Jump to content

User talk:Gregbard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gregbard (talk | contribs) at 20:06, 16 June 2014 (→Update). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please follow the guidelines for moving articles

You moved theories of religions twice without prior discussion or announcement. There were indications that the move could be controversial, so you should have done so.

See Wikipedia:Moving_articles#Before_moving_a_page Next time I will report your behavior on an appriopiate notice board. Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an over-reaction. We have a proposal to rename another category, and this is consistent with that discussion. Greg Bard (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did n't u explain that with a link to the discussion on the talk page before moving? Andries (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overreaction? May be, but my time on Wikipedia has become very limited and your edit is not something I can undo myself, so I am not as patient as I used to be. Andries (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Hernández–Capron Trail, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/florida/Brevard-County-History.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Hernández–Capron Trail saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you wish to resume editing, it may be necessary for you to demonstrate your understanding of these policies and reassure the community of your willingness to comply. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gregbard (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See attached. I have stated that I will respect the copyright policy and be more careful in the future. Greg Bard (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Judging by the conversation below, your understanding of what constitutes a copyright violation seems to be vastly different than the rest of the community's opinion of what constitutes a copyright violation. To be comfortable unblocking you, I would expect to see not only that you intend to abide by "the copyright policy" but also some explanation of what you understand our copyright policy to cover and not cover, especially taking into consideration your claims that some previous edits of yours were made under a "different standard" of copyright policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were long ago advised of copyright policies on Wikipedia. You have been the subject of a WP:CCI since 2013 (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330). I started working on your CCI in sympathy to what I believed was your concern that it had been sitting without completion for so long, but as I do routinely checked your recent contribs to see if the issue is resolved. With what I found at Hernández–Capron_Trail (one example at Talk:Hernández–Capron_Trail), I feel I have no choice but to block you pending some plausible indication that you understand and are willing to comply with our copyright policies. At this point, barring some very good explanation for your continuing to copy such content, it seems that the WP:CCI will have to be expanded to include your recent contributions, and it is not fair to ask the community to bear this burden. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this is unwarranted. I have been cooperating with the advice given to me, as you can see directly in my most recent edit to Hernández–Capron_Trail. All of the questionable material has been removed. So this is unwarranted. I am at a library, and as a result ALL of the computers here are also blocked. This is an over-reaction, and would like to continue in my cooperative efforts to deal with any issues that arise. If I am not unblocked immediately, I will be stuck at the library (the only place I edit these days) for three hours, just awaiting a reply. Greg Bard (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about your cleaning up after your copyright violations; this is about your not doing them. You were warned over a year ago to stop. I have just identified another copyright issue from you that postdates your CCI. On 27 February 2014, you created the article Mark Sension with the following:
Source Source text Article text
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=30091962 Mark St. John was made a freeman in 1664, a constable in 1669, and a representative to the colonies from Norwalk in 1672. He was the constable of Norwalk at the time of his father's death, and he certified the death date of his father in 1669. At the Norwalk Town Meeting held March 5, 1657, Mark St. John (Sension) and three others were to provide a good and sufficient "wolfe-pitt". He received Lot #20 in the Norwalk division of land. Sension was made a freeman in 1664, a constable in 1669, and a deputy to the General Assembly from Norwalk in 1672. He was the constable of Norwalk at the time of his father's death, and he certified the death date of his father in 1669. At the Norwalk Town Meeting held March 5, 1657, Sension and three others were tasked with providing a good and sufficient "wolfe-pitt". He received Lot #20 in the Norwalk division of land
This content is clearly not compatibly licensed. It is standard practice on Wikipedia to block editors who repeatedly violate our copyright policies; you were given an opportunity when the CCI was opened to correct your practices without being blocked, but instead you have evidently continued. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, I am a prolific contributor. I have a LOT of articles to respond to when issues come up -- hundreds. I'm not over here resisting attempts to respond. I am responding consistent with what I am being told. That's just not the type of editor that you block. If the issue here is that I am not responding immediately, all that I have in my power is to ask for your patience. As you can see from the long list of articles which a bot generated, that the vast majority of them are not issues, and of the ones that are, only a little bit of effort is needed. Again. I am a cooperative, and long-standing editor. Please, lets take a step back here and lets look at these with a little more patience. Greg Bard (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were first warned of our copyright policies, it seems, in 2006 ([[1]]). Your talk page thereafter has had numerous copyright warnings, from both bots and humans. You have been warned more than once that persistent violators will be blocked. And yet you are still copy-pasting content to Wikipedia. Violating our core legal policy and our site's Terms of Use is not cooperation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonriddengirl: As a non-admin making a drive-by comment about this situation, and as a bit of a notorious softie for keepimg editors, I wonder if it might be possible to arrange some sort of mandated external review on the editor, similar to what was instituted in the Falun Gong 2 arbitration case, where Greg could might be banned from editing some (or all) article space pages, but still propose changes on article talk pages, indicating the pages he wants material added from or some other non-copyright-problematic way? For all I know, as someone having not examined the case, that might not be particularly useful, I don't know, but it might be an option worth considering. John Carter (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hear you (moonriddengirl), and I still believe you are over reacting with a block. The vast vast majority of my contributions are not an issue, and again, they are voluminous. So, let's do a cost-benefit analysis here too. I also, believe that I should remind you that facts can't be copyrighted. It is the phraseology that is the issue, and almost universally, that has been accounted. In the case of Mr Sention, here, that language is not originally from the "Find a Grave" website, but rather the ancient records. There is no fair way for me to respond to sensitivity levels once we have accounted for phraseology. One is always able to ramp up the sensitivity level if one wishes to. I am asking you to ramp it down, and ask yourself if there really is any issue here in the very few cases. In the cases where there is an issue, lets do the -- usually very minor fixes-- that are needed. Would you like me to revisit Sension? I will. However, when a bot produces a list with hundreds of irrelevant instances, it is not reasonable to expect me to take it very seriously. Bring the few to my attention in a well considered way, as you have done with Sension, and I promise I will respond appropriately. Greg Bard (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also be very clear and on the record here? I was given a notice about the Hernandez Trail, I responded to the notice in a constructive way, and I was blocked. That isn't a moral, or decent justification for a block. Please relent. Greg Bard (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've received notices before. The constructive way to deal with them is to read the policy and stop copying content. That there is content in Hernandez Trail that must be removed is simply evidence that you have not dealt with this constructively. This pattern of copying content, in whatever proportion, stretches back to 2006. In whatever proportion, it has to stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I unfortunately would see it the same way as MRG: when you're already under the microscope for copyright, then you need to do everything humanly in your power to not' violate copyright. This one's far too flagrant and obvious. We trust every editor so that we do not have to follow up their edits with a review - even if you're contribs are 90% copyright-free, your 10% are hazardous! the panda ₯’ 22:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem from that bot generated list that it is 10%, but rather much less. In any case, the block is uncalled for as I am not over here being defiant about these issues, but rather cooperative, impatience of others notwithstanding. I've been around way too long, and have contributed way too much for this action. Let's be reasonable, communicating adults here, not bots. Greg Bard (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is a very real chance that just one or two serious copyright violations could be enough to initiate a lawsuit which could potentially bankrupt the Wikimedia Foundation and cause wikipedia to be closed down permanently. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl, et, al. I believe you have created a very exaggerated image in your minds about this situation. I am aware that there is a claim that there is a risk of a copyright violation. I understand this. However, at this point, I am wondering what an actual copyright lawyer would have to say about it. Is there really any real liability here on the part of Wikimedia, or is this overly timid policy enforcement? I don't think it is a great knowledge of copyright law that is motivating the activity here, but rather fear and ignorance of it. I was on the board of a radio station, and also on the board of directors of a television station. It seems to me that it is possible that I have a better idea of what is an actual risk than you do! This isn't to say that I resist improvements. Nor, does this mean that I don't or won't respect additional safeguards instituted by Wikimedia that are really not legally necessary. However, up to this point I have had to trust my own common sense, and not be crippled by the unjustified fears of others. In the case of Sension, the original text is quite ancient, and was copied by a contributor to Find a Grave (who apparently are not worried about copyright issues), and as such, there really isn't any risk of a copyright infringement. I would like for you to consider the possibility that I had also considered this in the course of my contributions. With all of that said, it is apparent that my common sense judgment of what is and is not within the limits of liability is beyond the comfort level of some editors, and I recognize that. I will be more careful in the future. Is there any other statement you would require of me before you lift this block? Greg Bard (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me, then, as though what you are saying is that you have ignored copyright policy and our Terms of Use for years, after repeated notices and in spite of the community resources your prior violations of policy have occasioned, because you disagree with them. This is not something that makes me feel inclined to lift your block. These policies are not optional and never have been, and it doesn't depend upon your assessment of risk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


It seems to me that you aren't really listening to me, and have a disposition going on. I am very sorry, as it seems that you are very upset. I appreciate the role you have taken on in dealing with copyright issues. We all take responsibility for our part. In my case, it's local history and politics.

In direct response to you last comment, No. No, I have not ignored copyright policy, but rather I have considered it, and weighed the issue using a standard that differs from your own. That's different than ignoring. One way that people can be respectful of each other is recognizing that people think differently about things, and that does not make them bad people. That is what I am doing in your case, and I have stated that I will respond to that fact. You really seem to be harping on the fact that there have been repeated warnings, and for my part, I must say that A) a bot generated list with hundreds of irrelevant entries does not instill confidence that it is any valid measure of what is and is not a violation, and B) the cases where an issue was brought to me thoughtfully were responded to respectfully and individually. I do not seem to be able to respond at ANI, so I don't know what I can do at this point. If you have made up your mind that I am some great hazard, and nothing I can say will change your mind, then, well, shame on you. I have said I will do better in the future, and if that isn't good enough, then you are one of the bad guys and since you have the power to do so, the bad guys win. This really is enough already. Message received and understood. I will proceed on a paranoid, and fearful basis on the issue of copyright violations rather than rely on my own common sense. What else would you like to hear from me? I feel like I'm being bullied at this point. Greg Bard (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest in my mind you can obviously have a different opinion on how the copyright policy should be enforced or whether the policy is correct. What you can not do, however, is refuse to follow it after you've been warned (repeatedly) how WE enforce it on the English Wikipedia. We as a community are, indeed, relatively careful about copyright and lean towards being cautious because we want to make reuse by other users as easy (and legal) as possible. This is why the Fair Use rules for images are so strong as well. We as a not for profit encyclopedia could use an incredibly broad definition of fair use under US law because of the obvious educational nature of the project, however, we are also aiming to allow all of our content (or as much as possible) to be reusable by anyone in the world (commercial or not) and so we must be significantly more careful and make it as obvious as possible when there are exceptions. To be honest, I'm not sure you understand the severity at all, and given the (by hand) look at the bot generated list of articles it is indeed severe.
Regarding your question about commenting on ANI, if you would like I would be happy to either set up a section on this page (where you can comment) which would be automatically transcluded on ANI or to copy over a statement from you. James of UR (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting the impression that any attempt to defend myself, or present any mitigating points are only being interpreted as insolence. That isn't a judicious environment for considering punitive action. We all have differing interpretations of things. If we can't respect that, and consider that a person is innocent and cooperating than we have a more shameful problem. I stated that I used my own common sense, and that appears to be very offensive to you. I have stated that I will be more careful in the future and the apparent need for further contrition on my part is getting into bullying. I will overtly state again, that I Greg Bard, will respect the copyright policy. If you need more than that form a long standing editor, in a civil community, than that is a shame. Greg Bard (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the amount of work that you have created for contributors because of your decision not to follow our mandatory copyright policy, I believe that this is a good example of a time when the clause in Wikipedia:Copyright violations would best apply:
Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue. In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used. (emphasis added)
I would be far more inclined to support an unblock if you would not only follow User:Fluffernutter's note above in your unblock request but also agree to limit your contributions to annotating your WP:CCI - old and current - to indicate which articles were copied from where until the review is complete. This is the only way I can see to mitigate the additional damage you've done since your CCI started. Whether that's 10% or 20% or whatever, it would help diminish the burden you've created by your choices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I think it would be not only helpful to do as Moonriddengirl says above, but also to amend your bolded statement to something like "I, Greg Bard, agree to conduct myself in accord with the strict interpretation of the existing copyright policy. Should I have any questions regarding the strict interpretation of wikipedia policy, I will ask for assistance from an editor knowledgable in that area." This would of course allow you to propose changes to the existing policy, but it would also if followed give other editors better cause to belief a possibly variant interpretation of policy may not create continuing problems for the project. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brevard County Library System

Much of this edit, which is sourced to a dead link, appears to have been copied from this source. Per Wayback, it predates the edit.

Some of the material was simply copied from this site. I have cleaned what I could.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theories of religion

Dear Greg Bard, I added a question for you in the discussion about the category Theories of religion on May 2. I'll be glad to read your answer. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article legal moralism was deleted today, as the content was a copyright violation from here. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Fifth Pillar

'Wikipedia does not have firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.59.109 (talk) 05:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I am doing some research into the issues arising from my edits which cause this block. In particular, I will be studying Wikipedia:Copyrights, and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I will also be making some other inquiries so that I might understand these issues better. Apparently, several unsuccessful attempts to unblock could result in a block of my ability to edit this talk page, so I am proceeding more slowly and carefully (although that particular element of the appeals process is very questionable as to its necessity and basic fairness.)

I also just want to state for the record that the preceding comment titled "Fifth Pilar" was not made by myself. I have never edited Wikipedia under any account, including by using anonymous IP accounts, other than "User:Gregbard" which is my real name. It does makes me feel better in this troubling time for me that someone apparently wanted to make a point on my behalf. I don't think the people supporting this block will find that it compels their conscience, however, because the fact that "Every past version of a page is saved" only contributes to their concerns. Their other point about upholding the "spirit" of the policies is an excellent one, and I think this particular case should serve to bring that point into sharp relief. Perhaps in considering that point, someone's conscience will thus be compelled.

I still feel that although, strictly speaking, an administrator is able to justify blocking me given particular edits made by myself and the content of the policies, that this particular case would have been better handled by communicating with me in a civil manner. I believe the evidence and my long standing and prolific contributions support that view. The situation could have been handled much less heavy-handedly. I will get back to you a formal appeal at some point soon, and with the findings of my research. Greg Bard (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you want that last paragraph there? It's enough for me to remove talkpage access, in part because it shows that you do NOT understand your block whatsoever, and are simply railing on against a policy that a) you agreed to, b) that is not optional, and c) you were well aware of the panda ₯’ 19:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated, I am currently doing research, so if it seems as those it is the policy that I do not understand, then please forgive and withhold judgment and action until I make my formal request with my findings. The last statement is not a formal part of any formal appeal. The claim that the administrator who blocked me, and those who supported her could have just communicated with me civilly doesn't actually support the conclusion that I either understand, or do not understand the policy in any way. All that it means is that administratively, they had a choice, and chose a very heavy-handed approach. Please do not confuse political considerations for judicial ones. I have stated that "an administrator is able to justify blocking me given particular edits made by myself and the content of the policies" so that actually supports the conclusion that I do understand that a policy has been breached by myself. I am going the extra mile here by going through a more extensive study of the policies. I am finding the environment to be extremely authoritarian, if you can't appreciate that distinction. Greg Bard (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gregbard&oldid=613186274"