User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:09, 17 January 2012 editFram (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,327 edits Copyvio investigation for Committee of Fourteen ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:09, 19 January 2012 edit undoGood Olfactory (talk \| contribs)688,950 edits →January 2012 block: respNext edit →
(12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 136:		Line 136:
	If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at ] saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.		If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at ] saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
	Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing!<!-- Template:Nothanks-web --> ] (]) 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)		Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing!<!-- Template:Nothanks-web --> ] (]) 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

			==January 2012 block==
			I see you have continued to violate the terms of your restrictive ban, so I have blocked you from editing for 31 hours. I remind you that you are restricted from creating new content, which includes , the uploading of , the , and so forth. If you can't temporarily abide by the restrictions, I have my doubts that their indefinite nature will ever change. ] <sup>]</sup> 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
			::Please link to the conditions of my ban. The restrictions only called for a ban against creating new articles and for making redirects. There was no punitive ban from other creations that do not involve copyrighted text or do not involve making moves. --] (]) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
			:Among others, has been offered in the past. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
			::That was one person's opinion, not the community consensus. You appear to be looking for a ''gotcha'' moment to block or ban me. The topic ban on making new articles was to urge me to find the last of the cut and pastes from my early contributions. If your goal is stop me from editing my older articles, it is working. No point editing my old contributions if your going to be looking for gotcha moments to ban or block me. You have taken one of the most prolific contributors and made him wary of making any edits at all. --] (]) 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

			::That is all you have to base a block upon?  ] (]) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
			:::Actually, I do think that was pretty clear. I'm a bit more worried that the block is for things all more than 2 weeks old. If there's been no issues for 2 weeks (which I'm not claiming, just that the links provided _are_ that old), this doesn't seem preventative. ] (]) 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
			:I'm not sure what you mean, Unscintillating. If you read through the two ANI discussions and the entire history of postings on this page regarding RAN's editing restriction, it is quite clear that he has been asked to not create any new pages or move any pages. He has recently created several new pages. I could take this to ANI, but honestly I think RAN will be better off if he avoids being seen as trying to push the boundaries of the restriction, not to mention to patience of the community. But given Hobit's point, that these are all relatively old, I'm willing to lift the block at this point so that this incident could just be considered a reminder to RAN. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
			::The last time the previous poster responded to a post from me the poster called me "Jesus", hardly the kind of comment that shows that poster's purpose here is to build an encyclopedia.  ] (]) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
			:::I think it was because you were making general statements to me like "he who has hears to hear, let him hear". I wasn't sure what I was to take from those, unless you were channeling Jesus or quoting scripture. In any case, ''that'' didn't help me understand how to better build an encyclopedia, either. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
			::::The point is that if I try to discuss the technical issues with the previous poster here, based on a history of two posts, I can expect name-calling as a response.  ] (]) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
			:::::I didn't call you names in my response above. Why are you bringing up something that happened weeks ago rather than focusing on my immediate response? I'm sorry that I called you Jesus a few weeks ago and that this has hurt your feelings; it was meant to be a joke related to what I felt was the inscrutable and gospel-like nature of your comment, but I didn't mean to offend you. I'm also sorry to Richard that this discussion is being played out on his talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:09, 19 January 2012

Expand

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!

This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Alice Austen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. John's Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote Parameter in citations

You contributed to a discussion either here or here. I'm attempting to summarize and move the discussion forward here. You may well have this page watchlisted, but as I am trying to carny on in a slightly different place, I'm letting everyone know who contributed.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Enström-Axel 1953.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Enström-Axel 1953.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some comments and a proposal

Richard, I know it looks like I am removing quotes from footnotes in articles you've worked on, but I would like to make a couple comments:

You are removing quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If I am the only one doing so, it is because I am the only one still looking at your contributions. Other volunteers looked at many of the articles you've contributed to, but seem to have stopped, or at least paused.

Each of those articles has been accessed by thousands of people. Anselm J. McLaurin has been viewed 104 times in the first two days of 2012 alone. It was viewed 799 times in December of 2011. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I raised a question about the practice at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. The feedback was not broadly supportive of the use of the quote parameter. I read it as accepting it in rather narrow circumstances. That discussion spilled over to Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources
Based on that feedback, I have removed a number of quotes, but I have left a detailed note on the talk page, and encouraged readers to participate in the discussion, if anyone feels I am cutting too much.

You are experiencing confirmational bias. You read the comments supporting your view and see consensus. I see many varied opinions when I read the same material.

I did see your note in support of the practice, and I am sympathetic to the goal. Because I felt the issue deserved more discussion, I wrote the post at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Use_of_quote_parameter_in_footnote_-_a_proposal_to_provide_better_guidance to get more input. I'm happy to see a vigorous discussion, although I do not yet see a clear consensus emerging.
I urge you to reconsider your argument that some of the material is now behind paywalls, so the quote is no longer available for free. While my sense, from reading MRG's response, is that the NYT is not unhappy with what we are doing, if they were to become unhappy, statement like that could hurt us.

I am not sure what you are asking me. Both the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine switched to a paid subscription model last year. Is this fact not true? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I liked your point that including the exact quote may help avoid "semantic drift". That helps support a rationale for inclusion which is stronger than "controversial fact" and argues in favor of "fact", to use the terms I invented.

I predict that the community will come down in support of quotes when controversy is involved, but not just to document a straightforward fact. If that does happen, many of the quotes you added would have to go, including some that might prevent semantic drift.

I have a suggestion; frankly, I don't expect you to support it but I'd like to hear your reaction.

Suppose an article says "X attended Y college" and the source says "X attended Y college, but left before completing his junior year". At present, one cannot argue that the material in the article is controversial so one could not use the controversial fact argument. However, this is precisely the type of situation where semantic drift could occur. Maybe pater an editor changes the content to says X graduated from Y college". If the source is not online, it won't be easy to check, which is why you would like the quote.

My proposal is to include the quote as a hidden comment. Arguably, this would satisfy those who do not want every fact to have a quote on the article page, and it would satisfy you, who wants to make sure that semantic drift doesn't occur. If an editor tried to change to "graduated" it would be easy to see the hidden comment. While that doesn't constitute proof, as anyone could add anything as a hidden comment, it should be sufficient to put the burden of proof on the editor wanting to make the change, which would achieve your purpose.

Someone could argue that being in a hidden comment is a copy of copyrighted material, but I don't think any reasonable publisher is going to make that case.

Obviously, this isn't an agreement that you and I are in a position to make, but before I add it to the guideline talk page, I wanted to get your reaction.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Or we could write a bit of code to suppress all quotes until someone clicks on that reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me tell you how I see it, and then I'd love to hear your version - seriously. We do see things differently, but that's one of the points of discussion, to see if we can find common ground.

I'm reviewing a number of articles you contributed to. You know why. In many cases, I see that you've made extensive use of the quote parameter, to a greater extent than I have seen in many other articles. I researched the relevant archives to see what the community felt about this issue, and didn't find sufficient guidance. So I posed the question at NFC. I proposed a trimming of a quote, but also asked for general feedback.

My reading of the responses is that Masem, with considerable experience in the area, adopts a stronger position in favor of removal, than my own. Masem, the recognized expert in the area, supports Masem. Fram takes me to task for leaving in a quote. Protonk expresses concern about going too far, but doesn't appear to me to be supporting your position. The specific concern involved The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which has quotes in the main article, but none in footnotes. So I see three respected editors urging fewer quotes in footnotes, and one editor making a different point. Four people weighing in is fewer than I would like, but it is all I have, my sense is that they are pushing a more aggressive removal position than I started with.

I'd be curious to see how you view this differently.

I do note support from Unscintillating. I didn't see that immediately, until I saw your post on the subject. At that time, I stopped removing quotes, and decided to push the issue, as I no longer felt that the consensus was strong enough.

One more time, as the time line should verify - when I thought virtually all were supporting a strict line in the removal of quotes, I was removing quotes (while encouraging the readers to weigh in.)

As soon as I saw that there was some opposition, I stopped.

I spent some time thinking, then decided that Masem was right, and there were issues more editorial than fair use. So I posted at CITE, to get more input. I proposed some rationales for use of quotes, some of which I picked up from you.

That discussion has taken on a life of its own, and is ongoing. I've made zero edits to any of the articles you've worked on, even though I see you reverted one of my removals, but didn't bother to discuss on the talk page, as is community practice.

You said:

Both the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine switched to a paid subscription model last year. Is this fact not true?

Yes, which is my point, so I'll assume I didn't make it effectively. When a publication puts material behind a paywall, they are saying they want to be paid when someone reads it. That doesn't prevent us from limited quotation if we are in compliance with fair use, but if we make the argument that we want to use the quote feature to help readers avoid paying the fee, we are asking for trouble. Does that make sense?

Do you really think someone is going to read a sentence or two of an article in Misplaced Pages weeks, months or years after it was in an original Wall Street Journal article and then cancel their subscription to the Wall Street Journal? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about someone that might be interested enough to buy a subscription, or pay for the individual item, that would not have to, if we place the interesting bits out in a free location. This isn't theoretical. I paid for a New York Times subscription so that I could have access to Krugman columns, behind a pay wall. Some people copied those items, and put them up at a free place so that others could access the articles for free. The existence of those free copies cut into the number of subscriptions. Materially. I was in a discussion group, and I think I was one of the few who actually paid, everyone else was stealing it. I'm sure WP isn't interested in supporting such a model, and would not be happy about anyone espousing such a model.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 19:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to understand what is important to you. For example, if your sole goal was to help limit semantic drift, then you might support my hidden text option, as it serves your goal, while possibly addressing the concerns of some who might otherwise wish to remove the quote.

On the other hand, if you like to add a quote because you think it adds to the reader experience, then including it as a hidden quote doesn't work for you. Maybe both are important, or maybe there are some other reasons.

I think it is clear that some editors are supportive of broad use of the quote feature, while others would prefer it to be used very narrowly. I'm attempting to gauge the community feelings so that we can provide better guidance on how and when to use the option.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 17:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

I thought of you when I saw this New Jersey related plea.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 15:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Al Lewis 01.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Al Lewis 01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Note -- it has been added to the article Al Lewis (actor).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

Just a note concerning Royal Baking Powder. I am biologist (mostly) and a friend brought me a tin that had contained some RBP a long time ago. I stuck a pic of its lid into your RBP article. Didn't know whether it would interest you or whether you had a watch on the article, so... JonRichfield (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks great!. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Walter Nelson-Rees

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Walter Nelson-Rees, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.sivb.org/InVitroReport/39-1/lifetime.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

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 license allowed by Misplaced Pages, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Walter Nelson-Rees and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Walter Nelson-Rees, in your email. See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Walter Nelson-Rees 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 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Walter Nelson-Rees. See Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Misplaced Pages article layout. For more information on Misplaced Pages's policies, see Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Walter Nelson-Rees saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing! Fram (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Committee of Fourteen

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Committee of Fourteen, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GWEEoCJTI6cJ:legacy.www.nypl.org/research/chss/spe/rbk/faids/commfour.pdf+%22by+making+on-site+investigations+of+the+%22hotels%22%22&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESif_BUJgnsodnjTQCnJmCkof0FZNHOxMIwBAdDVIVv5HlmCOjjBEbjLcP9_rG4Iv__HKjmJzFtXbNNQ1DWWnTys3yViR3zCOV-ifyvn-qTEbXNZ9EjcCozM3QHbDWZnr7BrU2Pm&sig=AHIEtbQn6dYGCH8GULmK7It6RLiiv7nmgg, and therefore to constitute a violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Committee of Fourteen and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Committee of Fourteen, in your email. See Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Committee of Fourteen 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 Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Committee of Fourteen. See Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Committee of Fourteen saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Happy editing! Fram (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 block

I see you have continued to violate the terms of your restrictive ban, so I have blocked you from editing for 31 hours. I remind you that you are restricted from creating new content, which includes new categories, the uploading of new files, the creation of redirects, and so forth. If you can't temporarily abide by the restrictions, I have my doubts that their indefinite nature will ever change. Good Ol’factory 10:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please link to the conditions of my ban. The restrictions only called for a ban against creating new articles and for making redirects. There was no punitive ban from other creations that do not involve copyrighted text or do not involve making moves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Among others, this clarification has been offered in the past. Good Ol’factory 23:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

That was one person's opinion, not the community consensus. You appear to be looking for a gotcha moment to block or ban me. The topic ban on making new articles was to urge me to find the last of the cut and pastes from my early contributions. If your goal is stop me from editing my older articles, it is working. No point editing my old contributions if your going to be looking for gotcha moments to ban or block me. You have taken one of the most prolific contributors and made him wary of making any edits at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

That is all you have to base a block upon? Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I do think that was pretty clear. I'm a bit more worried that the block is for things all more than 2 weeks old. If there's been no issues for 2 weeks (which I'm not claiming, just that the links provided _are_ that old), this doesn't seem preventative. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, Unscintillating. If you read through the two ANI discussions and the entire history of postings on this page regarding RAN's editing restriction, it is quite clear that he has been asked to not create any new pages or move any pages. He has recently created several new pages. I could take this to ANI, but honestly I think RAN will be better off if he avoids being seen as trying to push the boundaries of the restriction, not to mention to patience of the community. But given Hobit's point, that these are all relatively old, I'm willing to lift the block at this point so that this incident could just be considered a reminder to RAN. Good Ol’factory 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The last time the previous poster responded to a post from me the poster called me "Jesus", hardly the kind of comment that shows that poster's purpose here is to build an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it was because you were making general statements to me like "he who has hears to hear, let him hear". I wasn't sure what I was to take from those, unless you were channeling Jesus or quoting scripture. In any case, that didn't help me understand how to better build an encyclopedia, either. Good Ol’factory 03:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is that if I try to discuss the technical issues with the previous poster here, based on a history of two posts, I can expect name-calling as a response. Unscintillating (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call you names in my response above. Why are you bringing up something that happened weeks ago rather than focusing on my immediate response? I'm sorry that I called you Jesus a few weeks ago and that this has hurt your feelings; it was meant to be a joke related to what I felt was the inscrutable and gospel-like nature of your comment, but I didn't mean to offend you. I'm also sorry to Richard that this discussion is being played out on his talk page. Good Ol’factory 05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)