User talk:Guy vandegrift/Neoism on Wikipedia?

I moved this to my userspace after it was first moved out of a Neoism page into a subpage called Wikipedia. At this point, I had managed to edit it, change my mind, and re-edit until it became an unmanageable mess. It was then nominated for speedy deletion. Anybody wishing to move this back to mainspace is welcome to do so. Meanwhile, I will develop it on my user page. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The history was this:
 * Guy, you added some content to Art movements/Avant-Garde/Neoism. It was chatty and relevance to Neoism wasn't clear. Man Ray, for example, was not a Neoist. However, those who destroyed his "object to be destroyed" may have been. We allow chattiness, ordinarily, in resources, but anyone may remove it; courtesy is ordinarily to move it to Talk and then discuss.
 * The content was instead copied by another user to a mainspace page, Neoism on Wikipedia?. It looks like attribution was intended, but was not done. The text said that the content was "transcluded." It was not, and I don't know how that would have been done while blanking it on the source page.[ In my opinion, placing this in mainspace was completely inappropriate. Content copies should always be attributed, it's a licensing issue. The user who created that page then tagged it for deletion with no explanation.
 * I moved it to a subpage of the Neoism page (Art movements/Avant-Garde/Neoism/Wikipedia. I did not notice the deletion tag. How I missed it is beyond me, except it may be related to being born in 1944. I also linked to the subpage from the Neoism page, routine practice. Your title and intention were clearly to create related content, rightly or wrongly.
 * You moved it to your user space. This is always an option, and can completely defuse conflict. However, we ordinarily give users complete freedom in their user space, and that goes together with not, ordinarily, linking to user space pages from mainspace, beyond signatures and the like. So I removed the link. The future of your content is now in your hands.
 * You removed the speedy deletion tag that I missed. That was completely appropriate, unless you wanted to delete the content. Technically, I should approve and so should the other user, but I would not oppose this move, should you so decide.
 * You deleted the redirect you created. That's okay, the deletion reason shows what it was. This is trackable.

Now, some probie coaching. You are not a probationary custodian any more, but ... maybe one will look, or maybe you can assist him. Definitely, the guy needs help.


 * You know about copying content without attribution. Don't. A link in the edit, on the attached talk page, or even a mention of the source page in the edit summary, is enough. Copying between pages and attached Talk pages is routine, but I will always state that the content was copied from the source page; on a Talk page, that will often be smalltext at the top. I've done a lot of research. When people don't do that, research becomes tedious. Leave a trail.


 * Moving pages out of mainspace is routine. Moving iffy pages into mainspace is disruptive. Placing unexplained speedy deletion tags is disruptive. It wastes the time of custodians. In this case, the user appears as the "author" of the content, in edit history (which is the edit history of the attached user page, notice that the original editing history is lost, including the fact that I also edited this material.) An author may request speedy deletion of their own content, but this was not actually the user's own content. Mess. The description above may suffice.


 * When a page is moved, one should always check "What links here," particularly for possible redirects to the page, which will become double redirects. The move to your user space created a double redirect, something to be cleaned up. I fixed it.


 * On the matter of copyright and "cartoon" versions of an original work, what you have written on the page is a common misunderstanding. The "cartoon version" is a derivative work. Ordinarily, copyright on the original may still apply to it. The actual rules are complex. Copying for the purpose of parody or criticism might be allowed. We will generally allow fair use here, but a fair use rationale should be supplied. The cartoon, if used here, should reference the original, attribute and license the "cartooning" -- that creates a separate copyright -- and, my opinion (which is liberal on copyright issues) is that it should also have a non-free use rationale based on being a derivative work of a work still under copyright. commons:Commons:Derivative works. And here is your loophole, which will require a fair use claim for WMF purposes. Won't allow Commons hosting. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)