User talk:MrX2077

Linking to copyright violations
When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Blade Runner, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:
 * If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
 * If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
 * If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Canterbury Tail  talk  13:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Final warning. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you post a link to a site containing copyrighted material again. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

3RR
Your recent editing history at Blade Runner shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Canterbury Tail  talk  18:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just coming here to warn of the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Canterbury Tail  talk  22:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Unblock
MrX2077 (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note to MrX2077 and reviewing admin. There really is nothing to discuss about the link (which I note you've linked to yet again in the above posting again violating Wikipedia copyright policies in your unblock request.) It was a link to a forum and fan site that contained the entire script transcript for a TV episode without permission from the copyright holder. It doesn't matter what they claim the copyright is for using their page, the fact is they don't own the copyright of that text and therefore can't give any permissions or copyrights over it. Stanford copyright is irrelevant to this conversation, this is about Wikipedia's copyright policies which you've been informed of several times at WP:COPYLINK. Canterbury Tail   talk  01:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * No, you are not allowed to link to a wayback archived version if the original contained a copyright violation. The policy page is, I can see, unclear on that point. But what I'm fairly sure it means by "The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear" is that it is unclear whether the archive site is in breach of any copyright legally held by the site it is archiving - it does not mean that simply using an archive can overcome a copyright violation made by the original site. You are going to have to forget about using that transcript page completely (and I see the content you were using it for has been challenged as WP:OR anyway.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Two points 1) With respect to linking, the clause that comes after what you cited is "It is currently acceptable to link to internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time", where on that page does that say "it does not mean that simply using an archive can overcome a copyright violation made by the original site", it seems like your substituting your judgement with wikipedia policy, an overinterpretation of the policy. If there is guidance to that supports your analysis, please provide the link 2)The original research concern, if you read closely, my homage reference was rectified by providing a link to "inverse.com"; Finally you have a very offensive name "Boing! said Zebedee", it can be easily interpreted or even misinterpreted as a taunt, the point of a block is to correct not disparage users. Case in point " ...And if you post such a link again here, you will have your talk page access revoked." That is uncalled for:guidance as oppose to dominance. The only reason the copyright violation came up was incidental, is that I was trying to illustrate my attempt to resolve the matter by lifting a passage I wrote as supporting evidence, the violation was part of the passage. MrX2077 (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (There's no need to put every reply in a new unblock request.) I was trying to help you avoid further problems, but that's clearly not welcome so I'll stop now and leave it to the next reviewing admin to decide - but I'll go ask User:Diannaa, who's an expert in copyright and who might want to offer something. As for my "offensive" username, please feel free to complain about it at the appropriate venue if and when you get yourself unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the unblock issue, I was under the impression, the only way a "blocked user" can add anything was through this unblock syntax, I never recieved a block before, and I still trying to make "heads or tails" of it.
 * The copyright holder of the script of a movie or TV show is the person who wrote the script, or the corporation that paid for it to be written. Copying a script to a fan forum such as sadgeezer.com does not change who owns the copyright, nor does archiving a sadgeezer.com via the Wayback Machine. Sadgeezer.com or similar websites are in violation of copyright when they publish such scripts without the knowledge or permission of the copyright holder. Copyrights, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, states that "knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". The passage about the Wayback Machine is stating that we are pretty sure that the Wayback Machine is not in violation of copyright when they archive copyright websites. This statement does not create a loophole that permits you to violate the copyright policy by linking to a copyright violation via the Wayback Machine rather than directly. Our fair use guideline does allow short excerpts from copyright material, but that guideline is trumped by the copyright policy, which clearly states that we are not to link to websites that are in violation of copyright. On a side note, 'Zebedee' is a character (a jack-in-the-box) from a TV show called The Magic Roundabout that was broadcast in the UK some time ago. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts:
 * 1) It was a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. It says so clearly on that policy page, and you have been told so by multiple people who understand copyright policy - including one of our top experts in the subject. There is nothing to discuss.
 * 2) A copyright violation is still a copyright violation on whatever kind of page it is posted.
 * 3) The reviewing admins here can clearly see the link in question even after it has been deleted, so there's no problem there.
 * 4) There is no consensus needed, as it was a clear violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy.

If you want to get yourself unblocked, you need to agree not to post any links to web pages that contain copyright violations. Also, a warning - if you continue on this course with no indication that you will adhere to Wikipedia's copyright policy in the future, you stand a risk of having this block extended to indefinite (and you would then not be unblocked unless and until you make such a commitment). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)