Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:04, 30 September 2005

Latest revision as of 01:25, 27 January 2025

(12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

==Proposal 14==

For the record, CSD proposal #14 read ''"Articles consisting entirely of material copied from an existing web page, if such text is an advertisement, or unverifiable." (should be speedily deletable)''. It was voted down because this phrasing was redundant with the copyvio process. [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">&gt;|&lt;</fontspan>]] 17:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also see [[Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations)]], where a similar proposal was rejected in January. &mdash;[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] [[User talk:Cryptic|(talk)]] 06:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Line 270:

Doesn't look like a good idea to me, for there are enough admins here who do not respect copyright law as it is and claim that things which are ineligible for copyright protection or are fair use are copyright infringments. Regrettably, in some cases, even repeated education with case cites and legal references hasn't changed the actions concerned, so I conclude that it's deliberate practice. In the face of such conduct and the unwillingness to remove the admin capability, the current process seems like the way to go. [[User:Jamesday|Jamesday]] 06:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

:How often are cut n' paste jobs from commercial websites fair use or ineligible? [[User:Bluemoose|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''''Martin'''''</fontspan>]] 08:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

== 250 edits ==

Line 276:

I'm not particularly comfortable with a 250 edit requirement before being eligable to vote. I think it's quite possible to be a valid contributing member of wikipedia well before the 250 edit mark. I personally was caught by this rule for the previous CSD vote, and I couldn't quite see why my opinion was less valid simply because I hadn't made as many grammatical corrections to articles as some others. I understand wanting to weed out sock puppets, but 250 seems a little excessive to me. For VfD, isn't the policy to consider sockpuppetry if they have fewer than 20 edits? 20 sounds a lot more reasonable to me, possibly 50. With 250, it also penalizes those who make fewer but more substantial edits, as some have been known to do. [[User:Fieari|Fieari]] 21:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

:I copied and pasted it from the other proposals which is why it was 250, there was some disagreement though looking back, I've changed it to 50 now. thanks [[User:Bluemoose|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''''Martin'''''</fontspan>]] 21:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

::There is no single policy on AfD/VfD. In some cases anon users with a single edit get counted, in other cases the closer enforces a rule of 100 edits or more, and in several cases the closer only decided what the rule would be when closing the debate. This is IMO worse than any clearcut rule would be. I think 50 is enough to weed out socks, in this case. [[User:DESiegel|DES]] [[User talk:DESiegel|^(talk)]] 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Line 283:

== patent copyright violation ==

So that is patents and copyrights covered. What about other forms of intellectual property such as trademarks? Seriously, could we call it "obvious copyright violation" or "blatent copyright violation"? --[[User:Henrygb|Henrygb]] 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

:I see what you mean, blatant copyvio sounds best and means same thing, i can't move it right now because it just says there was no response, i'll try later unless someone beats me to it. [[User:Bluemoose|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''''Martin'''''</fontspan>]] 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

== Can we vote on this now? ==

Line 308:

== Do we close it now? ==

It seems like we have agreed on a new CSD (might I suggest A8?), since the vote goes 100 support/2 neutral/6 oppose. So, do we close the vote now? It has about an hour to go before the end date of October 1 comes, and unless a sock-flood comes, it won't dip under the 70% approval cut-off line. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[User_talk:Titoxd|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#008000;">[[User_talk:Titoxd|xd]]</fontspan>]] 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

:It looks as though we do, as it's currently 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC). I guess we just wait until an admin gets around to it, probably [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] or [[User:DESiegel|DES]]. --[[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] | [[User_talk:Blackcap|talk]] 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:I'm going to put up a notice saying that the voting has closed. --[[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] | [[User_talk:Blackcap|talk]] 05:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:: Go for it. Just write the final tally on there (Still 100/2/6). [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[User_talk:Titoxd|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]] 06:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:::It has been done. :) --[[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] | [[User_talk:Blackcap|talk]] 06:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:::By the way: It's actually '''98'''/2/6—votes 27 and 87 are discounted. I'm going to go check and see if there are any others. --[[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] | [[User_talk:Blackcap|talk]] 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:::Looks like that's it—I thought that support #64 ([[User:S.M.]]) was going to be cast out, but I was wrong. Not that it matters, this proposal clearly passes. --[[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] | [[User_talk:Blackcap|talk]] 06:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've tallied the votes, deleted the tag, added it to passed proposals, and someone's added it to [[WP:CSD]]. I'm not really sure if I've done the right thing, so if an admin or someone who's done this before sees that I've messed something up, please tell me. Hope this was the right place to [[WP:BOLD|be bold]]. --[[User:Blackcap|Blackcap]] | [[User_talk:Blackcap|talk]] 05:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)