Talk:Ome Henk

This article was nominated for deletion on October 13, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Merge[edit]

I propose the merge from Opblaaskrokodil since this is the English WP and the individual article tells pretty much nothing more. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler sings barbie girl[edit]

Should my "Hitler sings Barbie girl" animation be listed on external links, since it uses the Barbie girl parody? Flashn00b 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be no. ''D. J. Cartwright'' 09:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix[edit]

SO HERE'S WHAT I DID

This was listed as Speedy Deletion / CSD -- meaning it was a copyvio -- so to save the article I translated the Dutch version into English using Altavista and put the translated text into the article here. Revert if necessary, but this should not be deleted. Guroadrunner 09:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed as a copyvio by an anonymous user with a fixation on deleting this article. His claim was unsubstantiated, and the old article could be kept without a problem. Thanks for trying to fix this, but a) it wasn't necessary and b) if it had been a copyvio, it would have been better to first let an admin delete the older version, and only then create the new article. Fram 10:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Using automated translation of a copyrighted document gives you another copyrighted document. I put the copyvio notice back. Please do not remove it unless you write the text yourself (without plagiarizing) or acquire it from a source that has provided it in a GFDL-compatible form.-- Mumia-w-18 11:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. The original article (which is also the current version) is a perfectly normal article, not an automated translation, and not as far as I can see in any way a copyright violation of the Ome Henk homepage (if it is, please point out some sentences that are straight or near straight copies / translations). An anonymous user (IP address) who ad perviously tried to get the article deleted in other ways (including AfD) but failed, tagged it with the supposed copyvio, without any evidence. Guroadrunner, trying to help, replaced the supposed (but not truly) copyright violation with an automated translation of the Dutch Wikipedia article on Ome Henk (which is acceptable, as it is GFDL released and he acknowledged the source). However, since this replacement was not needed in the first place, and such a machine translation reads, well, funny, I simply put back the original version and removed the copyvio tag, which was only placed as a disruption (and bravo, it worked!). Fram 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Okay.-- Mumia-w-18 12:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone replaced the page with {{copyvio}} again. I wish that person would do the honorable thing and get an account so a true discussion can take place.-- Mumia-w-18 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, guys: This article blatantly violates copyrights on the Dutch Ome Henk website that I own. Therefore I am taking appropriate measures to have it removed. However, none of this seems to work. Copyright violation tags are removed by bots, speedy deletion requests removed by other (non-admin) users -> what is this? I am just trying to avoid legal action and solve this "the Wikipedia way". However, you seem to want me to do otherwise. Fine. 217.233.230.136 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What website are you talking about? Please prove your statements. Demonstrate that you own the copyright for the text in the article. Abiding by the rules will get your requests recognized and acted upon by the administrators. Vandalizing articles will get your IP address blocked.-- Mumia-w-18 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly posted a link to that page in the copyvio tag and on the copyvio list page and earlier in the speedy deletion tag - precisely as Wikipedia regulations require. Can't you read? 217.233.230.136 17:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool down. The page you linked to in the copyvio tag doesn't seem to contain the text from the article. Please be more specific. Specific text from your pages would have to be copied, verbatim and without attribution, for you to have a valid claim of plagiarism. Note, you cannot copyright every idea expressed on your web page; while the specific text that you use to express that "The Exciting Tales of Uncle Hank" was released in 1991 can be copyrighted, the idea of that release occurring in that year cannot be copyrighted.-- Mumia-w-18 18:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon consultation with the co-owners of my copyright and our legal advisors, we decided to permit publication of this article on Wikipedia pending payment of an appropriate licence fee. The administrator is asked to provide us with a physical address for us to submit the required paperwork. Once this procedure has been completed and payment has been received, the copyvio tag will be removed immediately.217.233.230.136 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address has been blocked for making legal threats and for general timewasting. Every IP address in this range that makes similar attempts to get this article deleted without very good evidence will be blocked without further warning, as it has all appearances of being one editor on a changing IP. Fram 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you meant to link to this page concerning legal threats.-- Mumia-w-18 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Thanks :-) Fram 07:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus claims November 2, 2007[edit]

Ok, I've had time to review today's cliams. The IP editor added both the db-copyvio claim and the usual template that User:CorenSearchBot uses. They also showed up less than 24 hours after the prior protection ended. But the search bot has never edited the page, making their claim obviously false. I also don't see anything resembling a copyright violation between this article and that page. Given the discussion in the section above, I've removed the tagging and given the article another week of semi-protection. I expect that we'll see another claim on November 9 or 10. I'm not sure what more to do about it though. - GRBerry 18:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm your statement about a possible copyright violation. I'm Dutch, and I've looked at www.omehenk.nl (the link which the anon provided). I don't see any content on it which is used, either literally or translated, in the current revision. In fact, the site doesn't provide any general information about Ome Henk at all. It's only use is to display CDs, DVDs and merchandise. So, as you said, the claim is bogus. Cheers, Face 22:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus claims November 9, 2007[edit]

It looks like our old friend from 217.233.0.0/16 is back. And again, he is pretending to be the CorenSearchBot.--Mumia-w-18 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, he has been spamming ArbCom. I suspect he'll be back once this round of protection wears off. Michaelbusch 22:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus claims January 3, 2008[edit]

Yeah, you were right. He tried his old tactics again today, even to the point of using the CorenSearchBot tag again. It worked for awhile, but was luckily swiftly reverted. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus claims July 2008[edit]

And there he was again. Amazing that he can't see how pointless this is. Btw, omehenk.nl is currently not available, stating "Under Contruction" instead. Cheers, Face 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to the person doing the copyright violation notices. Could you please register an account, and leave me a note on my talkpage? I would like to have a chance to have some sort of talkpage discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There already was one, see the discussion above. It is clear that those threats are empty. If this page is semi-protected just to have that person create an account, then I disagree with it. I have contacted the admin in question. - Face 20:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not semi-protected to have the editor create an account, but to stop the disruption. It helped last time around (January), so I don't see why it isn't worth a shot now. As for a talkpage discussion, I agree that this is useless with this vandal. Fram (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song forgotten in the list[edit]

The list of singles doesn't mention "M'n Tieten Zijn Okee". Is that song a parody of a song or something? It should be on the list, I just don't know what year it was released. ForestAngel (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that song is a parody on My Boobs Are OK. Thanks, I've added it to the article. I'm very sure that it was a single. It also has a video, and one copy of it on YouTube says that it's from 2007. Hopefully the new official site can confirm that when it's done. - Face 18:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official website remade[edit]

Omehenk.nl is completely remade. It contains scans of articles, and short descriptions of the characters, but none of them seem really usefull for us. The shop page is pretty cool though: it contains several releases which are not in the article yet. Unfortunately, it lists no release dates. Cheers, Face 21:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back[edit]

The IP vandal returneth. He just recently removed a substantial amount from the talk page, with the rather ridiculous edit summary "typo fixed" here, and then added the fraudulent copyvio tags again. Both actions have been reverted. Just letting you all know. It is nice to know that the vandal has some form of sense of humor, though. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he showed up again today. Pretty much the same MO as before. He deleted most of the talk page with a fraudulent edit summary[1] and then added the copyvio tags with another fraudulent edit summary here. He was warned for both actions, including me giving him a level 3. He then placed the blocked tags on my talk page here, and then, hit User:Riotrocket8676, who had placed the first warning today, with the same here. Either he has a sense of humor, because these actions are all laughable, or he's just stupid. I'm hoping the former, but, given the really pathetic predictability of his actions, beginning to think the latter. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected it again for a while. Fram (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]