Misplaced Pages

Copy-vio

Hello. You removed the copy-vio by User:70.68.179.142 on Talk:Race and intelligence. He has now copied the same text onto the talk page of User:futurebird, since archived. In the interim I noticed the IP seemed to have been identified as a possible sockpuppet account of a banned user. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Special barnstar award

		The Special Barnstar
		Even though I have no idea who you are, I'd like to give you this barnstar for a very colorful and eye-catching header; much better than mine.

--Xizes 03:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just realized I'd forgotten to say thank you :) I can't really take any credit though; I'm using icons hosted on Wikimedia Commons for my header. Shell 05:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Dictator of Ultimate Awesomenesss

Yes there is. There's also WP:BEANS. Sorry, I'm more used to the people who hang out on WP:ANK. If I had posted that there, they would have laughed, not actually created the page :-) Either way, I got a chuckle when I clicked on the link and saw Deskana's deletion reason :D J.delanoy_adds 11:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Block length discrepancy

I notice that the Blackeagles account is blocked for one year, but its page is tagged as if it is blocked indefinitely. —SlamDiego_←T 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Thanks, I fixed that. Shell 05:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:T-Mobile Team Time Trial.jpg

Although this was on PUI for two weeks, I don't think there was any consensus there - two people commentated, the nominator and me, and significant points were raised all around. Why was this a deletion? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I left some notes on the PUI page itself about why I leaned towards deletion on this one. Its a great shot, but I'm not completely convinced it can't be adequately replaced(albeit it won't be as spectacular) with a free shot. As you said, both sides had valid points and it would be helpful if others had commented since I'm competent, but admittedly not an expert when it comes to copyright. I'd have no problem having it undeleted for further comment - wasn't there some kind of fair use review set up? Maybe it would get more comments there than it got at PUI? Although, everyone seemed to be passing on closing it, so it looked like we had a few people who really weren't sure on this one either. In any case, if I can help by undeleting it or starting a discussion elsewhere to help clear it up, just let me know. Shell 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a wider discussion, because I think this falls into a genuinely tricky area of fair use - where there's information being conveyed by the quality of the photograph that can't readily be conveyed via a free image. i.e. cases where a free image might theoretically do acceptably, but won't do as well - that our fair use guidelines are hesitant on, and that we could use a real discussion of. If there's really a consensus towards "fair use even if it can't be as good," I'll accept that consensus. But I suspect it's a tricky issue that could use a real debate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a larger discussion would be very helpful; as it stands right now, the guidelines are written in a way that seems to prohibit this sort of use, even though I believe technically, the legal fair-use exceptions may well still apply. I've gone ahead and undeleted the image, since it would be just a bit difficult to have further commentary with the suspect missing ;) Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Shell 15:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where best to have that discussion, so please, propose a forum as well. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I was really hoping you'd have an idea, because I haven't the faintest clue myself where to round up people for this one. I'm not sure any of the image deletion areas are sufficiently populated - is there more traffic over at the Media Copyright questions page, or maybe even one of the main NFCC pages? I'm really at a loss for where to find editors who'd be sufficiently interested (and knowledgeable) to comment. Shell 15:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Shell, if the guidelines and policy indicate this isn't fair use - then Q.E.D. we can't use it (that would seem to be the point of policy and guidelines). If the quality of the image is the thing that makes its use attractive than by the principles of fair use - we can't use it - since we are taking from the "heart of the piece".

If Phil doesn't like the policy, then he should contest the policy. As it stands the image should be deleted.

If either Phil or you thinks the matter deserves further discussion then raise it at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content. In my opinion this is (and has always been) an open and shut case. Megapixie (talk) 09:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Phil disagrees and I'm also not so sure its an easy case. Your interpretation is that the photo is reproducible, Phil doesn't believe it is; I'm sure you can see that we were discussing where to get more opinions since the only people who commented at WP:PUI were you, the nominator and Phil - not really a good sampling, imho. If you think NFC is the best place to have this discussion, I'd have no objections - as I noted in the undelete, its temporary in order to allow further discussion to happen and Phil has already agreed that if the consensus is that his reasoning does not meet Misplaced Pages policy then he will accede to the consensus. I'll go ahead and start the discussion over there; if anyone wants to mention it elsewhere to help pull more people in, please feel free. Shell 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Phil appears to have gotten to listing it before I did :) Thanks, Phil. Shell 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

helio

what are you talking about "poorly sourced" I made three statements. feel free to point specifically which one is poorly sourced.

1. Helio failed their PCI Scan. I included the actual PCI scan. you can't source better then including the actual failed PCI scan nor can you say that source material is somehow 'unrelated' to the statement being made. i'm assuming you didn't even bother looking at it so i'll summarise it for you. it included who did the scan, who they scanned, every single IP they scanned, every single problem they found with each IP, and the steps helio needed to take to resolve those problems.

2. I said Helio suffered a massive security breech that required notification of all their customers. I included the actual letter they sent to all their customers notifying them of the breech as well as the relevent state law forcing them to do so. did you bother looking at the letter or the law? The letter (on helio letterhead) said "we are writing to you because of a recent compromise in security. Helio has discovered that restricted data containing certain personal information was accessed through illegal means. We regret to inform you that your name is among those....bla bla bla. Here is the california law i cited. But let me paraphrase it for you. any business that stores personal data and is compromised is required by law to notify those affected without delay

"1798.82. (a) Any person or business that conducts business in California, and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, shall disclose any breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification of the breach in the security of the data to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The disclosure shall be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement, as provided in subdivision (c), or any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system."

3. i said they chose to lie to the auditors instead of resolving the problems. I was there, I quit the day that happened and i sourced a snippet of the conversation involved. I couldn't include all of it because helio's in the midst of a class action lawsuit for this very reason. further its obvious they chose not to resolve the problems by the resulting breech.

4. like I said, i worked there, I am the source. I know what the numbers were for all those devices and they were poor to say the least but that's not the section i care about. The section i care about you've reverted without stating any actual problem with it as it was absolutely sourced 100% perfectly and relevently.

did you actually read any of the supporting documentation?

you have never stated with any specicifity what the actual problems are. In your response you're talking about things totally unrelated to the entire text you reverted. if you have a problem with a specific item remove it. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater here? lastly (as you can read over and over in the discussion section on that page) helio's wikipedia entry has never read like an encyclopedia, its always read like a piece of marketing schlop. I'd appreciate it if you'd put back my thoroughly sourced section on their security breach and remove the ability for anonymous edits. lastly, those other edits you referenced being "done by me on other IP's". that's simply not true. the only person editing from multiple IP's is the helio employee.

I gave you my IM feel free to talk to me there or click on my "talk" link as going back and finding your page is rather inconvenient.

Sgeine (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

i want this in there and there's no reason it shouldn't be. 100% factual and better references and documentation cited then most of wikipedia. further, what they did to their customers was wrong and their customers should know the act was willful. i've added you on yahoo, feel free to IM me when you're around. also i've been asking that the ability to edit this page anonymously be removed. further, in the discussion of the page you'll see an enormous amount of complaining that helio's page is a corporate mouthpiece. it is, and the fact that 90% of the edits and additions are done by helio IP's/employees is a testament to that. wikipedia was never meant to be a free marketing tool

Sgeine (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but "I want this in there" isn't a valid reason for poorly sourced or un-sourced information and personal opinion to be used in an article on Misplaced Pages. Everyone who edits the article is expected to follow basic Misplaced Pages rules; you need to be able to write from a neutral point of view with all material you add being referenced to a reliable source. A large portion of the text you wrote was not contained in the sources you gave and it was not written in a factual and encyclopedic manner. For instance, you added things like "due to lack of interest" to certain products without providing any source that made that claim. If you can find reliable secondary sources which have covered all of information you wish to include and try writing in a very dry factual tone and your information is much more likely to stay in an article. Please stop reverting the information back into the article without fixing the problems and consider rewriting the information with better references if you'd like to add things back in. Shell 02:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Mar Diop

I decline to be the one to revert. However, I would have no problem with someone else doing so. DS (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

<Dragonfly6-7> "The school is highly controversial, with the BBC labelling it a diploma mill, and some American states denying its graduates the right to practice; however, other American states accept the school as legitimate." <Dragonfly6-7> and we put that in the lead, at the end of the paragraph. <Dragonfly6-7> Sound fair? <bstone> i guess so <bstone> saying "details are somewhat obscure" is bad bad bad <Dragonfly6-7> just a minute <Dragonfly6-7> okay <Dragonfly6-7> let's see <Dragonfly6-7> current form: <Dragonfly6-7> Details are somewhat obscure but it appears to be a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) which is a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. <Dragonfly6-7> The school lacks accreditation in the UK and achieved prominence when BBC coverage highlighted the school as an example of a loophole allowing essentially unregulated medical schools to operate in the UK. This led to an investigation by the General Medical Council, resulting in the withdrawal of registration of at least one doctor, and the publication of a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St. Christopher. The GMC website was subsequently amended to include a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St Christopher by name as unacceptable. <Dragonfly6-7> A UK credit reference agency lists two companies with this name as being in liquidation <Dragonfly6-7> I suggests: <bstone> it doesn't appear to be, it is <Dragonfly6-7> just a minute <bstone> IMED has confirmed this with the school <Dragonfly6-7> just a minute, please <Dragonfly6-7> I'm first showing you the initial form <Dragonfly6-7> The school is registered with IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. <Dragonfly6-7> how's that? <Dragonfly6-7> for the opening <bstone> the school has done no registration at all <bstone> IMED has confirmed the MoH has given the school a legal charter to operate <Dragonfly6-7> The school is listed by IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. <Dragonfly6-7> whose MoH? Senegal's? <bstone> yes <Dragonfly6-7> The school is listed by IMED as a satellite of Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD), a college within the Universite El Hadji Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal; the IMED also confirms that the Senegalese Ministry of Health has given the school a legal charter to operate. <bstone> i guess that's ok <Dragonfly6-7> St Christopher's lacks accreditation in England, and has been identified by the BBC as a diploma mill. <Dragonfly6-7> This led to an investigation by the General Medical Council, resulting in the withdrawal of registration of at least one doctor, and the publication of a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St. Christopher. The GMC website was subsequently amended to include a list of schools deemed unacceptable for registration, including St Christopher by name as unacceptable. <bstone> yeah good <Dragonfly6-7> Several American states have denied MISSING WORD to practice <Dragonfly6-7> to graduates of St Christopher's; however, other states have explicitly allowed it. <bstone> medical licenses <Dragonfly6-7> thank you <Dragonfly6-7> couldn't think of the word <bstone> sure <Dragonfly6-7> this seems fine? <bstone> yes <Dragonfly6-7> achieved prominence when BBC coverage highlighted the school as an example of a loophole allowing essentially unregulated medical schools to operate in the UK. <Dragonfly6-7> the original wording <Dragonfly6-7> are you okay with that? <bstone> yeah <Dragonfly6-7> Several American states have denied medical licenses to graduates of St. Christopher; however, other states have explicitly allowed it. <Dragonfly6-7> this doesn't *quite* feel right <Dragonfly6-7> from a grammatical point of view <bstone> i agree Dragonfly6-7> but factually, you're okay with it? <bstone> just say they are unable to received licensed in certain us states <bstone> which is just a few <bstone> others are fine with it <Dragonfly6-7> Graduates of St Christopher are ineligible for medical licenses in some US states, but not in others. <Dragonfly6-7> good? <bstone> leave out others <bstone> and link those states which ban them