Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:55, 11 November 2007

Black Power

I am so glad you are working on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmilligan (talk • contribs) 12:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

DMA

Do you have any personal experience with Delaware Military Academy? Falcofire 00:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Something wrong with the server?

I see you are editing the "black power" article as well at the moment. Can it be that something is wrong with the wiki server? I always end up with a different version than the one I actually edit/see in the edit window.

Good to know that you have the same problems! I was very irritated as well, wondering if my computer has a problem or the wiki server. 84.178.234.240 19:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to Black Power

Oh okay, my bad. Just remove the parts you think are inappropriate and I will then try to rephrase the remaining text. 84.178.234.240 19:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual history

Thanks for filling in Marcuse; it's not my field. That red link had been there for two years! - Fayenatic london (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

get real

Misplaced Pages is a WWW site that can be edited by all human beings, NOT a forum for wiki-nazis like yourself to determine what is relevant and what is not. Please provide sources before editing. "Assume Good Faith" indeed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.19.161 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

See my reply, and the message that prompted this pleasant note, here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bigtimepeace! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego 16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

what's up

I couldn't help notice you edited Delaware Military Academy (obviously it's on my watchlist). I was just wondering if you had any affiliation with the school. I have several dear friends that attend the school and anything you could do to enhance the article would be great. Thanks.
Falcofire 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the userpage revert. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Article up for AfD

An article you help work on, David MacMichael is up for deletion. 68.91.252.148 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:DDP AfD

Hey, thanks for wishing me a happy day, I hope your day/night is great, too. About the Afd, I closed this one as keep basically because I take the view that the Eye Weekly source makes him notable. I could see you raised your doubt with the fact that it was the only source, as the reference from The Globe and Mail didn't mention him. So I'd searched the site, and found this. The entry confirms what is said at the beginning the article "He is one of two grand prize winners of the Robinhood Fund ...", which means he is well-known for something, hence not badly non-notable. You're correct that this article needs heavy cleaning up to get rid of the non-neutral and not yet verified material, however, I'm of the opinion that the subject is notable, thus the result is keep. ~ Best regards, Peacent 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

O'Reilly

There is no doubt that the whole Bill O page is just an attack on his credibility. Cutting of mics is not proven. What is proven is that Media Matters and Bill O have a "feud", and I don't think it would be fair to cite comments from Media Matters on Bill O, and vice versa.

Just admit you have a bias against Bill O, and are on some kind of strange vendetta to discredit him. To maintain the NPOV you shouldn't be sitting on the article and destroying any changes to it that make it more neutral. Though the criticism of Media Matters on the article is marginalized and weaseled out as usual, it is just opinion, and not FACT, which cutting of mics is. Garric 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

warnings removal on talk pages

Hi, I just wanted to drop you a quick note about User talk:Garric. In fact, it is generally agreed that editors can do what they want to content on their talk page with regards to removing it. If in doubt, check the user talk history. This was the consensus in the now-deleted mediation case. See also the rejected proposal about prohibiting the removal of warnings, and the deletion review regarding the templates. Cheers! -- lucasbfr 08:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I used to do the same mistake for a long time (probably until I discovered the templates were deleted) ;). I suspect the guideline is blurry because all tries to write something ended as no consensus, there are some strong arguments on both sides. So right now, you can remove whatever you want of your talk page, but that means that you read and acknowledged it. If you get an other warning, it should be firmer. That's a reason why I am using WP:TWINKLE to issue warnings. That way, a quick glance at the history shows that I issued a warning and its level. Arguably, I don't often check the page history but vandals are not very smart and often blank their whole talk page, so it's easy to assume there was something there before ;). (not having too hard a time living with someone almost French? I remember my Canadian friends saying "French people are soooooooo weird". The good part is that I'm one of the rare Frenchmen able to take criticism as much as I criticize the other cultures ;)) -- lucasbfr 11:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nikki Keddie

Thanks for the heads up. Done now. My head must have had been somewhere else. :D --soum 09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Your recent AIV report

Thank you for making a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Misplaced Pages and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. Your request has been rejected because the vandal is not currently active, please only report active vandals on AIV. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal report

Thanks for your message on my talk page re: my AIV report. What exactly constitutes "recent vandalism" or an "active vandal?" The editor I reported vandalized four hours ago, and I was offline when it happened (I've been following his/her vandalism because it's an article I've watchlisted). The user has vandalized the same article repeatedly and already been warned three times. How soon after vandalism must a user be reported? 15 minutes? An hour? It seems rather arbitrary to say that 4 hours is too long, and 20 minutes is not. It's almost as though if someone did not catch the vandal right then and report them for it, then it essentially did not happen and they cannot get in trouble for it. If this person vandalizes again and I miss it and no one else reports it then they'll be in the clear. Seems odd to me. I'm no stranger to rv'ing vandals and to AIV reports, but if you could clarify the policy on "active vandals" I would appreciate it. You can reply here or on my talk page. Thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant by active, to my standards, has at the most vandalised within the last 10 minutes. Blocks are meant to prevent disprution to Misplaced Pages. The vandal you reported is inactive, and blocking the vandal serves no purpose. Remember, blocks are NOT punishments, it is used to prevent disruption to Misplaced Pages. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what blocks are for (i.e. they are not punitive), but that way of dealing with vandals seems completely bizarre and unhelpful to me (it suggests that if the vandal only disrupts Misplaced Pages sporadically and does not get caught right away, then it's not disruptive enough to warrant a block). Ten minutes? You might only revert a vandal edit 8 minutes after it happened and by the time you're done checking their vandalism history and filling out the AIV report we could not block the person if they happened to go offline and stopped vandalizing at that moment. You're saying they could come back online one hour later and do it all over again ad infinitum so long as they were not reported in that 10 minute window? I've never heard of that before, and such a policy would not help prevent disruption to WP which is, as you say, the whole point of a block.

The vandal I reported vandalized four times on June 16th, and before that many times on June 1st. You say they are "inactive" but by that same token I was "inactive" for the last few hours until I got back online. I really don't think this is a very rational approach, and I'm wondering if this is your interpretation of it (i.e. 10 minutes) or an official policy all admins follow. In the meantime I guess I'll just have to hope I'm not offline the next time this person vandalizes (yet again) after their last warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The 10 minute thing is just a rule I use for myself, and of course, it's just a number, usually I just apply common sense. The vandal is not causing any immediate damage as of now, so there is no reason to block him for that right now. However, if the user continues on this trend, then I would consider a block, but so far the user made 1 edit after he received his last warning, and there has been no edit since then. Block serves no purpose because we do not know if the vandal will vandalise again or not, in this case it's very questionable. If there is a solid proof that the user is a persistant vandal, and when it comes unquestionable that there has been previous records of vandalism and the user is not stopping, then it would be approperiate to block without giving a warning. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Had I reported him right after his last vandal edit (which was after his last warning) would you have blocked him? Sorry for beating a dead horse but I'm really trying to understand this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Assume if you actually reported him "on time", then yes it will probably get blocked. However, there is another factor which plays in if we make this assumption. If you have caught him eailier, and he was online at the time, he would of caught that his edit has been reverted. If he did not continue after the revert, he "may" be blocked, but if this is the case, the block itself really has no other meaning than enforcing a period for the vandal to cool down. If he goes on and continues to vandalise dispite you reverted his vandalism, then he "passes" the line which a block to prevent disruption would be needed. In either case the vandal is blocked. However, in this case, we do not know if the vandal will stop or continue, that's why I did not block. But as I said, if the vandal later on starts to show clear evidence of not stopping, then that is when I will block. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that does explain it better, though I'm still not sure I agree with this way of looking at. But no matter, I'll leave it there, except to add a thank your for all your work dealing with vandals. Best.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A&P

Just what i was hoping for. It's time we took a more serious approach to this sort of article. It will be a good example. DGG 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Yep, it looks fine to me now. Thanks for putting some time in to make it a keeper! ;) *Cremepuff222* 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Columbia Revolt

Hi, I'm afraid I don't know either. But Misplaced Pages has no shortage of tech-heads who would know. Maybe post at the Village pump? Badagnani 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My fault on US Terrorism

Wow, I totally missed this as a full-on AfD. I thought it was a review - this topic seems like a given? I mean, I personally think the allegations themselves are crap, but there's no denying that they exist and that they're made by very real sources. I'll adjust my edits accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. CredoFromStart 17:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

eldridge clever libertarian?

http://politics1.com/parties.htm

Thanks

For the revert. :) Acalamari 02:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

610 am

are you allowed to advertise?

I'm afraid I don't know what you are talking about, but no you are not allowed to advertise on Misplaced Pages.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Read Misplaced Pages:3RR. If you continue to revert, I will report you.Ultramarine 09:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about 3RR, no need for me to read the policy. I have not violated it and will not (though I came closer than I thought as I had forgotten about an earlier edit I made--I would have only made one edit had I noticed that, as I generally make no more than 2 reverts in a 24-hour period). You'll notice I have not been much of a revert warrior in terms of the content of this article. Your inclusion of the term "Communist Cuba" is what set me editing. Avoid weasel terms like "communist" (even though it's obviously accurate for the most part, it's just an unnecessary and loaded adjective) and your edits are much less likely to get reverted. Anyhow thanks for the warning.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

POV language

Your accusations is strange, considering that the article contains graphic rape and torture scenes in order to defame the other side, despite only the remotest connection to US policy. As well as repeatedly repeating the very POV and inflammatory word "terrorism" despite not being mentioned in the sources.Ultramarine 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add a sourced opposing view, fine. As per NPOV, views from both sides should be included, inlcluding those critical of Chomsky's claims regarding terrorism.Ultramarine 10:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Guatemala

Replied on the talk page.Ultramarine 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: State terrorism by the United States edits

A few points:

1. My edit occurred before his admonition.
2. I did not agree to this "deal"; I expressed my willingness to discuss but also the likelihood that edit warring will continue (with or without me).
3. My complaints were not limited to mention of the coup.
4. I am aware of 3RR policy.
5. I have not reverted the article three times even in light of my previous IP. The first edit (under the other IP) was not a revert, it was the initial edit where I deleted the disputed material. However, I am keeping hands off for the moment. --72.65.92.47 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I had a few pages open at once and mistook the user page for talk. --72.65.92.47 02:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I replied on your page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Trees don't die

I used to know a bigtimepeace. We attended classes together.

Seriously, weird to see your name pop up on recent changes. You should have something better to do at 2:30 in the morning on the 4th of July (as should I). You should also come to our reading group; I miss having you at the opposite end of the table from me.

I tried to get into Misplaced Pages editing around Christmas, but it got too byzantine for me; I spent more time reading policy than editing articles. Glad you've found your way through.

Happy Fourth of July... Merkinmuffly 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Christ, I'm in the middle of a super annoying edit dispute right now. Who is this?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not looking to distract you. It's Jim. If you're still in the same place you were at the time of your housewarming, we actually don't live that far from one another. We should catch up sometime when you're not flaming Chomsky detractors, or something. (Didn't you and Carl hash all that out on the rooftop a couple years ago anyway?) Merkinmuffly 06:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I can´t sign my posts, I access from a cheap cybercafé

and I don´t want to doint it either. And why you get angry for a simple reference to CleverasaLibertarian?. Him was libertarian, like it or not!. Thereare no a purity comitee signalizing who is and who is no a libertarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioeliecer (talk • contribs)

I certainly did not get angry at Talk:Eldridge Cleaver. You may think Cleaver was a libertarian, but you need to provide a source which establishes this. If you do not, we cannot put it in the article. It's that simple. To sign your posts, just type the character ~ four times. There's no reason you cannot do this from a cybercafe.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks

... for the revert on my userpage! Flyguy649 _contribs 07:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: State terrorism by the US

Nope, I reverted because an editor who seems neutral to me requested that I wait until a few more editors weighed in. I didn't disagree with his assertion. east.718 07:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Mongo's Arbcom in progress

You may be interested in this: User:MONGO/arbcom ... Seabhcan (Here we go again!) 13:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda - Vandalism Edit

Hey

I just wanted to say thanks for the speedy fix. I have been surfing wikipedia for a couple of years now and it disgusts me to see people randomly vandalise and article (especially one of my favorites!). I have never had to time to look into editing or reporting such incidents before but this one prompted me to begin looking up how to remove such a comment. However by the time I found the articles on how to deal with vandalism you had already taken care of it.

Thank you for your dedication to the site a lot of people I know question the validity of "wikipedia" as anyone can edit it but the speed at which the Zelda vandalism was dealt with always reassures me that even though there are plenty of funny people who make idiots of themselves on here there are also plenty of people like yourself who is dedicated to preventing such acts.

Keep up the good work.

- Wiki-Fan ChuckJones

P.S. If I placed this message in the wrong place I appologize as I just made this account this morning and this is my first post. Thank you.

Thanks for the reply I'd love to look into helping out the best I can however I am pretty new to all of this so it might take some time haha. Any advice would be great. I'll read through the page you linked me and hopefully be able to help out around here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckJones1989 (talk • contribs)

Re:

Thanks for the kind words. Right now I live in the Bronx, around a mile away from Crotona Park, although I'm more a fan of shit like the purple tape though. ;) east.718 08:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fordham by any chance? I'm a recent alumnus. east.718 08:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Generations reformatting

I posted to the tfd and the talk page a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at these pages.  ∴ Therefore  talk   05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'RFC' on Ultramarine?

I am thinking that the only solution is an 'RFC' on Ultrmarine. His questions have all been answered and he asks them again and again. He is arguing in circles and making nonsense objections to the smallest things. He is using 'tendentious' arguing. He usually picks a non-important source as his link and name for objections. Like only 'The Nation Magazine' objected to The Torture Manuals. Trying to 'reason' with him does nothing. He is trying to 'owning' the articles by writing his own version and saying that his is the version we will use without objections. I have gotten some changes in but even the smallest true change he wants to argue and argue about. This is not how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Do you know how to file an RFC on him? Should we ask for 'mediation' too? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re e-mail?

Hi Bigtimepeace, 1) did you send me an e-mail? (I try to verify on-wiki the first time.) 2) In my opinion, these are almost certainly different writers.Proabivouac 08:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SevenOfDiamonds/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Church of the Nativity page; problem with your edit reverts

Some of the content added under the Church of the Nativity page is HIGHLY opinionated and does not cite any sources for the statements in contention. In light of that, I made several attempts to edit the page (i.e. remove the non-cited opinions) and was thwarted each time by your account, which reverted all of my edits to previous states. There was nothing controversial or opinionated about the edits I placed. Sounds like censorship to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magrip (talk • contribs)

Fossett

Flight plan information is on CNN.COM and yet you constantly take it off. Have a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.146.173 (talk • contribs) .

I do not see that information on CNN.com, but if you can find a link let me know. I said before (in an edit summary) that the information needed a source and you did not provide one. The AP quoted an FAA spokesperson who said Fossett did not file a flight plan, which is currently in the article (sourced as you can see). If you believe this is incorrect that's fine, just provide a source, and please try to stay civil.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 15:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, I'm sure you'll make an excellent admin.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Generations project

Hey there, thanks for the note about the massive Generations (book) merge. Last tasks: merge Strauss and Howe and probably rename the whole thing. Silent generation is also of dubious worth, but we're keeping it for now. Anyway, if you have any insight into a merge of Strauss & Howe plus Generations (book), your help would be mucho, mucho appreciated! :) Cheers, --Dylanfly 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies

Sorry to make you chase a ghost but I had to prove a point. Chaz requested an IP in a move I knew was not to exonerate me. Much like he claimed that if I knew the tell-tale signs of Zer0's editing it would prove I was not them. This was another bad attempt. Had I provided such signs, as if I know them, then he would have claimed only zer0 would know zer0 that well. Same with the IP. I knew it was being requested so they can find a gap in editing, a similar article zer0 edited etc, to draw more artificial links. Again sorry, but I think I proved my point well enough on the Arbcom page. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, but that was a very bad move in my opinion, and I don't think you proved your point on the ArbCom page. I have replied there as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on San Andres Mountains and my user page. Much obliged. -- Spireguy 03:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Hi. I don't agree with many of your points per our previous discussions, but I thought that you should be aware of some changes 'we' are discussing over on the talk page for WP:NOR. The full context can be viewed at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposed_change_at_WP:NOR. As this could (should in my opinion), spill over into the 4 main policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:BLP, your input would be appreciated and probably be beneficial. What we are proposing is a simplification of a very contentious 'section' in the policy, by eventually moving it out into it's own 'guideline' that the other policies can use as well. The 'sourcing' issue is very contentious about what it means, etc., and each policy has it's own variation, leading to many disagreements about what it really means, since all policies need to be taken together. In their current form it's very confusing at best. Thanks. wbfergus 14:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33-John Smith's/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 01:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 26 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article PHASE 2 , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3  01:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PHASE 2

Thanks for that. I'm not too hot on copyright either. It ought to be there for a week though, so it will serve as an illustration for the time during which the page is linked from the main page. Pyrope 09:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

PHASE 2 Image

The trouble is that we really do need the name of the copyright holder of the photo to use it. One of the criteria for valid fair use (both legally and in terms of Misplaced Pages policy) is that the use must not detract from the ability of the owner to commercially exploit it. That's not a judgment that can be made (or at least, made with a high degree of certainty) without knowing who that owner is.

The author of the "How to read Graffiti" paper lists his bibliography. I know he put it up in 1999 -- and hopefully his email address still works -- but perhaps if you contacted him he can give you the photo credit listed for it wherever he found it. The only alternative would be to find a book on the subject with a picture of a tag same by the same artist and scan it instead.

Once you have a photo where we know enough about it to consider using it, you'll have to tag (so to speak) it with {{non-free fair use in|PHASE 2}} and add a "rationale" explaining how it meets the 10 criteria given here. (Shouldn't be hard; most of them are a slam-dunk in this case.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm glad to be of help.

Interesting that he documented his work like that, but then who else would be better placed to? Apparently the book can be had from here for $20, although to judge from the scans it may be a photocopy. Or maybe they're just crummy scans; it's hard to tell. Phase 2 is listed as an editor.

The source of the image isn't meaningful wrt copyright ownership. In this case, the photo is clearly fair use (at least) in your source since it's attached to extensive critical commentary on the subject. This doesn't affect copyright, but Misplaced Pages does want you to say where it came from in the fair use rationale, so you need to mention it.

Since the photo was taken before 1978 (right?), it's important to know if it was also published before that year, and if so whether there was a notice attached to it. (The book was published in 1998, but the photo may have been published elsewhere earlier.) You don't have to know this, but if you don't we have to assume it's copyrighted when in fact it might not be. The state of the law at the time was that work published with no notice is public domain. If it was unpublished until after 1978, that's a different story.

Either way we needed to know the photographer. You can credit him as Phase 2 since that's what his editor credit for the book says. Pseudonyms don't affect copyright claims, and copyrights are registered under pseudonyms all the time.

So here's the situation:

• If the photo was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice, it's public domain and you can tag it {{PD-Pre1978}}. Explain how you know this is the case in the licensing section of the image description.
• If the photo was first published in the US from 1978 to March 1, 1989 without a notice, and it was not subsequently registered, (copyright of the book wouldn't affect its status in this case) it's public domain and you can tag it {{PD-because|it was first published in the United States without a copyright notice between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and it was not subsequently registered}}, but you'd need to explain in the image description how you know for sure that a copyright was never registered.
• Otherwise -- that is, if the photo was unpublished before March 1, 1989, or was first published from 1978 to March 1 1989 with a notice -- then it's copyright to Phase 2. Unless you can somehow get in contact with him and he grants a free license (GFDL, cc-by-sa, cc-sa, Art Libre, etc.) we can only use it as fair use. The only thing stopping you from doing that earlier is that you didn't know the photographer, and now you do. Tag it {{non-free fair use in|articlename}} and attach a rationale as I mentioned earlier.

If we don't know the photo's publication history for certain, then we have to assume it's copyrighted to Phase 2 and use it as fair use. If it was first published outside the US before 1978 we should also assume it's copyrighted. It might not be, but figuring it out is complicated. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Article

If you send me a blank e-mail, I'll send you an e-mail from the account I'd prefer you to mail to. I like restrict access to my wikipedia e-mail if that's ok. John Smith's 22:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done, no problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I found it very interesting. Though in some ways I'd heard a lot of the comments before, just not in as much detail. :) John Smith's 13:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually be interested in reading the article, too. :) Thanks.Giovanni33 15:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Korean War article

Yeah, that word did seem 'wierd', but it was straight from the source. I don't really have any objections to it going though, so no big deal either way. wbfergus 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BLPs

Re our previous conversation in the Don Murphy AfD, it now emerges that, for nearly a month, we said of Paul Danan

On 11 september 2007, it was reported that Danan and his business partners were planning to set up a series of holocaust-themed fish-and-chip bars in the far east, provisionally known as "Arbeit Macht Fry."

It strikes me that articles already known to be problems may well be watched, and libel quickly removed, but those that aren't are real dangers to their subjects. That particular edit is probably enough over the top for at least some readers to recognize it as a misguided joke, but how many things are there like this which aren't as obvious, and more damaging for it? Diffs like this convince me that we have no business publishing bios. I would say that a fundamental change is definitely needed, starting from the premise that eliminating them all is a less-than-ideal but acceptable outcome, but libeling anyone is not.Proabivouac 23:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama's Car Accident

I wish you would have waited more than a few hours to delete that whole section. Given Misplaced Pages's well documented reputation for political bias (whether you think that's a fair rap or not) it plays straight into it when you just yank wholesale sections from her article that came straight from the newspaper. It smacks of trying to make her look good and protect the campaign much like the Kennedy's did wrt to Chappaquiddick back in the 70's. It won't be hard to defend your your actions on ostensibly reasonable grounds, but the speed with which you just...had...to...pull it suggests something else at play. We'll see. I'll keep an eye on your edits and see if this is a pattern... Thanks for listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.70.140 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Obama's Car Accident Part II

Well, we don't know all the details. The quote attributed to the driver's 'friend' seems quite suspicious to me. My experience is that, if there is indeed a 'there' there, it will come out. So, no worries. But you, along with the mainstream media, seem a little RUSHED in trying to put this story to bed. It seems like we need to dig a little deeper. I wonder what you are afraid of and why you would conclude what you have based on so little information beyond the initial reportage.

You ask me to ASSUME GOOD faith. I did when I first began here. But it was NOT reciprocated. In fact I soon found out that liberals GAME the system routinely. They engage in gang editing and calling people out on the 3R rule only to respond by saying 'Nah Nah Nah You have to assume good faith!' If that doesn't work, they drag in some liberal administrator to put the hammer down. It happens to conservative editors (whatever there are that's left here) over and over again. Misplaced Pages's ideological bias is so pervasive it is the on-line equivalent of a societal apartheid. And I use that term only because I can't think of anything stronger.

Sorry, any good faith I may have had was lost about a THOUSAND articles trashing Conservatives ago.

It now has to be earned on a case by case basis.

I would ask if you can even type with a straight face that the smell test or standard that you apply to Karl Rove is the same as you would apply to Obama - be it Michelle or Barak.

Finally, you should know that when you type the following:

"You should know that for every hundred editors who believe Misplaced Pages skews to the left, there are another hundred who believe it skews to the right."

It lowers your credibility to the level of Iran's Prime Minister when he said 'There are no gay people in Iran.'

Sorry...I know better.

Way better...68.42.70.140 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply here. Please take your future concerns to the article talk page rather than posting here again, thanks.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please leave no more crazy comments on my Talk Page which of course is my perogative. Everything I said is true wrt to you being a liberal who pretends otherwise, or using a ridiculous criteria to define yourself out of that camp. The Washington Post did not necessarily make up that quote and I deeply resent you suggesting that I stipulated that. I have edited at Misplaced Pages long enough to know that my apartheid comments are not only NOT offensive, but very apropos. Jim Crow Era treatment is another metaphor that rings true. Having been the victim of such harsh treatment, I know what I'm talking about but doubt you do. I would ask you to address any further comments to the Michelle Obama talk page and, most importantly assume good faith, even for those whose political beliefs you have obvious contempt for. Thanks!

Ps Ooooh! I just found another gem directed to you on your talk page from an objective user.They write "Just admit you have a bias against Bill O, and are on some kind of strange vendetta to discredit him." So, I guess we're both wrong and you're right, huh? Can you say busted, Mr. NON-liberal? lol 68.42.70.140 22:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area Last: 8/12/2007 This box: view • talk • edit

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello badge

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup change of schedule

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

• It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup tape recorder

It would probably be a good thing if you could bring your tape recorder (and blank tapes) tomorrow. Thanks for your help.--Pharos 00:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As to the meeting room at the Pacific Library, if you don't see us the group of us immediately, just ask the librarian.--Pharos 00:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:25, 11/4/2007

Notes from meetup

Just of note, I'll get those notes up tomorrow, as I have the day off from school. I'll have it done by 11 AM I promise, for you and Pharos to discuss.32 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Empire's Workshop

Thanks for the seconding of my research recommendation. The book is truly great, although I'm still reading it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitank (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Meeting Minutes and Next Meetup

Thanks for your appreciation, and for your help and productive participation in keeping the meeting going.

I have already added to some of CComMack's notes. Mitchazenia has posted his notes at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/November 3, 2007/Mitch's Notes, and they remain to be integrated.

There have been some comments going between myself and User:ScienceApologist about the next meetup, which he is setting up with Columbia. Please feel free to join in at Misplaced Pages talk:Meetup/NYC/Main.--Pharos 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Chairman Wao

Thanks for your kind words. We have been able to move the article forward in no small part to your efforts. If I had been discussing the article with you rather than Giovanni I doubt things would have got that messy, but that's life. If you want some neutral input on another article you want to work on after your wikibreak just drop me a line.

Lest we forget. John Smith's 10:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)