User talk:Tyros1972/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Nomination of Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunk, Dirty and Disgraceful (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Looney Tunes

Hi there. This is in re your exasperated edit summary at Looney Tunes, Do I look like a SPAMMER? YouTube links are all over wiki, this is a good one I found. Unless you have a valid reason don't revert it.) I am not a SPAMMER look at my history before you go and assume things. I didn't call you a spammer, I called the link spammy. We should be linking to legitimate main stream sites, not potentially shady ones. There's no indication anywhere in that link that this is a Warner Bros. sanctioned site, or that each of the videos included in the compilation are copyright free, i.e. in the public domain. Just as we don't copy/paste photographs from internet sites and use them in articles without adequate justification or proper licensing, we should not be linking to videos that have an ambiguous copyright status. Please see WP:ELNEVER. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb, I understand what you are saying. The problem is WB does not have any compilations like that, and this does not appear to be a wikepedia standard unless I am wrong? Where does it say it hads to be WB especially if the compilation is Public Domain? The same channel ( if you like it or not) just posted 10 hours, 85 episodes and have agreed not to run adverts. So there is no money on their part making money. I am going to post that, I cannot see why you would have any objection - no ads is no revenue. Thank you for your kind explantion on this and hope you agree, if not please revert and explain why. Tyros1972 Talk 07:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Resubmitting the link before we arrive at a conclusion violates WP:BRD and edit-warring is grounds for having your account blocked. That said, there's no indication on that channel that all the episodes in the compilation are in the public domain, i.e. the video is not adequately licensed. And even if you were correct that the original cartoons are in the public domain, the remastered versions may not be, because they could represent a derivative work. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)