uncredited. From that I wrote "A restored Chesapeake & Ohio caboose (#90776) is permanently parked at the former Gambier train stop. This caboose was built in November 1924 by the Standard Steel Car Company of Baltimore, Maryland and was active until 1979. In October 1997, it was donated to the Kokosing Gap Trail." I then added the information about the restoration work. It was my understanding that the facts I listed (i.e. serial #, location, construction and retirement dates) are ineligible for copyright protection as explained in this statement on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States It's clear the Knox County Visitor's Bureau web site is sourcing the same description I used as my source. My comments about the restoration work were clearly added to their site at a later date. The company credited as the author, Progressive Communication, Inc., states they did not write it. - Ken keisel (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ken. Since we've got hard evidence that the whole of your text existed in 2001, copyright to the Knox County Visitors Bureau - who are exactly the folks you'd expect to hold the copyright - none of the above statements are going to get you unblocked any time soon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To keep the point from being lost, I note that the duplicated text was not limited to the caboose but also included a couple of nice evocative phrases about flora and fauna along the Trail. Here's an excerpt from Knox County's website in 2001 (link) (common / tightly paraphrased segments in bold):


 * On the other side of the coin, the Trail can be used for a leisurely walk. It's not uncommon to see deer, hear the gobbles of wild turkeys or see a blue heron skimming the top of the river looking for food.


 * In spring and summer, the wild flowers provide a beautiful border for the softly rolling hills and cultivated fields. As the seasons change, so does the scenery along the path. Summer greens give way to the bright oranges, reds and browns of autumn and then again to the dull-beauty of winter.


 * Ken included the following when he created the article in 2008 (link):


 * While biking along the trail it's not uncommon to see deer, wild turkey or a great blue heron skimming the top of the Kokosing River in search of food. In recent years a pair of Bald Eagles have been seen nesting along the trail near the Kokosing River. In spring and summer wild flowers provide beautiful borders along the trail, when the hillsides fill with vivid trillium, mayapple, and jack-in-the-pulpit. As the seasons change, so does the scenery along the path. Fall brings the bright oranges, reds and browns of autumn, while winter brings snow-covered fields and Amish farms.
 * JohnInDC (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ken in order for your story to be true the archived page from 2001 would have to be a fabrication. You're skirting the issue that has been raised over and over, that your version of this entry and the text that was already available in 2001 on the website have identical expressions on them that go way beyond mere facts. Another possibility, of course, is that you copied the text from something else, perhaps a brochure, and that the vistor's center either authored the other source as well or copied it themselves. Either way, your story is clearly not true and you are indeed digging a deeper grave for yourself, which is unfortunate.Griswaldo (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The archived page you're describing includes information from the description of the caboose that came with it in 1997. You've already noted that they credit authorship to Progressive Communications, Inc. which denies any connection to it. I adapted the description sent with the caboose by C&S in my Wikipedia article, and apparently so did they, though they falsely credit it to a different author (and nobody seems to be concerned about that). The reason C&S provided the description was to inform visitors about the caboose's history. The article does that as well. The nature information was written by an all-volunteer organization that helped maintain and promote the trail. I incorporated some of it into the article for that same reason. That text was also posted in various locations throughout the trail, and sent to area newspapers. I'm not at all surprised to see it incorporated in the Visitor's Bureau page, and frankly, I'm glad it's there. You need to remember that the reason I wrote this article was to inform the public about the Trail. Until JohnInDC began calling this plagiarism it had been on Wikipedia for over three years without any complaint from anyone involved in the Trail. People living in the area, and those of us who help maintain the trail, have been trying very hard to attract visitors to it, and still are. If there are no complaints from Trail users about the contents of the article why are people who will never use it making a fuss over the article? How does it benefit Wikipedia to attack an article that is serving a purpose in it's present form without any previous complaints from those actually involved? - Ken keisel (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation is against the law. Plagiarism is unethical. Neither makes you Robin Hood. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither occured here. The information was used as it was intended. - Ken keisel (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken please stop being evasive. The following text can be found in the 2001 webpage.
 * "The caboose was in poor condition and required serious repairs. Volunteers from the community constructed a new sub-floor, oak floor, double-pane windows and a seamless rubber roof. It was given a fresh coat of paint and now sits proudly beside the Trail as a reminder of the past and the importance that rail travel played in U.S. history."
 * I've bolded the one word that is different in your text when you created the article in 2008. Do you acknowledge that you copied this text, word for word from somewhere? The idea that the caboose "sits ... as a reminder of the past and the importance that rail travel played in U.S. history," is hardly an example of a "fact" that isn't subject to copyright. Let's cut the crap here Ken because it's not helpful. Do you acknowledge copying this and do you acknowledge that doing so is against Wikipedia policy? These acknowledgements, minus the heaps of unhelpful wikilaywering, represent the necessary first step here for you. You've got a shovel in your hand Ken, and you're standing next to the Wiki grave you've been digging. What's it going to be? Will you help us fill the dirt back in or are you going to keep digging? If you chose to keep digging I'm not going to try to help you anymore. Your choice.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the Knox County Visitor's Bureau for their explanation. I will get back to you with what they have to say. - Ken keisel (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk page access removed. I don't think we're going to see anything useful come out of prolonging this.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. Should he somehow discover that the Knox County Visitors' Bureau possess a time machine and came forward to 2008 to steal text from his Wikipedia article, he can contact Arbcom. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. What the KCVB has to say is absolutely irrelevant, Ken - what you had to say was what was necessary. You are the problem, not them, and the fact you refuse to recognise this, instead running in circles about it being them, not you, is what has lead to this. Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not truth - but in cases like this, both are relevant; the text was verified as coming from them, and the truth, had you been willing to give it to us, might very well have set you free. But as you chose instead to wikilawyer, divert, deny, and provide blatantly false statements, you've left the community no other choice. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken, if you come to your senses and are ready to acknowledge what you did and that it is against policy I'm sure you can appeal to Sarek or another admin to reconsider your block length. Since you can't edit your talk page anymore I suggest sending an email. Otherwise I can't see how anyone is going to let you edit again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)