Talk:Whittaker Chambers Farm

Maryland Mid‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Illegal Photo, Taken by Trespasser

A photo posted on September 13, 2019, and removed September 15, 2019, was clearly a copyright violation, as it was taken on private property far from public sight and without owner's permission.

The photo is not illegal, nor is it a copyright violation. The fact the the photographer may have trespassed to take it has nothing to do with those facts. Magic♪piano 15:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether "copyright" or other infringment, the photo remains taken by trespasser, as this location clearly indicates (https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B039'42.3%22N+76%C2%B058'40.7%22W/@39.661741,-76.9867281,3005m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x89c845c33c0e5f83:0x9b3e9d1b8b1c8f37!2s446+Saw+Mill+Rd+E,+Westminster,+MD+21158!3b1!8m2!3d39.6559591!4d-76.9799155!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.6617409!4d-76.9779682), which, as you can see, is hundreds of yards from public road, so I am removing again.--Aboudaqn (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that the image may have been taken by a trespasser. However, the property owner has no say in the image's use, with some exceptions that are unlikely to apply to this image or Wikipedia's use of it. If you don't understand this, you need to consult an attorney who understands the case law of photography and trespass (IANAL, but I do take pictures).

Here's one summary (also written by a non-lawyer) that is typical photographer advice for situations like this:

If you are on private property, such as in a store, shopping mall, sports arena or theater, then you need permission from the property owner to photograph. If you take pictures against instructions not to do so then the property owner has the right to ask you to stop and/or to leave. If you refuse, you can be arrested for trespass. However the simple act of taking a photograph there isn't illegal and you do not have to surrender your camera, your film or memory card and you do not have to show your images to any security personnel or delete your images. You can simply leave the area if told that photography isn't allowed.

Note that no one (not even police) has say over the images taken while trespassing, other than the image owner. If you want assert some other tort (for example, a privacy violation) as a means to gain control of the image, that needs to be in a different forum (i.e. a court of law). Until then, WP:NOTCENSORED applies to your repeated removals of the image. Magic♪piano 17:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Magicpiano, of course, you have proven nothing in your latest reply. However, as rational adults who have access to Wikipedia, we can of course agree not to reward a trespasser by accepting the posting of that or similarly taken images. (The trespasser may keep the image -- to her-/himself, privately.) Aboudaqn (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rationality and civility don't enter into it, what law and case law say does, so no, we don't agree. By what legal justification do you deny Roy Klotz the right publish his image (or allow its republication by Wikipedia) as he sees fit? Cite any applicable law or case law, please. Magic♪piano 18:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Magicpiano, I'm sticking with trespassing to obtain a photo as something we should not honor on Wikipedia.Aboudaqn (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have rules here. You've broken WP:3RR. Your pseudo legal claim doesn't have any basis that I can see. I doubt it would have any basis if you were the landowner, which I doubt that you are. What you can do is a) ask an admin to review your case - they'll likely turn you down flat, b) ask at WP:ANI to remove the photo - they'll debate this for a week and then likely decide that there's nothing they can do about it, c) ask an admin at Commons to delete the photo - ditto, e) ask Wikimedia Legal to remove the photo - they'll turn you down flat.

Now there are good reasons why Wikipedia and Commons cannot police claims of trespassing here (see the comment I left at the photo's talk page on Commons). There are also good reasons why people would not want to remove one of this photographers photos. If I recall correctly he is an older gentleman - a true gentleman - who has uploaded about 6,000 photos and would never knowingly trespass or break the law in any way. I hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to d? E Eng 05:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

WHITTAKER CHAMBERS FARM, WESTMINSTER, CARROLL COUNTY, MD.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.examiner.com/a-604138~Reservoir_threatens_ex_spy_Chambers__farm.htmll
Triggered by (?<=[/@.])examiner\.com(?:[:/?\x{23}]|$) on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 01:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Threats" OR and SYNTH

I have removed essentially all of the "threats" material, because it appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's no indication any of the sources (except the single one I left) mentions any relationship between the reservoir project and the farm. It appears one editor has been reading maps and reports to infer how the project might affect the farm. Even if there's something tying the two together, all the stuff about the decision-making process for the project is grossly WP:UNDUE. If any of this material is going to be restored, I'm going to insist on quotations from sources establishing a link to the subject of this article. E Eng 14:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]