Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

User talk:Torwächter

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi I just recently discovered your wiki. I've been doing a Warhammer 40k wiki myself at Wikicities ([1]) perhaps we should join our two projects? My username is 'dalen' on the wikicities wiki, you can reply there. --82.182.184.34 17:08, 30 Jul 2005 (CEST)

SysOp nomination

Thanks for the nomination. I'll try to add more content the coming days although I probably won't be able too keep the same tempo. The portal is very good, are we planning on using it as a new front page? --Dalen 19:10, 1 Aug 2005 (CEST)


Damnatus

Maybe you Germans don't understand. Its not a page about Damnatus that is a problem. Its a page that has links to protest of an illegal product that is the problem. I only cut out the links to the protest and trimmed down the information. The Lexicanum, by linking together protests over an illegal product is violating the Copyright law in the US and UK in the same way that the original film does. It counts as promoting the breaking of the law, which is banned. Games Workshop could shut the whole English Wiki down if it is there. Thats what Inquisitor does not seem to understand.

As I said, if you want to do a similar thing to the fan portal detailing what various parts of the film were about, and that it was made illegal, thats legally acceptable, because you are discussing it like a news article. However, once you put up protests and other information like that, you are promoting the product and no longer have First Amendment protection, which jeopardizes our ability to use the Games Workshop IP. id Remember, Games Workshop IP only allows you to use their IP property for educational purposes as long as there isn't one violation of Copyright law. Damnatus constitutes as that violation and would constitute as the revoking of privledge for using their ideas and products. I worked for Games Workshop's American HQ in the Finance department, so I can't tell you about prosecutions of this first hand, however, I knew enough people that worked with it.

Did I delete the page? No, I merged the Damnatus and Damnatus-ban to make it an informational page. Instead of a collection of links to articles, most written in foreign languages, it should have a small paragraph over the legal troubles, etc. It should also have a small plot summary or description similar to Fan Portal: Immortal Enemies‎. Right now, it doesn't even look close to Encyclopedic.

However, as a former employee of Games Workshop who only left to pursue his doctoral studies and didn't have time to work for them anymore, but still plays the game, I feel deeply offended and betrayed by the fact that the information for protests would be put back in. I am not the only one who feels this way. I have over 80 books from the 18 years I've played Warhammer 40,000. I have a lot of resources and have spent a lot of time adding information that people only dreamed that they could have had access. If you look at my contributions, I have added a lot. But I cannot morally contribute to a group that promotes an illegal good and thus breaks the Games Workshop copyright and IP policy. SanchiTachi 16:32, 4 August 2007 (CEST)


I think you misunderstand quite a bunch - The protests are not promoting breaking of any laws, they are urging GW to reconsider their decision and open up towards a more liberal approach. Take for example civil rights movements protesting against something the government has forbidden - are these protests against the law because they want a law to be changed? No, they're not. It's freedom of speech.

As told, the articles about the ban are not promoting any protests - it's a summary of all reactions, including protests and promotion of protests. If the BBC website reports about legalization of drugs and links to a campaign website where such protests are promoted, does the BBC participate in this by reporting or would they promote drugs through it? No. The article is full of links and therefor the LEXICANUM does not take any responsibility towards any of the material found on those linked pages. There is not one sentence in the article which tells the reader to participate in the protest or which puts Games Workshop in a bad light.

So I really do not understand where your problem is. You feel offended by the material found on the linked pages, but it's not the LEXICANUM's business if user XYZ on board ABC is telling GW a group of idiots. Do I complain if user XYZ2 on board ABC2 tells his folks that DAMNATUS was a bullshit movie and that he thinks GW did the right thing to stop it? No. It's their freedom of speech.

If you had a close look on the page then you could see that the wiki article remains quite neutral on this matter and is not violating Games Workshop's IP policy. You're right that the page would need better structure and more information, but that's not what you did. You tried to censor. --Torwächter 18:34, 4 August 2007 (CEST)


You don't understand the law at all. Copyrighted material is not something you can protest over in such a manner. Copyright laws are very strict and very well upheld in America. The First Amendment has been declared not to pertain to copyrighted material, so you cannot legally protest in such a way that violates a copyright. Games Workshop has already declared that they will not allow any Fan Sites using movies, or involved with the movies, to be allowed as it violates their IP. If you read the IP disclaimer, we cannot legally promote any such sites in such a way. That includes fan protests that promote the legalization of the product.

It doesn't matter if you claim its a summary or not, because Games Workshop already declared on the matter. Freedom of Speech does not apply to Copyrighted material. You are using a .com. This is not a .de. A .de would allow you to do whatever you want, but when its in English and has a .com, its registered under British and US copyright law. They can prosecute you over it.

You can claim censorship all you want, but you are breaking the law. As such, I am legally revoking the material that I produced here that I already copyrighted and only gave permission for Lexicanum to use if they abided by the GW IP policy. Thats information on over 50 different pages mind you.

You want to play games, I revoke the use of my copyrighted information. Sanchi 18:46, 4 August 2007 (CEST)


I think you're not aware of the fact that this wiki is running on a German server and therefor German laws do apply. I don't know how it is running in the US, but here you're free to protest against a decision of a company, be it justified or not.

The only links we could take out are the links to damnatus.com, that's right, because it's the film's website. But till now Games Workshop did not wanted us to close the site and did not urge anyone to remove links to it. If GW is tolerating it, then this wiki can do too. (Besides: the website is registered as .de - the .com is only an additional domain)

Please stop playing GW here - if GW does want to have the article changed or the website closed, then they will contact me, almost everybody in Nottingham's legal team has my email address.

And please stop claiming that we're breaking laws here. Get a lawyer and sue us if you're that sure.

Talking about a wiki's philosophy that's not the same like talking about laws.

But as said: If you want to leave with all your precious contributions - it's your decision and your ego. --Torwächter 19:02, 4 August 2007 (CEST)


No, you don't understand the internet at all. When you buy a .com, you are buying from the United States, which makes US Federal Copyright laws apply. Hence, only your .de website is under German law.

You are unable to respect Games Workshop, or the people who contributed to the English Wiki. I am not the only one here that feels this way. However, you would rather jeopardize valuable people over your wanting to promote an illegal item than actually put together an Encyclopedia. That really shows what kind of people you are. I have revoked all use of my material, as I only gave permission of its use if you respected the IP policy, which you have failed to do.

You can either apologize for your actions to Games Workshop, myself, and members of this community, or contact my lawyer if you want the material back. Sanchi 19:10, 4 August 2007 (CEST)


Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the internet. It doesn't matter where you buy your .com Top-Level-Domain or who has owned it before. What matters is: a) where is the server located and b) where can it be reached. If it's available in the US, then US Federal Copyright laws could apply, be it .com or .de or something else (-> see Berne Union). But still, you're chasing shadows. The Damnatus website is tolerated by Games Workshop till now (like any other 40k fansite). Therefor I do not see any reason for removing all links to the best place where you can inform yourself about the film project. I removed the link to the funny protest ideas but that should be enough.

Talking about respect: I do respect Games Workshop and that's why I'm not releasing the film. Protesting is not disrespecting. What you seem to want is silent obedience and censorship of all negative oppinions.

I also do respect everybody who is contributing to the LEXICANUM. But if you feel alienated by our coverage of the Damnatus Case then we really can't help you.

Talking of 'valuable people': For me it doesn't matter if you own all books and know everything etc. - what's far more important, and probably you will learn this in your life sooner or later, is politeness, modesty and team spirit. Best wishes.

(Sidenote: Are you sure about your copyrights on your LEXICANUM contributions? I know some GW laywers who would like to have a talk with you about that...) --Torwächter 03:13, 5 August 2007 (CEST)


I actually partially agree with Sanchi. I don't think Lexicanum can be held responsible for linking to different protests, but I don't think it should be done anyway. Aren't wikis supposed to be neutral? That neutrality (and, by extension, Lexicanum's integrity) are violated by actively (and quite excessively) promoting one particular side of the situation. Anyone reading the article will come off with a sense that Lexicanum's official position is that GW is wrong, which is not a good thing for a supposedly-neutral wiki.

I also see no need to link to every single thread on every single forum discussing the situation - Does the Tyranid article link to every forum discussion of Tyranids? Does the Squats article link to every single thread discussing their removal from 40K? No. Why should the Damnatus article be any different? I think, with all due respect, you're heavily biased in this matter and perhaps shouldn't be the one to decide what stays in the article and what goes - Sanchi's edit contains all the necessary information about Damnatus and what happened, anything else would be inappropriate. --Charax 12:48, 14 August 2007 (CEST)


About neutrality: Neutrality doesn't mean shutting away reality. The article about the DAMNATUS ban is collecting the reactions of the fan community and of the press and showing the correspondence and history of the case. If tomorrow a volcano broke out and caused terror - would you persist staying neutral and not linking blogs in which people do report of the natural disaster and what they are thinking about the consequences? As long as no scientists gave their opinions that's all information you'd have.

People reading the article will not come off with a sense that the Lexicanum's position is that GW is wrong (even I don't think they're wrong - they only could do better) but that something happened which many of the fans did not understand and appreciate. Yeah we could take that sentence and put it in, but I prefer letting the people speak for themselves so that you can get a more concrete overview - and if you look closely in almost every forum debate there are also people who are taking GW's side. Would an article be able to reflect all those different numerous opinions and theories? I doubt it.

If you'd sleep better with it, I can make a big bold disclaimer at the top of the page, stating that the Lexicanum is neutral on the matter and is only giving an overview of the situation.

Probably you don't know it, but the article will be re-written later, after this event has become "historic". That's the usual procedure as you can witness at Wikipedia as well - articles about current events (terrorism, disasters, etc.) are full of links to news reports (some are biased, some are wrong -> usual business), later they become normal articles, thanks to gathered and reviewed information. All the links are 'evidence'/'proof', so that later we're able to write sentences like "after the ban, many fans began to debate about GW's decision, the majority did not appreciate it, some did..., some had the theory that..., etc."

And that's the answer to your question why the article is any different - it is a 'current event'. The Squats article does not link to every thread discussing their removal from 40K because a) this has happened in the past and b) it is the Squats article. We are not talking about the Damnatus article, we are talking about the Damnatus-ban article, don't forget that. (EDIT: Uh, I discovered that Sanchi has destroyed the initial structure we created - I corrected it now, there's a separate article for the ban again.)

If there was an article about the fan's reactions after the official removal of the Squats - in my opinion nothing would speak against trying to find all longer discussion threads and linking them, though. Would that be necessary? Is it necessary to list all regiments of the Imperial Guard, although the "Fifth XYZ Raiders" or sth. like that are only mentioned in a footnote in White Dwarf 312? It might shock you, but I'd say both are alike. The Lexicanum is an encyclopedia. It gathers information. All information it can get. And if something like the recent ban of Damnatus is drawing people's attention, then yes, then I'd want to see a good encyclopedia to reflect that as long as it is happening. That's the strength of the online wiki, it can seemlessly adopt to the situation. Later, all the information gathered can be condensed into a good and balanced article.

I don't think that the time has come for that next step yet, though. Better give it one or two more months. We're still waiting for more information from GW. --Torwächter 06:09, 20 August 2007 (CEST)

Editing

Hey User:Inquisitor Lord Jedda here, I tend to edit 10 pages every time I come on here and just realised that it isnt just one wiki I could try and translate the additions I have made or I could forward changes to you and other members off staff, this is entirely up too you so give me a message back asap.

Cheers Jedda p.s sorry about the English I'm too tired to add grammer etc lol.

(02/10/2008 00.09 GMT)

Permitted Material on Lexicanum

Please read this page: Lexicanum permitted material and let me know what you think. I want to be sure of the direction of this site before contributing more. --Talad 09:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)