Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Catherine Wayne

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete, Redirect to Talk:Boxxy (copy-paste cleanup). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Catherine Wayne (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Unambiguous copyright violation. My speedy was removed. All content on Wikipedia -is- licensed under CC BY SA 3.0, that is correct. CC BY SA 3.0 requires that you attribute at the time of copying, which was not done here. Only CC BY SA 4.0 (which Wikipedia is not by default licensed under, and it would be improbable and impossible for all the users and authors of the last Talk:Boxxy to license their contributions) allows later attribution. It, as it stands, is a copyright violation. Per the Wiki on Creative Commons, the Creative Commons license terminates if you fail to abide by its terms, which includes attribution; https://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_can_I_lose_my_rights_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.3F_If_that_happens.2C_how_do_I_get_them_back.3F

Again, only CC BY SA 4.0 allows later attribution, CC BY SA 3.0 does not. It's not even appropriate to do a history merge for a failed copy and paste move. If the article gets moved through a requested move, then that's fine. But this page can't be here as it's a cut and paste copyright violation. Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand this nomination in the least. This is a talkpage and all of the comments are signed with username and date, providing full attribution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment after reading this nomination three times, I still have no understanding of why you nominated this talk page for deletion. As NYB stated, the content has been fully attributed, all content submitted was subject to be in compliance with CC-BY-SA and GFDL licensing. With the whole CC-BY-SA 3.0 and CC-BY-SA 4.0, Wikipedia accepts CC-BY-SA 4.0 content here. ///EuroCarGT 03:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @EuroCarGT and Newyorkbrad: Sorry you guys for not being on, been a bit stressed lately. But let me try to rephrase. There is no attribution which is required for copying within Wikipedia. Under CC BY SA 3.0, which is what every single edit is saved under, attribution is due at the time of copying. This was not done here, and is still not done even as of now. EuroCarGT, while I shouldn't have made it more confusing by mentioning CC BY SA 4.0, 4.0 is the only version in which attribution later can be applied. Where if you fail to attribute, if you fix it within a certain amount of time, the license still stands. The CC BY SA 3.0 license for Wikipedia in this instance has failed to been abided to because there is no attribution and as a result, this is a de facto copyright violation. If you don't believe me, ask the copyright desk. Tutelary (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't understand your argument, and in any event, there is no realistic issue here and this isn't a good use of community time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, as an administrator you don't consider addressing a copyright violation to be a good use of time? I already tried to speedy it, but nope, someone removed the tag as 'not applicable' so WP:MFD I had to go. Tutelary (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed "copyright violations" that are purely fictive and notional, in the sense that there is no possibility that any party whose work is involved will care about them at any time because they are utterly hypertechnical and theoretical, do not concern me given the number of more serious copyvios and other issues we should be focused on instead. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looking at the talk page, most of it is just regular discussion that you find on all talk pages. If there is a copyright concern, it only applies to just one section or paragraph. So that's no reason to delete the entire page, see WP:DCV. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC) OK, now I see what is really the issue: Talk:Catherine Wayne is a duplicate of Talk:Boxxy. Just delete it as WP:Duplicate article. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.