User talk:DannaShinsho: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:18, 31 August 2007

This is DannaShinsho's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Here were before funny images created by this user. Unfortunately, a Wikipedian who obviously didn't like my answers to him on a talk page about other subject (categories deletion), decided to tag my images and said he saw the pics somewhere else. Of course that instead of asking me if I was the author, simply assumed and spread in messages that I was using downloaded pics and charged over me. I requested myself the deletion of the images and I am actually pursuing steps for finding out who and where is ussing my work, I need to do this myself because the Wiki who accussed me didn't want to tell me where he allegedly saw my work in the Net. Strange Wikiworld, you are assumed guilty until proven innocent... Well, the work was mine and donated long ago through contract of free release, notarized and all, therefore freely distributed, congratulations to whomever claims it as own work and more congratulations to who believes them. I just LOL

This user's friends are
Timeline Tracers

Warning: My computer has told to me "You must upgrade your brain for compatibility with the new software, do you want to search the Net for upgrades? "

Anyway, please message me, I will respond within my version limits...

Image problems

You've still not provided a source for Image:Marryman.jpg, Image:Nodrinkfly.jpg, Image:Edit warning.jpg, Image:Wrongevolution.jpg, and Image:GlobWarming.jpg. Please do not remove the no source tags again without providing the source for these images. Simply changing the license to FAL does not fix this. If you have questions about this, I'd be happy to answer. Thanks, --Durin 14:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed Image:Nodrinkfly.jpg, Image:Edit warning.jpg and Image:Wrongevolution.jpg for deletion as copyright violations. You can't take something from the Internet and claim it is yours. Rights do not transfer to you because you downloaded it and/or modified the image. --Durin 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely don't know what you are talking about, it was my work, donated ages ago to free use, that is why you found it in internet. Strange place this Wikiworld, you are guilty until proven innocent LOL ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 14:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've claimed it was donated to a foundation. That foundation retains rights. You can clear this matter up by having that foundation contact m:OTRS with a specific release under a specific free license. As to guilty until proven innocent, on Wikipedia we assume images are copyrighted until provably available under a free license. I guess you could call that guilty until proven innocent, but it is how we protect ourselves against copyright infringement. Also, you've twice claimed I'm an administrator. I am not. --Durin 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite loss with artist copyrights when it comes to donations for free use through contract of release, please keep to what you know and we will be all just fine ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I have deleted all of the images you uploaded. However, in the future, I would caution you to assume good faith when dealing with other editors and avoid using phrases such as 'vigilante user'; to some, this may seem like a personal attack. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was not approached wrongly as an offender and was approached with more NPOV, perhaps I would have seen him differently, however his actions and attitude are those of a vigilante ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not approached as an 'offender', you're approached as 'someone who hasn't supplied the copyright information about the images'. If you supply the proper information, then everything is fine. If that information is not eventually supplied, we are forced to conclude that the uploader either does not have access to the copyright information, or does not care; either way, it would be thoroughly irresponsible of us (from a legal standpoint) to NOT delete the images. Try to see it from our point of view. Someone submits an image and claims to be the creator, but that image and derivatives thereof are already in use all over the web. Without supporting evidence, are we supposed to believe this? DS 16:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are supposed to ask the user to provide the copyright and extend courtesy and reasonable time, not to write directly that the user "wrongly thinks that can download from internet"etc or that is obviously using appropiated material, you should keep NPOV until knowing who is the author and after asking for copyright material, not to assume things beforehand. Furthermore you should provide the claimant the evidence you used for your judgement That is ethical and correct action ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 16:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations

In reference to your edits to National Natural Landmark‎ and BQM-74 Chukar - please not that Wikipedia policy does not require that inline citations are used. The form of citation is left to editorial discretion. I'm also uncomfortable with you tageting articles edited by someone you are in a dispute with in this way - it looks rather like harassment to a third party. If you have a problem with Durin I suggest you ignore him rather antagonising him. WjBscribe 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at Durin's work given that he seems to act very partially, that lead me to find out that many of his contributions lack referencing, the general references provided at foot don't cover many of the assertions, if you prefer I can tag inline for showing those problem points. If you feel better I can also handle this task to other editors.

I have no dispute with Durin, I simply want to know who is claiming my work as own and he doesn't want to provide that information either because he doesn't want (which makes his present actions bad) or because he doesn't have it (which should make his past actions quite bad).

About what you call dispute is simply my claim to know who is abusing of my work, about citations, please check yourself and you will see that citations or sourcing is not given and the foot general reference doesn't cover those assertions. But like I said, I will handle this to other editors so you feel more comfortable (and Durin also of course) ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked per No Legal Threats

Hi there. I'm afraid that I have had to block your account due to your recent behavior which extended to threatening another user with legal action. The block can be lifted at any time if you agree to drop any ongoing action, and not to make similar threats in future. If you agree to this, you can request unblocking by e-mailing unblock-en-l at lists dot wikimedia dot org. Kind Regards. Nick 18:28, 31 August 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not made legal threats, I asked for information I could use for taking legal action against who is abusing of my graphic work outside Wikipedia, I also droppped the matter and took it outside Wikipedia and left a message to Durin that all was OK between us and that I left the matter to e-pol.org but he DID NOT need to be involved unless he volunteered to do so, that is very clear in my latest message. In previous messages I limited to ask for who where and when is using my artwork so with that information I could take legal steps against THEM. Please show me where I made legal threats to ANY Wikipedian, I did not and even messaged about not needing to get involved. This was an unfair block, at least because misinterpretation, at most for siding with the user involved, please look all the chain of messages and remove the block I will not accept this

Decline reason:

It looks awfully like a legal threat to me. — ElinorD (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2007 (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.

Did you open the case with e-pol.org against Durin, Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, or any of her side projects, holdings, or affiliates, or did you open an investigative case for breech of copyright laws outside Wikipedia and aforementioned entities (elsewhere on the Internet)? Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it didn't involve Wikipedia, DannaShinsho advertised it on Wikipedia and attempted use Wikipedia as a medium to persue a legal threat against someone else. Even this poisons the well. And DannaShinsho, you should also have expected a block for your harassment of Durin on articles he created, with your inane clamoring for inline references. --Golbez 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and unblock you, because you said that it was not supposed to be a legal threat against Wikipedia or any of Wikipedia's editors. However, I would like to ask that, in future, you phrase such things more carefully, so as to avoid the possibility of ambiguity.

No one likes being sued, after all. DS 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, cancel that. Involvement with E-Pol is suspicious in the extreme. DS 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmation from e-pol.org that a case under that case number has indeed been opened and that while no persons have been identified as yet, they will be in contact with me as needs evolve. From their e-mail, there seems confirmation of DannaShinsho's comments above, but the fact that I am apparently a person of interest to them scares the crap out of me. Quoting from their e-mail, "I will request the Data Crime Unit to contact you back with more information". --Durin 19:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More lies? I got a copy of that message and it says no involvement at all. Until when the assumptions and lies?

o: DannaShinsho-UR@------- Cc: dcu171@e-pol.org Subject: Case ROA 07117992

- - - - WARNING **********

- - This e-mail message may contain privileged or confidential

information and the subject of legal professional privilege and/or public interest immunity . If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, disseminate, distribute, copy or rely upon this message or attachment in any way. If you received this e-mail message in error, please return by forwarding the message and its attachments to the sender.***

Prof Shinsho

We have responded earlier to a similar enquire, please see below a copy of it. We are not at liberty to provide information to third parties about cases. We can only inform that the Case ROA 07117952 was presented by a legal entity resulting from a contractual agreement for release and distribution between a private individual and a humanitarian organisation against three virtual domains hosting intellectual property in violation of intellectual rights. None of the sites is related with Wikipedia Foundation and no involvement of any employee or volunteer, editor or bureaucrat of Wikipedia Foundation is at this time part of the proceedings in any way. The previous enquire has been recorded as responded and with no relation with the proceedings. This enquire and response will be attached to the previous. For any further questions, the involved parties may contact dcu171@e-pol.org who is the Officer assigned to the case.

Thank you for your interest.

J. Benner Officer on duty Entry Desk E-Pol.org

--

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This communication contains information which is confidential and the subject of legal privilege and/or public interest immunity . It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by e-mail and then delete the e-mail and all attachments and any copies hereof.

Original Message --------

From: DannaShinsho-UR@------- To: report@e-pol.org <report@e-pol.org> Cc: heligolandwp@------- Subject: Case 07117992 Date: 31/08/07 20:05

> > Dear sir or madam > > I reported today a problem and was given this case number. It seems > that some people think I reported them, I don't know if you can do > that but can you inform Nick <email zapped> that > WIkipedia is not involved in this? I really don't know who or where I > need to ask this, if you cannot please let me know as I am been > punished with blockage and denial of servicve because they think I > reported something against their people. > > Thank You > > Danna Shinsho PhD > Professor Emeritus > > > > > > > --

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This communication contains information which is confidential and the subject of legal privilege and/or public interest immunity . It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information in it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please notify us by e-mail and then delete the e-mail and all attachments and any copies hereof.

Original Message --------

From: Report <report@e-pol.org> To: WikipediaEditor Durin <wikidurin@------ Cc: dcu@e-pol.org Subject: Re: Case number 07117992 Date: 31/08/07 21:18

> **** IMPORTANT INFORMATION ***** > This document should be read only by those persons to whom > it is addressed and its content is not intended for use by > any other persons. If you have received this message in > error, please notify us immediately. Please also destroy and > delete the message from your computer. Any unauthorised form > of reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited. > > Dear Mr Durin > > The case has just be opened and we are not at liberty to inform third > parties about it. The case is directed against three virtual sites none of > which is Wikipedia.org. I cannot see any involvement of a private individual > as yet. However I will request the Data Crime Unit to contact you back with > more information. > > M.Haalgard > Officer in duty -Entry Desk > E-POL.org > > --

Here it is black on white ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 21:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting you, "I will let e-pol.org handle this, opened case is 07117992, just contact them if you want to provide evidence voluntarily if not never mind they will sort it out" [1]. If this case has NOTHING to do with me, then why even bother telling me about it? Why bother suggesting I voluntarily submit information or "they will sort it out"? You hounded me and hounded me and hounded me and hounded me, and then bring up this e-pol crap? Forgive me if I don't trust you. You've violated every shred of trust I have for you and certainly deserve no quarter. You have behaved in a most despicable, intolerable manner even before this legal threat. Even now, you accuse me of spouting lies. I consider the threat to be open and real until such time as it is positively confirmed to me by e-pol.org that I am not going to have any involvement in this either now or at any time in the future. So far, they have only confirmed the "now" part.

To any admins thinking of performing an unblock, I remind you of "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." from Wikipedia:No legal threats. --Durin 21:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"They will sort it out" meant "if you don't want to be a nice guy and volunteer top say who is using my work, they will find out themselves who use it". And I told you because I wanted you to know that you had nothing to do with it anymore unless you volunteered of course.

Nice to warn editors to not unblock me... what are you so afraid of? The true? Or that comes up that you "forgot" to tell everyone that some minutes before you "found" my graphic art you had a disagreement with me for another matter in another talk page? ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 21:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Legal Threats is a Wikipedia policy. Until and unless you retract the threat, and explain just who owns the website you "reported" this complaint to is, there is no choice but for you to stay blocked. Corvus cornix 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again and for the last time, no legal threats were made, I have proven that no Wikipedia or WIkipedians are involved in that litigation that is enough to prove the block is wrong. If you want to know who the FBI is ask them if you want to know who epol is ask them not me, that has nothing to do with this. ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 22:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you threating me that if I don't explain who are some people at some law enforcement site you block me ? ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have declared that was no intended threat and you fail to point an exact threat, just an "INTERPRETATION". I have proven that no Wikipedian is involved in any legal action. The block was for legal threats, so please show me the policy where you can keep the block unless I provide you information about a third party site Otherwise unblock ^{Danna❀Shinsho} 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:14, 31 August 2007 edit DannaShinsho (talk \| contribs) 213 edits →Comment ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:18, 31 August 2007 edit undo DannaShinsho (talk \| contribs) 213 edits →Comment: policy Next edit →
Line 214:		Line 214:

	By the way, are you threating me that if I don't explain who are some people at some law enforcement site you block me ? <sup>[[user:DannaShinsho\|<font color="darkgreen">'''Danna'''</font>]]<font color="black">❀</font>[[User_talk:DannaShinsho\|<font color="darkred">'''Shinsho'''</font>]]</sup> 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)		By the way, are you threating me that if I don't explain who are some people at some law enforcement site you block me ? <sup>[[user:DannaShinsho\|<font color="darkgreen">'''Danna'''</font>]]<font color="black">❀</font>[[User_talk:DannaShinsho\|<font color="darkred">'''Shinsho'''</font>]]</sup> 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


			Well, I have declared that was no intended threat and you fail to point an exact threat, just an "INTERPRETATION". I have proven that no Wikipedian is involved in any legal action. The block was for legal threats, so please show me the policy where you can keep the block unless I provide you information about a third party site Otherwise unblock <sup>[[user:DannaShinsho\|<font color="darkgreen">'''Danna'''</font>]]<font color="black">❀</font>[[User_talk:DannaShinsho\|<font color="darkred">'''Shinsho'''</font>]]</sup> 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)