Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Table of handgun and rifle cartridges

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  withdrawn - (WP:WITHDRAWN); "... Yes I intended to nominate [Table of handgun and rifle cartridges] for deletion...". No prejudice against listing the respective article at articles for deletion; I can help you do so, if that is your desire and you're having trouble figuring out how, just leave a note on my talk page. (non-admin closure) —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Table of handgun and rifle cartridges


This table contains copyrighted materials. Many, almost all the entries are copied from sources that state that they are copyrighted protected. Digitallymade (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to AFD this? Anyway, I'm pretty sure that merely copying the data and not a screenshot of the table itself is not a copyright violation by the sweat of the brow doctrine. &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 15:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It's called copyright for a reason. The table also uses trademark information.  Copying a book wholesale could also be considered theft. Digitallymade (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this may be a similar case to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Improved Military Rifle. Is that correct? —  Godsy (TALK CONT ) 11:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct there. Although Wikipedia claims to want to avoid copyright violations, it seems there editors have no concept of what that entails. Whoever created the photos of the powders, unless they have written permission, probably committed a copyright error. Just because it's in commons doesn't mean it is not copyrighted.  Digitallymade (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I meant that you intended to nominate Table of handgun and rifle cartridges, which belongs at articles for deletion, not its talk page. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I had forgotten about that. Yes I intended to nominate that page for deletion and a lot of copied tables that I believe violate copyright.  It amuses me that when I posted a photo of An American Eagle ammo box, it was deleted, yet numerous photos such as those on the improved military rifle page are still there. They are still arguing that a page titled improved military rifle, which is obscure and is a misuse of a Hodgdon copyright is a valid title for a powder when it says rifle.  There is obviously a lot of nonsensical interference going on, which is a polite description.  The process that is taking place here, creates the general realization that Wikipedia is largely without value.  That is spreading throughout the connected world.
 * I think if there is a fair assessment that at the very least 20 to 30%of all Wikipedia pages are of little to no value. It's obvious to me that the editors are negligent in their responsibility, if you can say someone who does anything for free can be negligent in doing so.  I abhor inaccuracy.  And I abhor the improper misappropriation of credit where it is not due.  That's constant on many pages.  I believe it's not necessarily deliberate, but when I see the vehemence that some editors exhibit in insisting that what's wrong is acceptable I wonder.  There are many pages with obvious bias to them.  In some cases this is understandable because there are no sources other than the people who create the page which is done for free advertising.  But when a subject which is important is not treated properly, I am offended. A lot of redirects are improperly used from what I see.
 * Back to the earlier point. If you COPY someones data, it's a copyright violation. The charts of ammunition are in violation. Many photos are copyrighted.  A lot of TEXT is copied verbatim, which is theft of the most brazen kind.  EVEN with attribution, unless that is specifically stated to be permissible, it's not legal to copy others concepts, theories, statements etc. etc. A huge number of Wikipedia pages are in violation.  However.. such things as this are largely ignored, the way the Police largely ignore speeding on the highways.  But if you cause an accident, then everything you've done wrong will be examined. There is no process in place to prevent copyrighted images from being posted if someone wants to in violation of copyright.  The people running the servers are liable for all the millions of violations.  But.. since there is no legitimacy placed on Wikipedia by any regulatory agency it probably will never be addressed.   It's like complaining about the poor concepts in a comic book. Who cares?  Comic books and online databases that claim to be dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. do not have any air of legitimacy about them.  You may notice that there is getting to be more and more an uproar over google including Wikipedia in it's search results.  I have them filtered out in my google because if I see a Wikipedia page, It's most likely in violation of copyright or offensive in some other way.  One of the easiest ways to get a thief to reveal himself is to call him a thief.  Insisting that black is white is a common tactic.  Some people seem to think that constant repetition (or revisions to false data) will eventually result in lies becoming truth.
 * Not exactly the same topic, but...There are sites owned by companies such as the NEW YORK times which are the source of many false statements. I've gotten tired of writing to History.com about their errors in their programs and on their website.  They never respond and they never correct their errors.
 * Digitallymade (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.