Ptoumbekis
March 2013 edit
Hello, I'm Ushau97. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Chris Benz, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Ushau97 talk 18:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Your repeated vandalism of the Chris Benz page needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.40.12 (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ushau97 talk 18:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)I have not chatted/talked through Wikipedia talk before. Please let me know if this response was received by the both of you. I would like to address "why" I have been making the deletion edit and I am confident that you will understand that it is based on logic and authority and not baseless and "vandalism."Ptoumbekis (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Ptoumbekis, I'm the administrator who blocked you for disruptive editing. Please state your case here, and I'll determine how the matter should be dealt with. ~ Riana ⁂ 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a disinterested observer who happened across the edit warring and started a thread at the BLP noticeboard. My problems with the content are that it derives from a source whose reliability is arguable, and the accusation never seems to have taken wings. A profile on the subject in the NY Times shortly thereafter stated that no lawsuit had been filed, and since the initial dustup I can't find any coverage via Google. I think it's barely newsworthy, close to a BLP violation, and am sympathetic to Ptoumbekis's reversions. That said, edit warring without edit summaries was not the way to go, so a block isn't surprising, but can, perhaps, be re-evaluated. 99.136.255.134 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very information, response, input and feedback. Please know that I read and understand that no one should "vandalize" anything on Wikipedia, but my intent was and is to make Wikipedia the best, most reliable source of information that it can be, and not to deliberately, in any way, compromise the integrity of Wikipedia . My deletion was a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia and was not meant as an act of vandalism. I am new to the editing process and continue to research, read and improve my abilities and welcome all criticism, suggestions and warnings and take same very seriously. I was slow to respond to the "warning" because I was not sure how to literally enter my response, and kept going to the Users page and looking for a talk/chat/message method. I am a professional in the fashion industry who represents many people in the Fashion industry (designers, retailers, stylists, editors, publicists, etc.) and am proud to have a unique and special expertise when it comes to Fashion related issues. I made the deletion to the biography because the "copyright infringement" heading item in the designers biography is merely an unsubstantiated allegation and the reference citation is a photography blog that has no "fact checking," no "reporting policies," no "editorial policies" and merely reprinted the unsubstantiated and unilateral allegations of one person (the photography). I also researched and found that the alleging photographer did not commence any legal action and the alleging photographer did not have a registered copyright for her own alleged photograph at the time of the "dustup", which is a prerequisite to a claim of "copyright infringement." My understanding is that Wikipedia makes an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material, especially in the biographies of living people. Thus, I felt it was irresponsible, inappropriate and completely misleading for this information to be included on Wikipedia - hence my deletion of the item. I apologize if I went about my editing in the wrong way, and have spent today reading and learning more about being a better and more careful editor. Thank you again for your words, information and considerationPtoumbekis (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your response. Having read the article a few times, as well as the sources for the alleged copyright violation, I tend to agree with your assessment of the situation at the article. While I'm happy with the removal of the photography blog, I do think the New York Times link constitutes a reliable source. I also think that mentioning that a copyright dispute took place is a much more neutral statement of the affair, and also seems to be the truth of the matter without needing to go into the legalities of copyright infringement.
- If you're happy to let the NYT source and the mention of the copyright dispute stand, I'm happy to unblock you without prejudice. ~ Riana ⁂ 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- The dispute occurred and merited three sentences in the Times. My take is that this falls under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and that this was small news at best. Are we to include every claim made against a notable individual, once it receives a modicum of coverage? 99.136.255.134 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. Thank you for the time, thought and consideration you have taken - I appreciate it. I respectfully submit that the unilateral allegation made by the alleging photographer has not been the subject of a "dispute" because it takes two people to make a "dispute," whereas, in the current circumstances the "notable individual" designer has not to responded nor addressed the unilateral allegation of the alleging photographer. Many "notable individuals" tend to not address unilateral allegations because they do not wish to give the allegation or the alleger a platform and do not want to lend credence and importance to the allegation by addressing it, which to do so would create an impression of validity and may also create an indirect benefit to the alleger. For example, prior to making the allegation/claim, the alleging photographer only sold six items containing the image of the alleged photograph through her online store, on Etsy, however, after the alleging photographer apparently attempted to make the allegation public, she sold 84 items containing the alleged image, in the four months following her "public" allegation. (In fact, of the 120 items she sold, 84 of them related to the alleged photograph which made up 70% of her sales) [1]. Interestingly, during the weeks leading up to Christmas 2012, on December 1, 2012, the alleging photographer had a banner statement across the photographer's Etsy online store which read, "Help me fight corporate infringement of my work by Chris Benz, Lancome and Saks Fifth Avenue!...All sales go directly to my legal fund." which is why, amongst other reasons, I edited and deleted the "copyright infringement" information from Wikipedia. I took a screenshot of the alleging photographer's Etsy online store and have preserved same before I edited and deleted the information from Wikipedia - said statement is not currently on the photographer's Etsy store. For all of the aforesaid, I respectfully submit that the item should remain deleted.Ptoumbekis (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Unblocked edit
- Ptoumbekis, I've unblocked per your rationale, which I think is reasonable and correct, and I agree with 99.136.255.134's assessment of the NYT article. I won't push for its inclusion in the article (I have no vested interest in the article anyway) but this discussion may be ongoing, so you may wish to go to Talk:Chris Benz to talk the issue through.
- In case the full unblock summary does not show up in your block log, it is "User has stated their case reasonably, did not know about discussion methods on WP and is aware of policies. Unblocked without prejudice." ~ Riana ⁂ 04:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm Riana, and I noticed that you haven't been welcomed yet, so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on 6,821,208 articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible.
Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-
You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.
I know it's a lot of information, but there are two more things I recommend you take note of while editing Wikipedia - cite references wherever possible, and avoid allowing personal biases interfere with your editing.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, ~ Riana ⁂ 04:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright edit
Hello Ptoumbekis! Your additions to Sony Pictures Classics have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)