Talk:Paul Stanford

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... Mr. Stanford the subject of the article has submitted a permission to use his websites or LinkedIn profile info for the Wiki page about himself that I am trying to create. This permission was sent into Wiki a month ago on June 28th.

Isn't it OK to re-submit the article about him coupled with the permission he has given to use text from his websites and LinkedIn profiles? Essentially I have been told that I am violating his copyright even though he is the subject of the article itself. If he has given me permission to use this material that he is the copyright holder on, how is this then a problem?

There is also a couple lines of text on the website in question http://paul-stanford.com/index.php/about-paul-stanford/ at the bottom of the page (all pages of the site now have it) that his webmaster just put there that should allow anyone to use text off that site for any purpose. The text that he's added says;

"The text of this website is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License". Isn't this enough to allow me to use the text off Mr. Stanford's website for the Wiki page I'm trying to create?

I understand that Wiki needs to be careful to not violate copyright laws, but in this case the approval to use copywritten content has already been given to me. This seems to be a bit of a catch-22. According to Wiki I am violating a copyright which I already have permission to use. The permission has been formally submitted to Wiki, but I'm not sure of the status of the submission.

The message below is one that the article's subject, Mr. Stanford, forwarded to me on June 28, the day that he submitted a request to Wiki that I am allowed to use any text from his websites or LinkedIn profile.

Wiki has asked that "if you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015062910000988]."

How can I proceed in regards to the creation of this article?

Thank you.

From: Permissions - English Wikipedia <permissions-en@wikimedia.org> Date: Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 6:24 PM Subject: [Ticket#2015062910000988] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Permission to use my [...]) To: "D. Paul Stanford" <dpaulstanford@gmail.com>

Dear D. Paul Stanford,

Thank you for your email. This is an automatically generated response to inform you that your message has been received. Because all emails are handled by volunteers, it may take some time for us to reply. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding as we try our best to reply as quickly as possible. If your article or file has been deleted in the mean time, please don't worry. Any administrator can restore these later.

If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015062910000988].

Yours sincerely,

The Volunteer Response Team--Sacredcocreation (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sacredcocreation (talk) 05:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Valid, referenced information keeps getting removed from this page

As a person close to someone who has been swindled by Mr. Stanford. I've found this article very slanted, exaggerated, and self promoting. To add balance I included information about Mr. Stanford from a local Portland, OR media outlet called "Willamette Week", an AP article from boston.com, and a press release from marketwired.com. This information keeps getting removed despite the fact that is completely true. Makes it seem like Wikipedia is being used as a tool of self promotion. I'm pretty sure Advocacy, Propoganda and Self Promotion are explicitly listed under the article "What Wikipedia is Not".

Please allow Wikipedia to be used for holding factual information and cease from deleting this type of information when it is added to this article.

Thankyou

P.S. For the record - my name is not mark.

70.98.32.74 (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• I think both editors warring here are in error; one by way of WP:OWNERSHIP and perhaps whitewashing negative sourced content, the other with a clear bias in the other direction. I've requested attention at the BLP noticeboard, in hopes that both editors will be cooled. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, it was the obvious white washing that prompted me to make the edit. I have put in a request for a 3O as well. 70.98.32.74 (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Don't thank me; the editorial tone of your edits, warring and WP:BLP violations ought to merit a block. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I apologize for warring - honestly I didn't know that was a thing until I received the message on my talk page. I fail to see what BLM rules I violated? certainly persons who were wronged by the subject of this article have a voice? All my additions were referenced, after all. 70.98.32.74 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Paul Stanford

There is a person adding slanderous and libelous information to a Wiki page that I created about someone who is one of my heroes. The person who is posting this slanderous and libelous content is named [redact attempted outing], and he is making the changes from this IP: 70.98.32.74

We are literally going back and forth right now every minute or two and undoing each others changes.

[redact attempted outing]

Please advise what I can do about this situation. Can you block this person's IP from being able to make changes to the page?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredcocreation (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sigh. I can't wait till an admin gets here. There appears to be valid content and sourcing you're removing, though the IP's editorial commentary is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is your desire to out someone here. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The articles this editor is citing are both very slanderous and defamatory. The editors narrative that he makes on Mr. Stanford's Wiki page and the comments he makes here are clearly reflecting his own personal bias against Mr. Stanford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredcocreation (talk • contribs) 22:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    • The articles, at least the two I looked at quickly, are neither slanderous nor defamatory, but come from WP:RELIABLE sources. There is negative content there that may be added to the article, but it must be done in a neutral fashion. From the looks of things neither of the arguing parties are up to the task, yet. My suggestion is that you work together in that direction, or an objective editor will do the work. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
      • I am open for critique and suggestion to my tone - but I must insist that the negative content be referenced and summarized in this article. I feel bad that your hero may come out looking less heroic, I do not dispute the positive points in your article but there are still facts that remain. These need to be communicated for an accurate reference. 70.98.32.74 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
        • I find it very hard to believe that [redact attempted outing] will be unbiased in his editing, since he has a long history of attacking Mr. Stanford. Both the articles he so desperately wants to include on Mr. Stanford's Wiki page are slanderous. Just the headline of one of them; "Paul Stanford had lived a life of error, missteps and regrets, one laden with betrayals and failure." is slanderous. This article, written by a hack journalist is defamatory and should have never seen the light of day. Wiki is not supposed to publish defamatory or slanderous material. These two articles are clearly both of those things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredcocreation (talk • contribs) 23:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
          • I have re-considered some of the word choices I have made in my original edit in an attempt to remove bias. I hope this will be acceptable. I also referenced an article regarding the takeover of Mr. Stanford business. 70.98.32.74 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Your edits still include information and articles that are slanderous and libelous. Just because something is published in a news source does not make it true. The article with the headline of "For Portland's Dope King, Love and Mistrust: Paul Stanford had lived a life of error, missteps and regrets, one laden with betrayals and failure." that you have referenced in your edits many times is obviously slanderous and libelous. It should be clear to anyone that this is an attempt to slander Mr. Stanford by posting this article and citing it as fact, when it is not true. You should wait until Wiki decides how to handle this before attempting to do any more edits. We need an unbiased third party to moderate this situation. Please refrain from editing Mr. Stanford's Wiki page until this situation has been resolved.
              • An unbiased 3rd party already chimed in 5 responses up. "The articles, at least the two I looked at quickly, are neither slanderous nor defamatory". I know of a forum full of many people who have personal experience with Mr. Stanford. Both good and bad. Perhaps I'll reach out to the Drug Policy Forum for Oregon to get more opinions. Perhaps even more editors. In the mean time I will also await admin input. 70.98.32.74 (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. I am removing the third opinion request because there are already three editors involved, two unregistered editors (one editing from an IPv4 address and one from an IPv6 address) and a registered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

There is an edit war going on right now between Sacredcocreation (talk · contribs) and 70.98.32.74 (talk · contribs). Both are in violation of the 3-revert rule several times over. Can I ask that both of you stop editing the page until some other people can sort through this and figure out what the dispute is all about? If you can't do that, perhaps an admin should come in and block these two for edit warring and semi-protect the page. Bradv 00:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Judging by this edit, Sacredcocreation (talk · contribs) appears to have a close connection or working relationship with the subject of the article. On the other hand, this edit suggests that 70.98.32.74 (talk · contribs) has a personal vendetta with the subject of the article. The challenge here is going to be to create a neutral article that doesn't disparage Paul Stanford, but also doesn't whitewash anything. The article should fairly and accurately summarize the various news articles and sources in order to provide a balanced view. Suggestions are welcome. Bradv 00:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Meh, the sourcing is marginal at best for the legal issues. Also I am doubtful as to if the 'Willamette Weekly' is a suitable source to use for legal issues (and anything else sourced to it), given its small local focus. RSN might be the place to go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to refrain from editing if the consensus is that I have a personal vendetta (though I do not) and there is a conflict there. I do feel it's important for all information about this subject to be disclosed as apposed to having a self-promotional article written and edited by someone who considers the subject "his hero". Willamette Week is absolutely a local publication - local to where Mr. Stanford has established himself. It's articles about the legal problems are verifiable through court record and are quite accurate. Also, in my most recent edit I feel like the "editorial tone" was corrected, If I am wrong on this please point out where. 70.98.32.74 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made a few edits based on the sources in the article, including removing a few references to legal issues that seemed out of place. I think there may be enough for a "Legal Issues" section of the article (as would be expected for an article about a marijuana activist). Bradv 01:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

And I've made a section specifically for legal issues. Feel free to add to it if I've missed something important, but please keep it well-sourced and neutral. Bradv 02:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added one more tidbit about a 2014 campaign attempted by CRRH. The legal issues section is appropriate and really organizes things well. I guess the war is over, sorry for participating in it. I've learned a lot on in my first wikipedia edit. Thank you for your support! 70.98.32.74 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues

The statement of permission in ticket:2015062910000988 allows the use of content on http://www.paul-stanford.com, https://www.linkedin.com/in/dpaulstanford and http://www.dpaulstanford.org under the terms of the CC BY-SA-4.0 license. This license is not compatible with Wikipedia's CC BY-SA-3.0 license. http://paul-stanford.com is additionally licensed under CC BY-SA-3.0 and the GFDL. Any content taken from https://www.linkedin.com/in/dpaulstanford, http://www.dpaulstanford.org, http://paul-stanford.info/, or other sites that has not also been published on http://paul-stanford.com must be removed as a copyright violation. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

AntiCompositeNumber, please excuse my ignorance but I'm not quite understanding why the 4.0 international license doesn't override the 3.0 license. Would appreciate your input and direction. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:59, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, Creative Commons ShareAlike licenses specify that the current license version or any later version comply with the ShareAlike license. Therefore, CC-BY-SA 3.0 content can be used under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 4.0. However, CC-BY-SA 4.0 content can't be used under CC-BY-SA 3.0, since the 3.0 licenses predate the 4.0 licenses. This applies to text on Wikipedia because we use CC-BY-SA 3.0, and adding text from another source to an article counts as remixing and invokes the ShareAlike clause. It isn't a factor for images, since an article with images is considered a compilation with clearly separable parts, which doesn't trigger the ShareAlike clause. This is briefly explained at WP:COMPLIC, and in slightly more detail here and here. --AntiComposite (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot access the linkedin, and the dpaulstanford.org link times out for me. All info taken from the .info site is on the paul-stanford.com site. 1 source is dead because it linked to a newsfeed and not an article, the article its supposed to link to isn't showing up (if someone wants to contest that, go ahead!) The references are sketchy; source #3 is also an error and the site itself seems unreliable (added archive). I deleted most of the Willie Nelson section; close para/phrasing copyvio from Oregon Live. This needs CE, it's a bit POV-ish. Regardless, from what I've seen, all info from paul-stanford.com seems to be intercopied, so I think it's fairly safe to assume that the copyvio is taken care of. Sennecaster (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Chlod linkedin is clear. Sennecaster (What now?) 01:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)