Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:14, 17 October 2007

Copyright status of Peter D. Hart

Please do not post copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Peter D. Hart. For legal reasons, we will delete copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites (http://www.hartresearch.com/about/bios/index.html in this case) or from printed material.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Peter D. Hart with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Peter D. Hart with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own original words to avoid any copyright infringement. Thank you. The Evil Spartan 16:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

David Rockefeller

I reverted the "Conspiracy" category because that category is for conspiracy theories, not targets of conspiracy theorists. --Mantanmoreland 16:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nagra Kudelski Group.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Nagra Kudelski Group.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Misplaced Pages constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 09:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard edits

It's the third story on the BBC World Service news bulletin, and there's an article here . I think this makes notability. Gareth E Kegg 09:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, looks like I witness my first edit war. Thanks for the additional link, I used material from The Age, but the BBC casts of bigger spotlike on the incident. Lord Chao 11:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your point is the important one though. The edits aren't important in themselves, but the fact that they were done by Howard staffers, on, as you say, tax payers time. Gareth E Kegg 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

John Howard article cleansing

Hi Lord Chao! I appreciate your efforts to prevent information being deleted from the John Howard article. I personally like to see all sides represented on Misplaced Pages. Both the positive and the negative facts should be included. It's sad when editors slant an article to cleanse it of controversial content. I recently lost a Wikiquette Alert case on the issue of deletion. Deleting editors win. I hope to see your continued presence on the discussion page.Lester2 23:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. If you have problems with your fellow editors, then there are avenues to report such activity. Labeling your fellow editors who are following Misplaced Pages policy can be construed as a personal attack. Shot info 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, shot info. However, deleting a sourced section because of personally perceived irrelevance is considered vandalism. I can see no good faith in deleting information that criticises the subject in question. The actual edits may be harmless (although I think it's simply falsication to turn human rights abuses into "alleged human right abuses", and certainly intentionally so), but the echo in the media globally gives it relevance.

To put things in perspective: Faheem Lodhi has to spend 22 years in prison for a thought crime. Less evidence links Lodhi to criminal activity than Howard to rewriting Misplaced Pages. The same Howard Government withdrew Dr. Haneef's visa without any substantial evidence. The main argument is the deleter is lack of space. Sorry for blowing a 60k entry with three additoional lines out of proportion. --Lord Chao 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/John Howard. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ed Kronenburg

I have removed some unreliably sourced material from his biography under the provisions of our policy on biographies of living people. Please do not restore it unless you find a reliable source for it. If necessary I will protect the page. Tom Harrison 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it that you have a POV what source are "reliable" and which are not. In this specific case, a digital copy of the list of invitees seems to be me extremly reliable, plus, I fail to see why someone would object being named as a member of a conference which is utterly legal (no matter what agendas might be discussed).

If you call a source "unreliable", even though the author was on site during the event, it makes it hard to determine what you would call "reliable".

Your concerns about WP:BLP are therefore not comprehendable. Kronenburg's participation has never been denied, has no reason to be denied (as there it is not in any way illegal to participate), so I would appreciate further elucidation why the quoted source is according to your POV "unreliable". --Lord Chao 12:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)