- Ideally, please at the bottom. If you can't find something you recently posted, I might have moved it down there or it could have been archived if you posted it over 7 days ago. Cheers :)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
Meresha page comment deleted?
Slakr - looks like you deleted or archived the attached message without taking action as requested, or providing any reply.
Can you please help on this? Seems very strange.
Would be good to have the Meresha page up so that everyone can judge whether the Don P article you site as the reason to take down an article has any relevance. Seems like a mistake was made. Would be good to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicfandom (talk • contribs) 20:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Musicfandom: I had responded here with another problematic source laying copyright claim to parts of the text, but a bot archived the discussion. Sorry if I'm otherwise slow to respond; we're just volunteers, and free time's the limiting reagent in our lives. :P You're welcome to request deletion review and uninvolved admins can review the text to see if they also agree or if they think I screwed up. The latter's always possible, after all. They're also volunteers, but they're likely more active than me at the moment. Unfortunately, we don't otherwise restore potentially-copyrighted content (as, well, it'd be publicly hosting potentially-copyrighted content). --slakr\ talk / 12:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Slakr - you have defamed an emerging artist - Meresha based on a bogus claim of Copyright and refused to even respond
As you know, you made a fraudulent claim of Copyright violation for the Page "Meresha"
Based on that fraudulent allegation, you removed the "Meresha" Wikipedia page. This is a gross attack on Wikipedia itself and all that it stands for.
Defamation is a crime by US law. You have implied that a major emerging artist's Wikipedia page is somehow connected to Copyright infringement, while knowing that your claim is fraudulent.
Penalties for criminal action regarding defamation can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
You claimed "(G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://don-p.com/2017/01/15/meresha-together-juntos-produced-don-p/)"
As I have written to you, and you ignored, Don-P was a remixer of Meresha without any rights to her IP. He has agreed this by contract, as I have explained to you. The link you note could legally not be a copyright infringement.
May I ask you that immediately restore the Meresha page unless you can provide any other basis for your malicious action.
We are one step away from legal action.
- (talk page stalker) @NARAS: What matters to Wikipedia in this case is not who owns the copyright to the music, but who owns the copyright to the Wikipedia article's text. I verified that the content of the page that Slakr deleted was largely identical to https://don-p.com/2017/01/15/meresha-together-juntos-produced-don-p/. It's possible that Don-P in turn took it from elsewhere (such as https://www.meresha.com/bio-press), but that makes no difference to the Wikipedia page; in any case we'd need evidence that the original author has released the text under a free license that allows everybody to re-use and modify it for any purpose, including commercial purposes. I see no evidence of such a release on either website. So maybe the Wikipedia article violated someone else's copyright and not that of the page Slakr linked to, but a copyright violation it was, and it had to be deleted either way. We will not reinstate a copyright infringement, no matter whose copyright was infringed.
- This does not imply that Meresha in any way, shape or form is engaged in copyright violation. It only says that the Wikipedia editor who created that page violated others' copyright.
- There are some other issues that I'll address directly on your talk page. Huon (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Huon @Huon: @Slakr: - Your argument makes no logical sense. Don-P copied the Wikipedia page without attribution (as many students do daily), and Slakr mistakenly took down the original Meresha source page. Live up to the error and correct it ASAP. You are otherwise putting Wikipedia and yourself (and Slakr if that is a different person) in legal jeopardy consciously.
You are also seriously deepening the defamation of a prominent artist who participated in yesterday's Grammy ceremonies. You imply above directly that her own web site is somehow involved in Copyright infringement, creating new damage publicly.
Defamation is a serious criminal act. Meresha has through Wikipedia action as represented by yourself and Slakr (as Admin) experienced material damages for which you may also personally be held responsible monetarily.
As Slakr was informed a long time ago (as documented), Don-P was a participant in a remix competition that Meresha ran. Don-P owns no rights to anything Meresha as he agreed by contract. You can read about the competition here: https://wavo.me/meresha/remix-competition-together-juntos-1 Scroll down and you will see that Don-P ended as 42nd in the competition.
That is the basis of your false and vacuous claim of Copyright infringement.
The Meresha Wikipedia article had dozens of references and I suppose was written by multiple editors over an extended period. Logically, Don-P just copied some version of the Wikipedia page. He may have committed Copyright infringement in the process, for which you can pursue him if you would like on behalf of Wikipedia, if that is your thing. His article has 0 references. It was not originally written by him. (Did you ask him before writing your text, or are you just making damaging empty claims without any factual basis?) The fact that Don-P allows a Free Download of a mix that is 100% owned by Meresha according to the terms of the remix competition (please read them) is also a violation of Copyright and contract, showing yet again that his page, that your 100% rely on in your logic, can not be relied on to support Wikipedia's/Slakr's malicious action. You can contact Meresha herself directly at team@Meresha.com if you have any further questions to her. Hope you do so promptly so we can close this matter. To randomly just attack Wikipedia pages like this without facts or doing ANY homework is not serious, and hurts Wikipedia credibility fundamentally. It does raise questions about underlying intent and motivation.
You might also want to study Copyright law. Slakr has made an obviously fraudulent claim of Copyright infringement, as discussed above. It may have been laughable, if serious harm had not been caused and continued for over a month. For there to be a Copyright infringement, YOU (or an authorized Wikipedia representative) would have to show that someone else owns Copyright to specific sentences and YOU would have to prove that they did not consent to its usage. In your comments you admit that you have no such evidence, and have NO IDEA if there is Copyright infringement.
Your comment "So maybe the Wikipedia article violated someone else's copyright" is not a serious argument. Sorry. A judge would laugh.
Courts do not protect the identities of Wikipedia users who hope that they can commit such serious crimes anonymously (please see: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/may/09/us-billionaire-wikipedia-defamation )
- Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats, so I therefore can no longer assist you with your issue. --slakr\ talk / 11:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sinebot working too much! User:Alfie is a clever bunny.
- Update: It's signing Alfie. talk to me | contribs 00:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC) . -- Thanks,
Blockingest admin out there
There's user at UTRS asking to check the rangeblock on 220.127.116.11/24. You blocked this a year ago as a co-location/webhost ("Redstation Limited"). It looks like it is now Fibrecast, a local regular ISP. I've temporarily made it anon-only so the impacted editor can move on, but can you review? Kuru (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)