User talk:

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

I understand you are upset. However posting material which has been previously deleted as a Copyright violation is always inappropriate. If you wish to a appeal the decision to delete this material, go to WS:COPYVIO and start a new heading titled "Restoration of Foo". Then give your argument as to why this material is not a copyright violation. Any court cases over similar material you can point us to would be particularly helpful.--BirgitteSB 02:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikisource is not a link farm. Pages advertising content (including links) we cannot host per copyright reasons (or any other reason) are not allowed according to the inclusion policy. I probably should have used and edit summary explaining that rather than using the rollback button. I am sorry if that contributed to your confusion on the matter.--BirgitteSB 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OH, NOW this gets added ... you are right, this at least gives the "link farm" excuse, but then that's what you should say, not COPYVIO.

It wasn't labeled a Copyvio, I used rollback. It is still in the history. Please double-check the edit summary yourself. It is the standard rollback edit summary, and says nothing of copyvio.--BirgitteSB 03:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Patronizing excuses after abuses of power are always inappropriate. There is NOTHING that violates copyright in providing the following LINKS. People have a right to this information!


I am surprized you find me patronizing. I am simply trying to explain our policies to you.--BirgitteSB 03:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


You might be interested to know that Wikisource admins are confirmed on a yearly basis. The above linked page has the schedule for reconfirmations. If you still feel my actions are abusive after you have cooled down, you are welcome to remind the community of them at the time I am up for confirmation (I think it will be in Jan or Feb). But for the moment I suggest you take a break, come back after you have slept on it and examine the situation again.--BirgitteSB 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That reply is the DEFINITION of patronizing.

I've done as you requested at the COPYVIO page. If the post -- as I'm submitting it -- is a copyright violation, then you must also delete EVERY link to outside information on the entire site. This is clearly partisan abuse of sysop powers. There is zero COPYVIO for providing links to information that people have a right to access.

Thank you for the information. I am completely "cooled down" and will certainly log this abuse. You are deleting content, calling it COPYVIO when it clearly IS NOT COPYVIO. There is nothing COPYVIO about this content:

That is incorrect. I checked the the deleted revisions and both of the revisions I deleted contained the transcript. The other revision is still in the history. That revision was rollbacked to {{deletedpage}} as I continued to fumble with the protection button.
I uderstand you feel strongly about this page and are upset. I honestly don't how else to explain my actions to you. And to explain the options you have to go with the accusations you posted on my talk page. If you find it patronizing, I don't know, I would rather not ignore such accusations. --BirgitteSB 03:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

BEGIN CONTENT Links to legitimate content is NOT a copyright infringement. People have a right to this information!



It has been pointed out to you by several editors that the rules broken by the Foley wikisource were not only of a copyright nature, but also violated wikisource's policy of inclusion. I can only assume that you have either failed to read, or failed to understand the inclusion policy. Otherwise you would not be attacking the reputation of an admittedly liberal-leaning admin, who is only enforcing the policies just mentioned. I also suggest you read Moonbat (the barking variety) and Bush Derangement Syndrome for further insight. Sincerely, your resident mouth-breathing VRWC bushbot cabal editor. - Crockspot 17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it. We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.