Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:08, 23 August 2006

Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04

Admin?

Hi, I notice you' re a really active Wikipedian. I was wondering if you would like to be nominated for adminship by me; seems you' d be a good one. (crazytales56297 posting anon from 69.214.31.217) 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (re-signing after login ~ c. tales  19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC))

• And FWIW I would still support - why not?--Arktos 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah - I wouldn't hold blocks against anyone necessarily. I would want to know do they understand policy and procedures. I guess you need to holler for help quicker - many are willing to assist and would urge you to behave like a good wikipedian - taking the lift and not dressing up! Even though it might be slower - a more certain way to the top :-)--Arktos 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well not all of us are here 24/7 and some of us give up reading AN/I and PAIN from time to time because we get bruised easily. I would not regard a request for help on my talk page as spam and I am sure I am not alone. Feel free to ask me next time if others don't jump to. Don't compromise policy - it often helps to have a 2nd opinion which is the underlying basis for much of those policies anyway.--Arktos 01:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• You asked where did I compromise policy? - I would avoid 3 reverts even in the pursuit of vandalism unless it is so obviously blatant that nobody but nobody is going to dispute it - eg inserting gratuitous expletive into another wise innocent article by anons. Dealing with registered users and tags is verging into content disputes. As per WP:3RR - Any reversions beyond this limit should be performed by somebody else, to serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two (or more) competing versions is correct. Even if you vary content of reversions, edit warring with an individual should be avoided. My two cents and I am sure I don't always follow my own advice!--Arktos 01:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I no longer remember why the religious display thing was relevant...

... but yes, those do look like religious displays. If I said they weren't, I was wrong. What did this connect to? BYT 02:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia AfD

I "fixed" it wrong. M'bad. :x Thanks for catching that, though. Luna Santin 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia poll

As BrandonYusufToropov said, "a published Gallup poll about attitudes toward Muslims constitutes "original research" in an article about attitudes toward Muslims? In what universe?".

Your argument here is ridiculous, and I'm going to ask for an admin to block you if you don't stop trying to vandalize the article by removing important and relevant information.

Islamophobia is exactly the same thing as anti-Muslim sentiment; in fact "anti-Muslim" redirects to Islamophobia.

So why do you insist on removing a valuable poll result about anti-Muslim sentiment from an article about anti-Muslim sentiment? Do you have some agenda here?

Deuterium 01:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to scientifically "prove" that the poll is relevant to the article. It's obvious to virtually everyone, as the consensus seems to be to keep the poll. If you want a reference that explicitly describes the poll's findings as evidence of Islamophobia to your standards, go ahead and find one, but don't threaten to remove the poll entirely because there isn't one yet. Deuterium 08:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You would probably be interested in this. Tewfik 15:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Embrace weasel words

Well, quite a flurry of motions today. First off-- I'm sorry you disagree with Embrace Weasel Words-- I think it makes a good point, but even if you don't, there are many essays in the Misplaced Pages space that are controversial-- that's why they're essays, rather than guidelines or policies. . Regarding the image on that page-- thank you for spotting in incorrect link. I had considered a couple different potential weasel images before settling on it. Hopefully this resolved the copyright concerns about that image-- if not, let me know (and re-add the relevant templates). --Alecmconroy 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The atribution is in the form of the link to the webpage in which it was downloaded from. If you look at many other CC attribution images, on wikipedia and elsewhere, you'll find his form of attribtion is quite common. If you would like to add more specific attribution information, by all mean, you may add whatever other relevant information was uploaded to flickr by the original author. --Alecmconroy 10:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied at Misplaced Pages talk:Embrace weasel words. Look forward to seeing your response. --Alecmconroy 11:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

E.D. references

Do you just systemically hunt down anything that even references that site? Your bias (which you claimed to have none of/hollow claims of complete neutrality during the old AfD) are now even more humorous. rootology (T) 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. I had Tony's page on my watchlist from interactions the past couple days, and I saw your name and remembered that you were just the guy that ran that AfD. But when I scanned his Talk page I saw you also had somehow found the Talk page thing (which was news to me). It was just an observation that you appeared to be searching out active references to the ED site, based on these two actions. In regards to your Troll comment, thanks for that. I begin to grow mighty tired of a small irrelevant clique of angsty users tossing that around like a tennis ball. rootology (T) 15:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re AOL vandal

Hi Scott! Thanks for letting me know. I'll reduce the block to 24h as i already s-protected the article. Cheers -- Szvest 22:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No "fair use" rationale

That image is on the Wikimedia Commons. The Commons do not allow for "fair use" rationale. You'd do well to revert Mel Gibson in good faith rather than editing without knowledge of what you are doing. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what image you are talking about being on the commons, however, it is irrelevant if it is on the commons or not. Fair Use rationale or a similar free use justification is required on wikipedia. As for reverting in good faith, I did revert in good faith. As for knowing what I am doing, I know what I am doing. I suspect that you feel that your picture should remain. It is an awful picture and other pictures will do much better and can be supplied under fair use rationale. --Blue Tie 07:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This edit was what I was suggesting you revert (where you reverted a Commons image back into the article). I've just done so because the image you reverted to wasn't a "free" image. The Commons only host "free" images not images that qualify for "fair use". The reason images of Mel Gibson are being deleted is because they aren't free and don't qualify for fair use. Fair use is only applicable when there is no "free" alternative image. At this point there is a "free" alternative that shows what Mel Gibson looks like and that is his booking photo. In an attempt to find a more agreeable image to show what he looks like I found the sketch of him and put that on the article. Perhaps you can source a freely licenseable image of him?

I have some bad news for you. The image you uploaded is a derivative image of a Touchstone Pictures copyrighted image. According to copyright law, derivative works must be authorized by the copyright holder. If this one is not so authorized and is not placed on the page under the auspices of fair use, it should be deleted. Since you have been deleting the other images, I think its fair that you delete this one too. --Blue Tie 04:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As you've not indicated which image your discussing that I've uploaded I recommend that you tag it for deletion or mark it with a tag that corresponds to disputing fair use. (→Netscott) 04:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not really know how to do that. But the image is the one on Mel Gibson.--Blue Tie 04:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand drawings to be derivative works based upon Derivative work where it says that A "derivative work," that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an "original work of authorship." Derivative works, also known as "new versions," include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a "derivative work" or "new version." It also says: The copyright provides the owner with a number of exclusive rights, including the right to make new versions of the original work, called derivative works. This concept also protects an artist from having his/her original work reproduced in a different media by another artist, without the consent of the first artist and The correct specific legal term 'derivative works' is only for a copyright permitted or licensed secondary 'work'. Any uncopyrighted, unauthorized or unlicensed secondary properties are called 'copies'. 'Copies' are not legally protected from the original copyright owners in copyright infringement suits. (technically this is a copy, not a derivative work and hence it is a total violation of copyright).--Blue Tie 04:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have contacted Mel Gibson's publicist and requested a released picture for free distribution. Whether that will get attention or not, I do not know. But, I think that under the circumstances, a fair use of a widely released publicity photo would be reasonable.--Blue Tie 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Since all an image on the Mel Gibson article has to do is show what he looks like any images used for that purpose will not qualify for "fair use" because his booking photo does in fact show what he looks like. (→Netscott) 04:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I do not know how the requirement for an image to show what he looks negates the "Fair Use" qualtification for a picture. 2. I do not know how it affects the fair use qualification of that booking photo in particular. 3. But per wikipedia policy and Jimbo articles are to avoid negative -- to the point of deleting information rather than keeping it in. 4. That image only shows what he looks like when he is inebriated. That does not fit the critieral of showing what he looks like generally. It is too specific an instance. It would be just as if the picture showing him painted in wode were used as an example of his countenance.. it would not be right. --Blue Tie 05:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

edit war on 3RR page

I've blocked you for 12h for this William M. Connolley 07:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC) If you follow the diffs here you'll see that I was changing my content as I edited. How is that an edit war? (→Netscott) 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Essentially I was reverting edits that were geared to have me falsely blocked. (→Netscott) 07:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My edits were to revert "Changing others' commentary" vandalism. Please review. (→Netscott) 07:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I documented what I was doing in good faith. (→Netscott) 07:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree not to further edit on the 3RR page relative to this matter. May I be unblocked? Thanks. (→Netscott) 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think its better that you sit it out. Not long now William M. Connolley 15:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the point you made on WP:AN/I. Have discussed with the editor and the 2nd listing is being removed :-) --Arktos 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• We all feel like quitting from time to time - I am sure you will get over it. Therapy is to get back to editing - preferably non-contentious articles, I recommend geography, obscure Greek goddesses or paddle steamers :-) - Otherwise I reiterate my advice to stick closely to 3 reverts and no more except for unmistakeably batant vandalism - then nobody can get at you. Sometimes on WP:AN/I they seem to ignore real issues and all want to get stuck into something apparently unconstructive to my mind. If no prompt action from an alert there, give some of the admins you know (and you know lots based on this talk page so one of them is likely to be awake and editing) a hoy to get more than one editor involved in the reversions and giving you the benefit of a 2nd opinion. Regards--Arktos 01:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium

You're welcome. He's about to be blocked, I'm thinking. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Breakfast and barnstar

That's quite a couple of days you've been having, Scott. Here's to regrouping, relaxing over a nutritious breakfast of all that's best at the Commons, and knowing people appreciate your work. For your valiant efforts to keep difficult articles balanced and NPOV, you are hereby awarded Bishonen's prestigious Blondin Trophy or Tightrope Award, a rare and coveted honor. It represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC).

You're the man!

Thanks for pointing out that I that didn't really break 3rr. :) BhaiSaab 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin recall

Hi Netscott, have you seen this: Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator recall/Archive2#Users who support adoption of this policy/procedure. --HResearcher 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing information from Anti-Muslim sentiment

Hello, I was just wondering why you removed the following sections from the anti-Muslim sentiment page. I don't believe removing information simply because it is mentioned on another page (Islamophobia) is a good reason to do so, nor is it supported by policy.

An earlier poll of Americans, commissioned by CAIR, suggested that one in four Americans believe Muslims value human life less than others and teach their children to hate.

In 2006 the Sunday Herald Sun commissioned a Gallup Poll, published on July 30, which reported that four in ten of those Australians surveyed "believe Islam is a threat to our way of life" and One in three people are more fearful of Muslims since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

1. Poll reveals US Islamophobia - October 05, 2004.
2. Islamophobia and imperialist wars - Green left Weekly. August 9, 2006

Deuterium 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied on my talk page. Regards, Deuterium 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

user:SirIsaacBrock

hi, I'm having a hell of a time trying to list SirIsaacBrock's sockpuppet User:What123 at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets. can you take a look and see if you can fix the listing? Thanks. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That'll likely not be necessary. Let User:JzG have a look (or another admin on the AN post). There is no doubt about this being a sockpuppet. (→Netscott) 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)