Austin crick

Austin crick, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Austin crick! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• Simple introduction
• Help pages

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello, I'm Longhair. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Diannaa that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Longhair\^talk 10:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I see you're having some problems with your article. To understand why your edits are being reverted, and also redacted from the visible edit history, you might want to read this policy: Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources, which applies not just to finished articles, but also to article drafts. -- The Anome (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A question

A question comes to mind as I watch the development of your draft. If this work is Drewes' magnum opus as you have written, why can I not find a single reference to it anywhere online? What sources are you drawing from for your draft?

As an aside, I would point out that plot summary that you added in this edit is still a very close paraphrase of the SparkNotes page and is still considered a copyright violation. I'll offer you the opportunity to address that rather than having me report a second copyright violation (which could get you blocked. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, you cannot find a single reference to King Lear (1957) because it has NOT been seen in public exhibition for over 60 years. The BBC has video of it from 1976, but that all. It have two private owners, one in New York State, and the other in London. I'm documenting the painting here before it's sold in 2020 by Sotheby's in New York. The Painting is currently in my procession, and I'm describing it directly. When I have finished the article I will put up photos of it, and the specific images I am describing. If it is not bought by a museum, it will go back into a private collection for another 60 years plus. This is why it is important to get this article online, and the museum galleries aware it still exists.

As for the summery of King Lear, the summary has been written millions of time, in 100 languages. Whatever way you write it, someone will have written it the same. Anyway, it's completely OUT of Copyright. No one owns it. Because William Shakespeare's been dead for over 500 years, and he's not suing anyone!

Unfortunately, what you're describing falls under Wikipedia's definition of original research, which is disallowed at Wikipedia. However, you seem to have some amount of expertise in the area, so I would recommend that you try to publish your work in a reputable art journal, where it can be peer-reviewied. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, all of the reference sources for Cubism, Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Impressionism, Colour Field, Fantastic Art, Bauhaus art, and Gestaltism, are from Wikipedia itself, and are Open Source, and do not fall with the classification or definition of "original research". This is generic information describing pictorial representations. Like other who are documenting art work for posterity and public education, I'm using established sources to place the artwork in it's historical context. What is plainly apparent if you have read the article, and click on the links for the reference resources. This article is on NO WAY "disallowed" and fulfils Wikipedia's goal of recording human history, art, science, and culture, and expanding public knowledge and awareness.

Yes, you have made extensive references to other Wikipedia pages (which are generally not considered reliable sources; see WP:CIRCULAR), but it would be consider original research to assign any of these categories to Drewes' King Lear. As a matter of fact, given that there are no sources that I could find (and mind you, I'm not an art expert), it would be original research to claim that this painting exists at all. Basically, unless there has been significant coverage of this piece of art in reliable sources, your draft will not likely become eligible for publication. I would urge you to find such sources before you spend much more time developing the actual draft. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Read the completed article! This is a work in progress!! When I finally submit the completed article for review, then please comment. Thank you.

I will do so. I just hate to see so much work be done only to go unpublished for lack of sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Now have a loon at this - Earwig's Copyvio Detector:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:King_Lear_(1957),_a_painting_by_Werner_Drewes_(Bauhaus_School)&url=&oldid=867798547

Violation Unlikely 31.0% confidence

You keep deleting my summary, and it's just harassment!!

I would argue that a plot summary of King Lear is unnecessary in this article, as there is already a sufficient plot summary in the main article. Your article should limit itself to descriptions of the painting, and the ways in which it interacts with the King Lear plot, without a need to reproduce the entire summary within your article. Or, if you do feel the need to include an extensive summary, copy the one from the King Lear Wikipedia page. As long as you provide proper attribution (you can make an entry in the talk page noting that you have copied the plot summary from another Wikipedia article), you are free to use this text, rather than text you find elsewhere on the internet (no matter how hard you try to mask it as your own words). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously you are too egocentric to understand that I'm not writing this for you!! I'm writing this for the million of people, especially young people interested in the history of are, who DO NOT KNOW the plotline of King Lear, and so WILL NOT KNOW how to UNDERSTAND the painting!!!

Look, just do your won article and stay away from mine!!!

If you want to know just how out of copyright this play is, watch this:

King Lear|Full Movie|1916|:

VIDEO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxnQSmHUb2E

As I said, I'll see any "copyright" challengers for this 500 year old play in court!!!

Please don't copy material you find elsewhere online

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here, not even into sandboxes or drafts; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The plot description we keep removing is extremely close to the one found at https://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/lear/summary/; that's a copyright web page, and it's not okay to copy it here or even to closely paraphrase it. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1 Do you actually know the plot of King Lear? 2. Can you READ??? 3 Are these identical????

Now have a loon at this - Earwig's Copyvio Detector:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:King_Lear_(1957),_a_painting_by_Werner_Drewes_(Bauhaus_School)&url=&oldid=867798547

Violation Unlikely 31.0% confidence

There is NO copyright infringement, because King Lear DOES NOT have any copyright privileges - so STOP interfering with my article!!!!

The Plot is the plot, and whatever way you tell it. it's still the same plot!! OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLAY I'M SUMMARISING!!!

You can only tell a plot through it's narrative structure!!

This is the summary

King Lear plot summary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sparknotes.com - Summary Plot Overview Lear, the aging king of Britain, decides to step down from the throne and divide his kingdom evenly among his three daughters. First, however, he puts his daughters through a test, asking each to tell him how much she loves him. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s older daughters, give their father flattering answers. But Cordelia, Lear’s youngest and favorite daughter, remains silent, saying that she has no words to describe how much she loves her father. Lear flies into a rage and disowns Cordelia. The king of France, who has courted Cordelia, says that he still wants to marry her even without her land, and she accompanies him to France without her father’s blessing. Lear quickly learns that he made a bad decision. Goneril and Regan swiftly begin to undermine the little authority that Lear still holds. Unable to believe that his beloved daughters are betraying him, Lear slowly goes insane. He flees his daughters’ houses to wander on a heath during a great thunderstorm, accompanied by his Fool and by Kent, a loyal nobleman in disguise. Meanwhile, an elderly nobleman named Gloucester also experiences family problems. His illegitimate son, Edmund, tricks him into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and calls himself “Poor Tom.” Like Lear, he heads out onto the heath. When the loyal Gloucester realizes that Lear’s daughters have turned against their father, he decides to help Lear in spite of the danger. Regan and her husband, Cornwall, discover him helping Lear, accuse him of treason, blind him, and turn him out to wander the countryside. He ends up being led by his disguised son, Edgar, toward the city of Dover, where Lear has also been brought. In Dover, a French army lands as part of an invasion led by Cordelia in an effort to save her father. Edmund apparently becomes romantically entangled with both Regan and Goneril, whose husband, Albany, is increasingly sympathetic to Lear’s cause. Goneril and Edmund conspire to kill Albany. The despairing Gloucester tries to commit suicide, but Edgar saves him by pulling the strange trick of leading him off an imaginary cliff. Meanwhile, the English troops reach Dover, and the English, led by Edmund, defeat the Cordelia-led French. Lear and Cordelia are captured. In the climactic scene, Edgar duels with and kills Edmund; we learn of the death of Gloucester; Goneril poisons Regan out of jealousy over Edmund and then kills herself when her treachery is revealed to Albany; Edmund’s betrayal of Cordelia leads to her needless execution in prison; and Lear finally dies out of grief at Cordelia’s passing. Albany, Edgar, and the elderly Kent are left to take care of the country under a cloud of sorrow and regret. My Summary- Plot Overview Summary of King Lear, a play by William Shakespeare (Note: This play has been out of copyright for over 500 years; and this summary is in the author of this article’s own words) The aging king Lear of Britain decides to retire from the throne and divide his kingdom evenly among his only heirs, his three daughters. Vain and prideful, however, first he puts his daughters through a test of their love for him, asking each to tell him how much she loves him – by what measure and in what degree. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s older daughters, give their father vain glorious flattering answers, and receive their share of the kingdom. But Cordelia, Lear’s youngest and favourite daughter, remains silent, and when pressed by the king for an answer, tells him she has no words to describe how much she loves her father – but loves him no more than she should. Lear flies into a rage at this response and disowns his truthful daughter Cordelia, disinheriting her. Lear offers Cordelia to the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France who both have courted Cordelia, without marriage dowry of land penniless. Burgundy says that without her dowry he will not take her. The king of France, with love and chivalric grace, says that even without her dowry he still wants to marry Cordelia even without her land or wealth, and she leaves with him to France, to marry, without her father’s blessing. The vain king Lear soon learns that he made a bad decision. His deceitful daughters Goneril and Regan swiftly conspire to undermine what little authority king Lear still holds in his former kingdom, and to disown the promises they both made to honour and maintain him in his retirement. Unable to believe that his beloved daughters are betraying him, Lear begin to become insane. Fleeing his daughters’ houses their insults and abuse, to wander on a heath during a great thunderstorm, accompanied by his Fool a man wiser than he, and by Kent, a loyal nobleman in disguise. Meanwhile, Edmund, the illegitimate son of an elderly nobleman named Gloucester a still loyal former advisor to king Lear. Tricks his father into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Duped by his half-brother and fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and calls himself “Poor Tom”; and like Lear, he heads out onto the heath. When the loyal Gloucester realises that Lear’s daughters have turned against their father and dishonoured their promises to him. Gloucester decides to help Lear in spite of the danger. Regan and her husband, Cornwall, discover his activities, accuse him of treason, and cruelly torture and abuse Gloucester; to wit Regan having viciously blinded Gloucester by plucking out his eyes with her fingers, they turn him out to wander blind into the countryside. There he meets his son Edgar, who disguised as the crazy beggar “Poor Tom”, leads his unknowing farther toward the city of Dover, where Lear has also been brought. At Dover, they find a French army has landed by sea, as part of an invasion forces led by Cordelia, whom having received news of her father’s dispossession, has returned with the aid of France - in an effort to save her father, and punish her sisters. Deceitful Edmund, disloyal, ambitious, and philandering, has becomes romantically entangled with both Regan, and Goneril – who’s husband, Albany, is increasingly sympathetic to Lear’s cause. Goneril and Edmund conspire to kill Albany, in a pact to marry and take all the kingdom for themselves. Blind and despairing Gloucester tries to commit suicide, but his son Edgar saves him, by leading him off an imaginary cliff; and making him believe he has fallen from a great height, and been saved by the grace of God, to live on in the world. Meanwhile, the English troops reach Dover, and the English, led by Edmund, rout and defeat the French army led by Cordelia. Lear and Cordelia are captured. Then, in the climactic scene of tragedy, Edgar duels with his half-brother Edmund and kills him; news arrives of the death of Gloucester; out of jealousy over Edmund, Goneril poisons Regan, and then kills herself when her treachery is revealed to her husband Albany; Edmund’s betrayal of Cordelia leads to her needless execution in prison by hanging; and Lear finally dies, out of grief, shame, sorrow, and self-blame at Cordelia’s untimely death; with Albany, Edgar, and the elderly Kent, being all who are left to take care of the country, living as they must, under a cloud of sorrows and regret. END.

Mr. Crick:

Copyright violation can happen not only when the text is copied verbatim, but when the copied text is a close paraphrase of the source text. It is clear that you have taken the SparkNotes summary and simply changed some words to make it "in your own words". Again, I suggest two alternatives:

1. skip the plot summary altogether (there is already a sufficient summary at King Lear), and simply write your article to highlight how the painting mirrors the play's plot;
2. copy the plot summary from the King Lear Wikipedia article and give proper attribution, thus avoiding any copyright issues at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

PS: I will repeat an earlier warning: if you continue to introduce this material that has been removed multiple times, you will very likely find yourself blocked. At the very least, wait until this discussion between me, you and @Diannaa: has been resolved before reintroducing the questionable plot summary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I have highlighted in bold the matching content for the first paragraph. I have to go to class now or I would do more. Hopefully this is enough to demonstrate for you the extent of the overlap and the reason why your addition is a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You deleted my previous comment. So I'll comment on you highlights in the summaries:

Are you saying that in Shakespeare's play...

1. Lear if NOT the aging king of Britain.

2. He did not step down from the throne.

3.He did not propose to divide his kingdom among his three daughters.

4. His daughter did not remain silent, then answered him.

5. She did not tell him she had no words to tell him how much she lived him.

6. He does not fly off into a rage.

If all these things are true, them the play that YOU are describing IS NOT KING LEAR!!!

all these things happen with the first 10 minutes of the play!!!

Watch!

King Lear - Laurence Olivier

VIDEO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aprnQoOqWwY

Just work on you own things and stay away from mine!

There are many ways to describe the action of King Lear. You have chosen to echo the description that someone else wrote, and while the description you have chosen is an accurate one, it is not the only way to describe the action. I'm sorry if you don't agree with Wikipedia's rules; they can at times be very difficult to navigate, and many writers choose different platforms to create their work for this very reason. But if you choose to write here, you must obey Wikipedia's rules. Also, please note that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform. You are free to develop your draft (but not to violate copyrights while doing so), but if your article should ever manage to be published (see my earlier concerns about sources and original research), it will be edited by other users, and you will not be able to stop that process. If you wish to write a piece that you have ownership of and that others cannot meddle with, you will need to find another platform to do so. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Harassment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Why are YOU the only person who is 24/7 interfering with my article. No one else. ONLY YOU!!

If a formal complaint is made. As I stated preciously, in a reply to you from me, you deleted. I will deal with it personally in the Law Courts. It's nothing to do with you. It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS or responsibility!

Now again. Please stop interfering with my work, and get on with your own life and activities. Refer whoever to me, and I will refer them to my lawyer.

Thank you.

It is not your article, anyone can edit it and the above is a policy violation that may well get you a block.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I was the only editor to take note because one of the things I do at Wikipedia is review new drafts (a task taken on by only a few editors), which is how I came across your writing. In the case of your draft, I found several problems, which I have explained at length. However, now that you have made legal threats (see notice below), your writing has come to the attention of many more editors. I will only "interfere" with your work insofar as necessary to prevent further copyright violations. Other than that (should you manage not to get blocked) you are free to develop your draft until such time as you feel it is ready to submit. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Issue at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC) You also appear to be in a wp:editwar, you might want to stop.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• Austin crick: First, stop being ridiculous, references to Law Courts and your lawyer are silly. Second, they violate our policy on legal threats, and could lead to your being blocked until they are removed and you promise not to restore them. Third, we are pretty militant about WP:NLT, so some admin may come along and block you even after I've warned you not to do it again. If that happens, remove them and agree not to do it again and you should be unblocked. Fourth, try not to be so bull-in-a-china-shop, OK? You're new here, but Diannaa is about the most helpful and well thought of editor here, so you are not going to get any traction out of yelling at her. And WikiDan is bending over backwards to be helpful as well; everything he has said on this page is good advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, you did not understand the CONTEXT of my response primarily because WikiDan61 deleted the responses I made to his communications to me. The context of the deleted message is this.

His claim, that someone is going to sue me, for writing a summary of the plot of a out of copyright a 500 year old play. A summary which he has repeated deleted from my draft of my article. And an exchange of messages, which he has also deleted corrupting the context statement. After numerous exchanges about him interfering in my development of my article. Which I also told him to comment on and make suggestion AFTER I have completed it, and submitted it.

In exasperation, I told him to STOP interfering with my work, and that in the UNLIKELY scenario that someone should claim copyright on the 500 year old, out of copyright, 'open source' play by William Shakespeare:

"If a formal complaint is made. As I stated preciously, in a reply to you from me, you deleted. I will deal with it personally in the Law Courts. It's nothing to do with you. It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS or responsibility! Now again. Please stop interfering with my work, and get on with your own life and activities. Refer whoever to me, and I will refer them to my lawyer."

I also refered him to the Wikipedia Copyright tool, which states in regard to my Summary of the Plot of King Lear: Violation Unlikely

Now have a loon at this - Earwig's Copyvio Detector:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:King_Lear_(1957),_a_painting_by_Werner_Drewes_(Bauhaus_School)&url=&oldid=867798547

Violation Unlikely

But despite there being NO copyright violation, Wikipedia confirming there is "unlikely" violation. This guy is harassing me all day!!!

There is NO copyright violation, there is ONLY his obsession!!

That's why I sent him this link, to open his eyes to his behaviour.

Harassment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Quote: "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project."

I told him: "Why are YOU the only person who is 24/7 interfering with my article. No one else. ONLY YOU!!"

• I understand now that you're not threatening WikiDan61 or Diannaa, you're saying someone who wants to sue you for copyright can be dealt with in the real world legal system. However, that's not how it works. We don't allow copyright violations with the understanding that people can sue you in real life, we remove them. Per policy. WikiDan61 is not harassing you. He is preventing you from adding a copyright violation due to close paraphrasing. Not of Shakespeare, but of Sparknotes, which is not 500 years old. Earwig doesn't catch close paraphrasing, but humans can. You really should listen to Diannaa and WikiDan61, they are giving you good advice. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

My Modified - Plot Overview

King Lear plot summary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Summary of King Lear, a play by William Shakespeare (Note: This play has been out of copyright for over 500 years; and this summary is in the author of this article’s own words) King Lear the aging King of Britain decides to retire from the throne and his kingly duties. So, he decides to and divide his kingdom evenly among his only heirs, his three daughters. Vain and prideful, however, firstly he puts his apparently adoring daughters through a test of their love for him, asking each to tell him how much she loves him – by what measure and in what degree. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s older daughters, give their father vain glorious flattering answers, and receive their share of the kingdom. But when asked, Cordelia, Lear’s youngest and most favourite daughter, saying nothing remains silent, and when pressed by the king for an answer, she tells her father she has no words, that could describe how much she loves him – but loves him no more than she should. Lear the vain, proud king, immediately flies into a bellicose rage at this response, and in fury disowns his only truthful daughter Cordelia, disinheriting her. Lear offers Cordelia to the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France who both have courted Cordelia, without marriage dowry of land penniless. Burgundy says that without her dowry he will not take her. The king of France, with love and chivalric grace, says that even without her dowry he still wants to marry Cordelia even without her land or wealth, and she leaves with him to France, to marry, without her father’s blessing. The vain king Lear soon learns that he made a bad decision. His deceitful daughters Goneril and Regan swiftly conspire to undermine what little authority king Lear still holds in his former kingdom, and to disown the promises they both made to honour and maintain him in his retirement. Unable to believe that his beloved daughters are betraying him, Lear begin to become insane. Fleeing his daughters’ houses their insults and abuse, to wander on a heath during a great thunderstorm, accompanied by his Fool a man wiser than he, and by Kent, a loyal nobleman in disguise. Meanwhile, Edmund, the illegitimate son of an elderly nobleman named Gloucester a still loyal former advisor to king Lear. Tricks his father into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Duped by his half-brother and fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and calls himself “Poor Tom”; and like Lear, he heads out onto the heath. When the loyal Gloucester realises that Lear’s daughters have turned against their father and dishonoured their promises to him. Gloucester decides to help Lear in spite of the danger. Regan and her husband, Cornwall, discover his activities, accuse him of treason, and cruelly torture and abuse Gloucester; to wit Regan having viciously blinded Gloucester by plucking out his eyes with her fingers, they turn him out to wander blind into the countryside. There he meets his son Edgar, who disguised as the crazy beggar “Poor Tom”, leads his unknowing farther toward the city of Dover, where Lear has also been brought. At Dover, they find a French army has landed by sea, as part of an invasion forces led by Cordelia, whom having received news of her father’s dispossession, has returned with the aid of France - in an effort to save her father, and punish her sisters. Deceitful Edmund, disloyal, ambitious, and philandering, has becomes romantically entangled with both Regan, and Goneril – who’s husband, Albany, is increasingly sympathetic to Lear’s cause. Goneril and Edmund conspire to kill Albany, in a pact to marry and take all the kingdom for themselves. Blind and despairing Gloucester tries to commit suicide, but his son Edgar saves him, by leading him off an imaginary cliff; and making him believe he has fallen from a great height, and been saved by the grace of God, to live on in the world. Meanwhile, the English troops reach Dover, and the English, led by Edmund, rout and defeat the French army led by Cordelia. Lear and Cordelia are captured. Then, in the climactic scene of tragedy, Edgar duels with his half-brother Edmund and kills him; news arrives of the death of Gloucester; out of jealousy over Edmund, Goneril poisons Regan, and then kills herself when her treachery is revealed to her husband Albany; Edmund’s betrayal of Cordelia leads to her needless execution in prison by hanging; and Lear finally dies, out of grief, shame, sorrow, and self-blame at Cordelia’s untimely death; with Albany, Edgar, and the elderly Kent, being all who are left to take care of the country, living as they must, under a cloud of sorrows and regret. END.

November 2018

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. with reference to your edit here DBigXrayᗙ 17:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, you did not understand the CONTEXT of my response primarily because WikiDan61 deleted the responses I made to his communications to me. The context of the deleted message is this.

His claim, that someone is going to sue me, for writing a summary of the plot of a out of copyright a 500 year old play. A summary which he has repeated deleted from my draft of my article. And an exchange of messages, which he has also deleted corrupting the context statement. After numerous exchanges about him interfering in my development of my article. Which I also told him to comment on and make suggestion AFTER I have completed it, and submitted it.

In exasperation, I told him to STOP interfering with my work, and that in the UNLIKELY scenario that someone should claim copyright on the 500 year old, out of copyright, 'open source' play by William Shakespeare:

"If a formal complaint is made. As I stated preciously, in a reply to you from me, you deleted. I will deal with it personally in the Law Courts. It's nothing to do with you. It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS or responsibility! Now again. Please stop interfering with my work, and get on with your own life and activities. Refer whoever to me, and I will refer them to my lawyer."

I also refered him to the Wikipedia Copyright tool, which states in regard to my Summary of the Plot of King Lear: Violation Unlikely

Now have a loon at this - Earwig's Copyvio Detector:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Draft:King_Lear_(1957),_a_painting_by_Werner_Drewes_(Bauhaus_School)&url=&oldid=867798547

Violation Unlikely

But despite there being NO copyright violation, Wikipedia confirming there is "unlikely" violation. This guy is harassing me all day!!!

There is NO copyright violation, there is ONLY his obsession!!

That's why I sent him this link, to open his eyes to his behaviour.

Harassment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Quote: "Harassment, including threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project."

I told him: "Why are YOU the only person who is 24/7 interfering with my article. No one else. ONLY YOU!!"

edit war

Please read wp:editwar and wp:3rr, at this rate you will end up with a block.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You are not listening. I have blocked this account for 24 hours, to give you time to actually read WP:Close paraphrasing. If this continues when the block expires, I will re-block indefinitely. Two people are spending a lot of time, bending over backwards to explain the problem to you. All you are doing is adding the problematic content back in. If you are unwilling to listen, you are not welcome here. if you are willing, I think you will find Diannaa and WikiDan61 very helpful collaborators. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

My Modified - Plot Overview

Summary of King Lear, a play by William Shakespeare (Note: This play has been out of copyright for over 500 years; and this summary is in the author of this article’s own words) King Lear the aging King of Britain decides to retire from the throne and his kingly duties. So, he decides to and divide his kingdom evenly among his only heirs, his three daughters. Vain and prideful, however, firstly he puts his apparently adoring daughters through a test of their love for him, asking each to tell him how much she loves him – by what measure and in what degree. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s older daughters, give their father vain glorious flattering answers, and receive their share of the kingdom. But when asked, Cordelia, Lear’s youngest and most favourite daughter, saying nothing remains silent, and when pressed by the king for an answer, she tells her father she has no words, that could describe how much she loves him – but loves him no more than she should. Lear the vain, proud king, immediately flies into a bellicose rage at this response, and in fury disowns his only truthful daughter Cordelia, disinheriting her. Lear offers Cordelia to the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France who both have courted Cordelia, without marriage dowry of land penniless. Burgundy says that without her dowry he will not take her. The king of France, with love and chivalric grace, says that even without her dowry he still wants to marry Cordelia even without her land or wealth, and she leaves with him to France, to marry, without her father’s blessing. The vain king Lear soon learns that he made a bad decision. His deceitful daughters Goneril and Regan swiftly conspire to undermine what little authority king Lear still holds in his former kingdom, and to disown the promises they both made to honour and maintain him in his retirement. Unable to believe that his beloved daughters are betraying him, Lear begin to become insane. Fleeing his daughters’ houses their insults and abuse, to wander on a heath during a great thunderstorm, accompanied by his Fool a man wiser than he, and by Kent, a loyal nobleman in disguise. Meanwhile, Edmund, the illegitimate son of an elderly nobleman named Gloucester a still loyal former advisor to king Lear. Tricks his father into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Duped by his half-brother and fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and calls himself “Poor Tom”; and like Lear, he heads out onto the heath. When the loyal Gloucester realises that Lear’s daughters have turned against their father and dishonoured their promises to him. Gloucester decides to help Lear in spite of the danger. Regan and her husband, Cornwall, discover his activities, accuse him of treason, and cruelly torture and abuse Gloucester; to wit Regan having viciously blinded Gloucester by plucking out his eyes with her fingers, they turn him out to wander blind into the countryside. There he meets his son Edgar, who disguised as the crazy beggar “Poor Tom”, leads his unknowing farther toward the city of Dover, where Lear has also been brought. At Dover, they find a French army has landed by sea, as part of an invasion forces led by Cordelia, whom having received news of her father’s dispossession, has returned with the aid of France - in an effort to save her father, and punish her sisters. Deceitful Edmund, disloyal, ambitious, and philandering, has becomes romantically entangled with both Regan, and Goneril – who’s husband, Albany, is increasingly sympathetic to Lear’s cause. Goneril and Edmund conspire to kill Albany, in a pact to marry and take all the kingdom for themselves. Blind and despairing Gloucester tries to commit suicide, but his son Edgar saves him, by leading him off an imaginary cliff; and making him believe he has fallen from a great height, and been saved by the grace of God, to live on in the world. Meanwhile, the English troops reach Dover, and the English, led by Edmund, rout and defeat the French army led by Cordelia. Lear and Cordelia are captured. Then, in the climactic scene of tragedy, Edgar duels with his half-brother Edmund and kills him; news arrives of the death of Gloucester; out of jealousy over Edmund, Goneril poisons Regan, and then kills herself when her treachery is revealed to her husband Albany; Edmund’s betrayal of Cordelia leads to her needless execution in prison by hanging; and Lear finally dies, out of grief, shame, sorrow, and self-blame at Cordelia’s untimely death; with Albany, Edgar, and the elderly Kent, being all who are left to take care of the country, living as they must, under a cloud of sorrows and regret. END.

It is not helpful to keep posting the same plot summary over and over, as if it addresses other people's comments. You are close paraphrasing. You have to stop. If you don't, you are not welcome here. If you do, there are people who will be happy to help you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

You need to drop the stick. At at least try and make the case as to why this does not violate policy, just posting the text is not good enough, you need to make a case. Explain why this is not a copy right violation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To be precise, Austin crick please explain why your last version as posted above is not WP:Close paraphrasing. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Explain why this is not a copy right violation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Because it is NOT a copy, it's is a summary of a 500 year old story, which has be told an summarised in multiple languages a million times! It is not copyrighted, and CANNOT be copyrighted. Any and all claims to ownership of the narrative will be dismissed by all legal authorities. No one owns it. It is 'open source', and part of the creative commons. Any person or organisation can use, perform, or reproduce the play, the narrative, and the text as the please.

2. To be precise, Austin crick please explain why your last version as posted above is not WP:Close paraphrasing. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The modifications that were made are to the parts of the sentences that were put in bold. I have now changed those parts, so those parts are now DIFFERENT. Despite the fact the NO copyright violation occurred.

The claim is not that you are violating the copyright of the work, but of someone elses material about the work. Would you care to address that?Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This is the "but of someone else material about the work" is William Shakespeare. What they are claiming is my 'the plot' summary, in my summary of King Lear, is too similar to 'the plot' summary of King Lear from Sparknotes.com.

What I've told them, is that if the events taking place in King Lear were not the same, when it would not be King Lear - it would be a completely different story! because the plot is the plot: the events that happen and the order in which they happen, constituted the 'plot line'. Which cannot be changes whoever the story is told. otherwise it would be a completely different play!

This BASIC FACT is what they cannot understand! Or more precisely do not WANT to understand!

My - Plot Overview

King Lear plot summary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
= Summary of King Lear, a play by William Shakespeare (Note: This play has been out of copyright for over 500 years; and this summary is in the author of this article’s own words) King Lear the aging King of Britain decides to retire from the throne and his kingly duties. So, he decides to and divide his kingdom evenly among his only heirs, his three daughters. Vain and prideful, however, firstly he puts his apparently adoring daughters through a test of their love for him, asking each to tell him how much she loves him – by what measure and in what degree. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s older daughters, give their father vain glorious flattering answers, and receive their share of the kingdom. But when asked, Cordelia, Lear’s youngest and most favourite daughter, saying nothing remains silent, and when pressed by the king for an answer, she tells her father she has no words, that could describe how much she loves him – but loves him no more than she should. Lear the vain, proud king, immediately flies into a bellicose rage at this response, and in fury disowns his only truthful daughter Cordelia, disinheriting her. Lear offers Cordelia to the Duke of Burgundy and the King of France who both have courted Cordelia, without marriage dowry of land penniless. Burgundy says that without her dowry he will not take her. The king of France, with love and chivalric grace, says that even without her dowry he still wants to marry Cordelia even without her land or wealth, and she leaves with him to France, to marry, without her father’s blessing. The vain king Lear soon learns that he made a bad decision. His deceitful daughters Goneril and Regan swiftly conspire to undermine what little authority king Lear still holds in his former kingdom, and to disown the promises they both made to honour and maintain him in his retirement. Unable to believe that his beloved daughters are betraying him, Lear begin to become insane. Fleeing his daughters’ houses their insults and abuse, to wander on a heath during a great thunderstorm, accompanied by his Fool a man wiser than he, and by Kent, a loyal nobleman in disguise. Meanwhile, Edmund, the illegitimate son of an elderly nobleman named Gloucester a still loyal former advisor to king Lear. Tricks his father into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Duped by his half-brother and fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and calls himself “Poor Tom”; and like Lear, he heads out onto the heath. When the loyal Gloucester realises that Lear’s daughters have turned against their father and dishonoured their promises to him. Gloucester decides to help Lear in spite of the danger. Regan and her husband, Cornwall, discover his activities, accuse him of treason, and cruelly torture and abuse Gloucester; to wit Regan having viciously blinded Gloucester by plucking out his eyes with her fingers, they turn him out to wander blind into the countryside. There he meets his son Edgar, who disguised as the crazy beggar “Poor Tom”, leads his unknowing farther toward the city of Dover, where Lear has also been brought. At Dover, they find a French army has landed by sea, as part of an invasion forces led by Cordelia, whom having received news of her father’s dispossession, has returned with the aid of France - in an effort to save her father, and punish her sisters. Deceitful Edmund, disloyal, ambitious, and philandering, has becomes romantically entangled with both Regan, and Goneril – who’s husband, Albany, is increasingly sympathetic to Lear’s cause. Goneril and Edmund conspire to kill Albany, in a pact to marry and take all the kingdom for themselves. Blind and despairing Gloucester tries to commit suicide, but his son Edgar saves him, by leading him off an imaginary cliff; and making him believe he has fallen from a great height, and been saved by the grace of God, to live on in the world. Meanwhile, the English troops reach Dover, and the English, led by Edmund, rout and defeat the French army led by Cordelia. Lear and Cordelia are captured. Then, in the climactic scene of tragedy, Edgar duels with his half-brother Edmund and kills him; news arrives of the death of Gloucester; out of jealousy over Edmund, Goneril poisons Regan, and then kills herself when her treachery is revealed to her husband Albany; Edmund’s betrayal of Cordelia leads to her needless execution in prison by hanging; and Lear finally dies, out of grief, shame, sorrow, and self-blame at Cordelia’s untimely death; with Albany, Edgar, and the elderly Kent, being all who are left to take care of the country, living as they must, under a cloud of sorrows and regret. Sparknotes.com - Summary Plot Overview Lear, the aging king of Britain, decides to step down from the throne and divide his kingdom evenly among his three daughters. First, however, he puts his daughters through a test, asking each to tell him how much she loves him. Goneril and Regan, Lear’s older daughters, give their father flattering answers. But Cordelia, Lear’s youngest and favorite daughter, remains silent, saying that she has no words to describe how much she loves her father. Lear flies into a rage and disowns Cordelia. The king of France, who has courted Cordelia, says that he still wants to marry her even without her land, and she accompanies him to France without her father’s blessing. Lear quickly learns that he made a bad decision. Goneril and Regan swiftly begin to undermine the little authority that Lear still holds. Unable to believe that his beloved daughters are betraying him, Lear slowly goes insane. He flees his daughters’ houses to wander on a heath during a great thunderstorm, accompanied by his Fool and by Kent, a loyal nobleman in disguise. Meanwhile, an elderly nobleman named Gloucester also experiences family problems. His illegitimate son, Edmund, tricks him into believing that his legitimate son, Edgar, is trying to kill him. Fleeing the manhunt that his father has set for him, Edgar disguises himself as a crazy beggar and calls himself “Poor Tom.” Like Lear, he heads out onto the heath. When the loyal Gloucester realizes that Lear’s daughters have turned against their father, he decides to help Lear in spite of the danger. Regan and her husband, Cornwall, discover him helping Lear, accuse him of treason, blind him, and turn him out to wander the countryside. He ends up being led by his disguised son, Edgar, toward the city of Dover, where Lear has also been brought. In Dover, a French army lands as part of an invasion led by Cordelia in an effort to save her father. Edmund apparently becomes romantically entangled with both Regan and Goneril, whose husband, Albany, is increasingly sympathetic to Lear’s cause. Goneril and Edmund conspire to kill Albany. The despairing Gloucester tries to commit suicide, but Edgar saves him by pulling the strange trick of leading him off an imaginary cliff. Meanwhile, the English troops reach Dover, and the English, led by Edmund, defeat the Cordelia-led French. Lear and Cordelia are captured. In the climactic scene, Edgar duels with and kills Edmund; we learn of the death of Gloucester; Goneril poisons Regan out of jealousy over Edmund and then kills herself when her treachery is revealed to Albany; Edmund’s betrayal of Cordelia leads to her needless execution in prison; and Lear finally dies out of grief at Cordelia’s passing. Albany, Edgar, and the elderly Kent are left to take care of the country under a cloud of sorrow and regret. END.

Errr they are very similar, you just adding a few words. Yes I can see the issue. I think it is a bit harsh on you, but I can see how this is indeed a tad to close to Sparknotes.com. It does read like you did a cut and paste and just expanded.Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• If I might add a comment about something that you have been repeating here, when you say "it's is a summary of a 500 year old story, which has be told an summarised in multiple languages a million times! It is not copyrighted, and CANNOT be copyrighted."

Yes, the play is out of copyright. But that does not mean that modern commentary on the play can not be copyright. Even if the essential story is the same between different summaries, if someone writes a summary in their own words then that most definitely can be (and, unless it has been suitably released is) copyright. The copyright is in the specific words, not in the plot itself. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• If I may illustrate (yes plagiarism in tended). I might add a comment about something that Austin crick have been repeating here, when he says "it's is a summary of a 500 year old story that is no longer in copyright, which has be told and summarized in multiple languages a million times"! It is not copyrighted, and cannot be copyrighted." He is technically correct...but.Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you indefinitely for ongoing copyright violations. You uploaded File:‘King Lear’ (1957) by Werner Drewes.jpg to Commons, claiming it as your own work. You may have taken the photo, but the copyright belongs to the estate of Werner Drewes, not to you. You can be unblocked only if you convince an administrator that you understand the importance of complying with our copyright policies and promise to avoid any more violations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This is NO copyright violation, since I myself OWN the copyright!!! Why didn't you contact me BEFORE you blocked my account?????

Who are you???

I am Jim Heaphy of American Canyon, California and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If you personally own the copyright to the painting, then you will have to prove that to the Wikimedia Foundation. Please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You do understand that if you copy a copyrighted work that does not man you own the copyright to the copy, what you have done if violated copyright by making an unlicensed copy? Please read this [[1]].Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You are wasting your time

If this painting has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it is not notable as Wikipedia defines that term, and therefore it is not possible to write an acceptable Wikipedia article about the painting. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If you had bothered to check you would have found the painting in Sotheby's Register, and the painting had sufficient notoriety to be included a televised BBC broadcasted Open University course programme. But you did not care to ask a single question. You only acted out of plain arrogance!

You obviously do not understand notability as Wikipedia defines the term. Neither a listing at an auction house (not an independent source) nor brief mention in a broadcast are sufficient to write a Wikipedia article. It is incumbent on you (not me) to demonstrate that the painting is notable. And it is you (not me) who is being arrogant and disruptive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please tell me how I'm being arrogant??? I speak a week writing this article with parts being arbitrarily deleted, without ANY prior consultation. I go to work on the article and it's gone. Or it's been reverted to an earlier version.

Either you want people to contribute to an 'open source' encyclopaedia or you do not. My experience is that every effort is made to make you not contribute!

The problem with organisation like Wikipedia is that they are all initially founded on 'inclusion'. But somewhere down the line, they tern into 'excusive' cliques. That's the problem! That's where your statement, "And it is you (not me) who is being arrogant and disruptive." comes from.

I'm not being disruptive. I'm only writing an article, to record an important piece of art history that soon will be lost! That all I'm doing. Which is supposed to be the purpose of Wikipedia - but is now obviously NOT!

You can delete my photos. I'm now past caring. I'll submit the written without them, solely for the historical record.

S be joyous!!! I will not be writing ANY articles for Wikipedia again!!!

I am not joyous. I am simply enforcing our policies and guidelines. If you want to submit your draft article for review, then you will have to follow the unblock instructions in the section above, and get unblocked first. And if you want the draft article to be accepted, then you will need to read and study Your first article and make dramatic changes to improve the draft. There is zero chance that it will be accepted in its current state, because it is nothing but original research, which is simply not allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Austin crick (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here I've been working on this article for a full week, and when finally completing the written text, and working out how to add photo images, I uploaded a photo taken by me and who's copyright is mine. Within a few minutes my account was Blocked. I have decided to the detriment of the article, and the readers of the article not to include any photos - despite owning them. Because it's just too much hassle. So I will complete only a text based article. I note that this is a great and detrimental loss to posterity and art history. Austin crick (talk) 02:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is valid. As stated above, it is not enough to merely claim that the copyright is yours, you must demonstrate that to Wikipedia through the procedure at WP:DCP. Whether you want to upload images or not is up to you, but you can't be unblocked until you demonstrate that you understand policy in this area. As Cullen also states, your draft is composed entirely of original research and as such will not be accepted. I must decline your request at this time. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Austin crick (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your There are two issues here 331dot and Cullen that you are blatantly ignoring.

1) That I have the right to 'Fair Use' of copyright material for non-commercial use: example, use of an image of a promotional poster for Metropolis (1927 film), that demonstrates the influence from Bauhaus, Cubist and Futurist design, together with elements of the Gothic. Or use my own photos of the painting, which is freely provided for the put pose of education, which is also 'Fair Use' - so people can see what the painting look like. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

2) This is NOT "original research". I don't know what university you went to but this article in no way meets the 'methodological' and 'original source' standards required in academia to be classified as "original Research". Not in any university in Britain! All of the sources are generic and sourced from established credible and publicly available sources, and 'open source', nothing in it qualifies as "original research". If I was to present this article at an academic conference as "original research" I would be laughed out of ever university in Britain - in ridicule!!! All I have done is collected together theoretical, methodological, and ideological perspectives, and historical fact from established multiple sources, and organised than in a 'narrative structure' that places the painting in it historical context. This is NOT "original research" this termed plainly and simply "research".

Examples of fair use in copyright law include: "commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor test."

This is the 'four-factor test':

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

My article is in compliance with ALL of these requirements for 'Fair Use' and does NOT violate ANY of them.

The problem is, that you people have 'controlling personalities' so INSTEAD of trying to help people contribute to Wikipedia, all you want to do is control them and prevent them from contributing!

You people have made this whole experience unpleasant and horrible. I enjoy research, but this has been a battle with your egos! all of you, should have the decency to be better than this!

Unblock my account. I will complete my article, submit it, them you will never hear from me! Then you can all be happy in your little 'fiefdoms', masters of you tiny universes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin crick (talk • contribs)

Decline reason:

Submissions for Wikipedia must follow Wikipedia's policy on copyright (which is stronger than the legal minimum in most jurisdictions), not on your claims of copyright or what you assert you are personally entitled to do under "fair use", on Wikipedia's policy on original research, not on your assessment of what constitutes original research in a university context, and on Wikipedia's policy on notability. If you can not or will not listen to what you are being told (by very experienced people) about what Wikipedia's policies require and commit to following those policies, then you will not be unblocked. And you will absolutely not get yourself unblocked by attacking and insulting people. It is as simple as that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Boing! said Zebedee, I can see the problem now.

1. You are referring to an earlier incomplete version of my draft and NOT the FINAL VERSON, which has been deleted. My final version contains ALL of the references. The version now showing in my Sandbox as a draft does not. That is NOT the final version I completed. That version was deleted by Cullen328 00:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC), and all the referencing gutted. Claiming with out contacting me first to verify my ownership and copyright "You may have taken the photo, but the copyright belongs to the estate of Werner Drewes, not to you.". I own the copy right. He then deleted my completed article without, even asking temporarily to delete the photo. This is why you have come to this conclusion which is wrong - regarding "Original Research" - you do not have the completed document with it's references.

2. Notability. Dr Werner Drewes, form Professor of Design and Director of First Year Program, School of Fine Arts, Washington University, St. Louis from 1946-1965; and considered one of the founding fathers of American abstraction (Abstract Art) together with his peers Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, and Willem de Kooning, is considered sufficiently notable to merit his own Wikipedia listing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Drewes

3. Painting King Lear (1957), which is his greatest work, but little known, verified as "authentic" by Dr Clare Finn of ‘Clare Finn & Company Ltd, Painting Conservators’, Accredited Member of Icon, the Institute of Conservation, Associate of the International Institute for Conservation, is also sufficiently 'meritorious' to be listed on Wikipedia so the general public can see, understand, and be educated by it. http://www.conservationregister.com/PersonDetail.asp?st=S&StaffID=102

Now, if you will provide me with a means of doing so. I will provide you with the final draft.

This is a pint all editors should take on board and understand. When some one is developing an article, the do not need 'a back seat driver'. Comments and suggestion must be made at the point of submission, not while the article is incomplete, and NOT fully referenced. Also, question must be asked BEFORE taking drastic actions.

If my article had not been hacked-up, and deleted, by 6 different editors we would NOT been in this conflict at all! All that was required to be done, was let me complete that article without constant interruption, submit it for review, and have comments and suggestion made at that stage. I do not see how such and approach is unreasonable or undoable!

Austin crick (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but no, your seeing of my understanding is inaccurate. As an admin, I can view all previously deleted versions of the article, and I have examined them - every last version that existed immediately prior to the excision of content by someone else. And exactly the same problems exist in all of them. Can I make a suggestion? If you believe this painting is sufficiently notable (according to WP:N) for a Wikipedia article and that notability is supported by multiple independent reliable sources (according to WP:RS), list the sources here so we can assess them? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'll add that Werner Drewes being notable is not sufficient for any specific painting of his being notable, and the mere fact that someone authenticated one of his paintings is also not sufficient for that painting to be notable. I don't know if you have actually read Wikipedia's notability policy at WP:N, but according to the introductory "General notability guideline" paragraph, the painting must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Can you show us this significant coverage of the painting in reliable sources? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee,

I've just send an e-mail to Werner Drewes daughter, Karen E. Drewes Seibert, in the USA to confirm the identity of the painting 'King Lear' 1957. She carucates his collections for the Smithsonian Museum, and has his back catalogue list. I've sent her a photo. http://drewesfineart.com/about

Will verification by Werner Drewes own daughter be sufficient proof?

This has been so arduous and stressful, and I haven't even prepared the things that I have to do tomorrow. So I'll contact you when she has got back to me with the confirmation.

Austin crick (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Proof of what, exactly? Proof of notability? No. I suspect you still have not actually read WP:N or WP:RS. I should point you to WP:V too, as every piece of information contained in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable by the reader. For example, you say the painting is his magnum opus, his greatest work, truly an artistic masterpiece. Who says? How can the reader verify that? Can you provide a link to a reliable source that verifies those claims? The whole draft (in every version) is full of such claims, all unsupported by citations. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee,

Proof in regard to Notability, this should cover your requirements.

“Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below.”

1. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

I’ll enquire about information on exhibitions, articles and research done.

2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

Use of the painting for educational purposes. The Open University (OU) in the UK used the paintingas part of a Masters Degree art course. The programme was broadcast on BBC television in the 1970s.

3. "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.

Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. The Smithsonian Museum is a reliable source with ‘editorial integrity’. https://www.aaa.si.edu/search/collections?edan_fq[]=p.edanmdm.freetext.name.content:%22Drewes%2C+Werner%22

4. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

The Howard Devree New York Time art editor, wrote extensively about Drewes work until 1966. https://prabook.com/web/howard.devree/1085495

5. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

I’ll ask for a list of archives of his work.

6. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

I’ll ask for independent commentaries.

7. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

8. If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

Also,

“For example, you say the painting is his magnum opus, his greatest work, truly an artistic masterpiece. Who says? How can the reader verify that? Can you provide a link to a reliable source that verifies those claims? The whole draft (in every version) is full of such claims, all unsupported by citations.”

You are the first editor to say this to me, out of 6 editors. If they has said so, I would have know what they meant.

This is my view, in the context of seeing and understand and understanding his other works. The reasoning for which is in the body of the article. But I will ask for references to such statements.

Austin crick (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Re "This is my view, in the context of seeing and understand and understanding his other works" - perhaps you are now starting to understand? Including your own views, personal deductions, conclusions, etc, is prohibited from Wikipedia articles - as you would have understood had you actually read WP:OR all that time ago when you were first told of it instead of just blindly arguing against it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Those things will be taken out. Austin crick (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)}}

You shouldn't put every response in a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If you keep this up you will also lose talk page access, I really do suggest you drop it now.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven,

If you read the exchanges between Boing! said Zebedee and myself. You will see that we are having a CONVERSATION, that HE is the ONLY of you editors who has given me any HELP and useful advice!

You will also see that he has told me a set of criteria to be met, which I am currently in the PROCESS of getting it for him, so my article meets the criteria to be listed.

When I get the INFORMATION, he requires, I WILL give it to him.

Thank you!

I have removed the unblock request formatting from your messages above, since you are not using them to request that we unblock your account. If you wish to gain the attention of another editor, please use the ping system. If you persist in misusing the {{unblock}} template in this way, Slatersteven is correct, you will lose your ability to edit this talkpage. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Your falsehood

You claimed above that I deleted your draft. This is false. I have not made a single change to your draft and all of my interactions with you have been limited to your talk page. Any competent editor can check the edit history of your draft to verify that I have not edited your draft at all. Please withdraw your false accusation. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair use

Mr. Crick,

You may upload a low resolution (generally 300 pixels or less) of your image of the painting of King Lear to Wikipedia, where fair use rules are allowed. Fair use in this case would include use of the image in your article about the painting, to illustrate your analysis of the painting. Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use files to be uploaded. (See Commons:Fair use). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Noting though that drafts are not allowed to use fair use images; only articles can use them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: Point well made. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter,

Thank you for you response regarding Fair Use. This means that I cannot used photos show the specific philosophical ideas and presentation techniques contained within the painting, until the article is published. As this is my first article, and I've only had one attempt at organising photos within and article and my account blocked. Is there any way I can practise or 'dummy run' the photographic organisation and categorization of the different elements (Cubism, Futurism, Dadaism, Surrealism, Abstract Expressionism, Colour Field, Fantastic Art, Bauhaus art, and Gestaltism) before the article is publish.

Also, I expect it will take about another 2 weeks for me to obtain the information Boing! said Zebedee requested for my article meets the criteria to be listed.

Thank you for your help.

Mr. Crick, if you can get yourself unblocked,* then you'll be able to complete your draft. However, you will not be able to use any images under fair use criteria in your draft; you can only use fair use images in the actual published article (see WP:FUR for a full explanation). This means that you'll have to get the article accepted for publication first, and then you can add images as you see fit. In order to get the article accepted for publication, you'll need to provide sources that verify that the painting is notable, and that back up your analysis of the image (e.g. articles published in reliable sources that can verify that this work is indeed Drewes' magnum opus and that all of the analysis you have provided of the image is not your own, but rather has come from said reliable sources). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

* In order to get yourself unblocked, you'll need to demonstrate that

1. you understand the nature of your prior copyright violations (including the prohibition against using close paraphrases of other websites); and

2. you understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative website, and that belligerence toward other editors is not helpful to that collaborative process.

Boing! said Zebedee,

I've just spoken on the phone from the UK to the USA, to Karen E. Drewes Seibert, Werner Drewes daughter, to get the information you request. She had not seen the e-mail I send her last Sunday 10th November 2018, has now seen it. She is doing some checking and will get back to me.

@Boing! said Zebedee: Courtesy ping. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Crick: to properly get the attention of another user while writing on your talk page, you need to use the ping system. To do so, place the user's name in the ping template: {{ping|Boing! said Zebedee}} This will alert that user that you have made a comment on your talk page of which they should be aware. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiDan61, Thank you.

Your draft article, Draft:King Lear (1957), a painting by Werner Drewes (Bauhaus School)

Hello, Austin crick. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "King Lear".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)