User talk:WRFEC


 * Your linked disclaimer says that 1000manga owns all content displayed which is not user-submitted. The content in question is user-submitted, and therefore, 1000manga does not explicitly claim to own it.  Indeed, it could not claim to own it, since it obviously doesn't belong to them in this instance.  The same page does explicitly state that "1000Manga is not responsible for the accuracy, usefulness, safety, or intellectual property rights of or relating to such User Submissions," in other words, that 1000Manga does not take responsibility for guaranteeing that its contents are not copyrighted.  Your statement that virtually all Wikipedia citations would have to be removed is, frankly, bizarre, since very few citations to reliable sources link to copies of someone else's work.  Your suggestion that Wikipedia assume that material is not used illegally, even when obviously copyrighted material is uploaded anonymously to a web site by people who are obviously not the owners of that copyright, is absurd.  Your last statement indicates that you don't think Wikipedia has any legal responsibility to... er... follow the law.  Frankly, your unblock requests seem to be clearly stating that you either don't understand the copyright policy, or have no intention of following it.  You will find that this is one of the quickest routes to an indefinitely blocked account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello FisherQueen.  Please be assured of the following;  I mean no disrespect to you whatsoever.  I appreciate the work you and other administrators do to improve wikipedia.   I have never and would never link or add any content which I believe is proven to be a copyright violation.   The link in question I do not believe is proven to be a copyright violation.  I realize that you disagree and I understand your position.  I respectfully disagree with your position.   I think this is an issue which deserves discussion in a wider scope, perhaps you could suggest the appropriate forum?    In the mean time, consider an alternative case in point which is more widely known:  Youtube      Youtube contains millions of user submitted videos.  Many are submitted by the original authors with their permission.   Many more are supplied by legitimate license holders as a form of advertising.   Many more are clear violations of copyright.    And finally many are not clearly distinguisable what catagory they fall into.    For certain wiki articles a video of say an event, for example, could be a very powerful reliable source and citation.   But it would be impossible for us to clearly determine ownership.   Youtube maintains a process by which legitimate holders can remove violating material and I believe we should leave it to them to police their content.     The same holds true of the site which I cited.  I also would like to mention that the article in question had originally been nominated for deletion as "unable to confirm this exists".  Regardless of copyright, my link provided the proof that it does exist and therefore was important to the article.  Afterall, something cannot be a copyright violation if it does not exist.
 * Whether you agree with me or not (assumed not), I hope that you would respect my position as I do yours. I hope that you might point me to a forum to discuss this in a wider public scope.   And finally I hope you would recognize that my intent was to improve the article and that I did not violate wp:3rr and therefore the block should be removed.    Thank you.  WRFEC(talk) 18:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by saying that the material in question is "not proven to be a copyright violation." It is uploaded without the express consent of the owners of the copyright, so it is a copyright violation.  YouTube is another example of a site which is not, in general, used as a reliable source at Wikipedia except in cases where the copyright status of the material is very clear.  I do not feel good about sending you to disrupt any forum with a wider public scope at this point, since your ideas are not well developed yet, but I am sure that you will be able to find the right place with your own searching, and in the process, learn more about copyright policy and law. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again. All I meant by "not proven to be a copyright violation"  is that you dont know "It is uploaded without the express consent of the owners of the copyright, so it is a copyright violation" to be the case.    Its possible the author uploaded the scanlation herself to promote her product in hopes of getting a publisher in the united states to print her work.   It doesnt say that.  But it doesnt say that it wasnt either.   Comes down to an assumtion of good faith.   I want to assume honesty until proven otherwise.  Seems you want to assume dishonesty until proven otherwise.    Thats all I meant.    Thanks for reading WRFEC (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you mean. If it were uploaded with the consent of the copyright owners, it would say so clearly.  It doesn't, so it wasn't.  Yes, it's reasonable to 'assume dishonesty' when something is, as it is in this case, obviously not uploaded by the copyright holders.  What did you see that made you think it was?  If the copyright owners were adding their images to the internet, they'd most likely do so on their own web site, not on a general upload site.  It's unusual- though not unheard-of- for authors to release the full text of their work onto the internet, and when they do, they do so with a clear statement of what the copyright status is and on what terms they're releasing it.  See Cory Doctorow's web site, where he's released the full text of several novels, for what that looks like.  They don't just uploaded the images with no statement to a web site that published violations of other authors' copyrights.  But I just can't believe that you don't already know this.  No one is as stupid as you're pretending to be, not even teen users who are still learning about copyright.  There's no point in my continuing this conversation, which ultimately boils down to your unwillingness to accept that Wikipedia has rules.  If you want to create an article at Wikipedia, you can, but it has to be about a subject that meets the notability criteria.  If you want to cite sources, you should, but that means citing actual reliable, published sources.  If you want to make a web site about awesome overlooked manga, with links to scans, you can- but not on Wikipedia.  Accept the rules and follow them, or reject the rules and go elsewhere, but you have all the information you need now, so there doesn't seem to be any reason for me to participate in this conversation further. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time. I have always accepted the rules and I reluctantly accept your interpetation of them.  I will not repost that link or others similiar to what we have discussed.    I hope that one day you may see the true meaning of what I tried to say, its right in front of you.  WRFEC (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The link you added wouldn't do anything to avoid deletion, in any case. Is that why you were fighting so hard to keep it? The citations you need are published sources, like newspapers, magazines, and books that discuss the importance of the subject. Linking to pictures of it only verifies that it exists, not that it meets the notability criteria. It's important not to get so emotionally attached to our edits that we feel we've been personally rejected when an article we've worked on gets challenged. If the impression you've gotten is that 'any opinion other than your own gets crushed,' rather than 'the rules are adhered to fairly, even when I'd rather they weren't,' then you've misunderstood what was happening- taking personal offense where none exists. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The original reason stated for deletion was "unable to verify that it exists"  Since that was challenged it is now proposed for deletion based upon notability.   I cannot say if this particular series is notable enough to warrant an article or not, I had never heard of it before yesterday.    So I have nothing to add to the notability discussion.   I merely wanted to prove it existed to defeat the original proposal based on supposed non-existance.

It would be nice if it could be said "I see where your coming from but I disagree with you about copyright. Our intepretation seems to be more consistant with current consensus and in the interest of protecting wikipedia from legal danger.  Thanks for your contribution but please dont use that link again"   instead of "Your ideas are misguided, you are blocked"      Maybe that would help keep it from being so personal. Thanks WRFEC (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The best to prove existence for manga is to put a link to the publisher catalog like here or to bookstore like here. --KrebMarkt 20:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey thats wonderful, those look like great links! Unfortunately I cant read a word of it because I dont speak japanese but I recognize the pictures from the Ayu Mayu article.   Thanks for finding those! I had suspected that perhaps the best information would not be available in english and you have confirmed it.   Would you go ahead and cite those on the article please? I am still blocked and unable to do it.   Also the article is now challenged based on notability so if you have anything to add about how notable it is nows the time.   Thanks  WRFEC (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)