Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 24 July 2006

User:South Philly/TopNav {{wikibreak|]| on March 25}}

Many thanks for the barnstar

I'm delighted to know that my efforts are appreciated.--Runcorn 07:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Elvis stamp

Please take some time to read the fair use policy. Fair use cannot credibly claimed for copyrighted material outside the main namespace, that is why the Elvis stamp that you restored on someone's userpage must go again. Unfortunately Young Frankenstein on your userpage must goo, too. Sorry. Dr Zak 02:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the image. --South Philly 21:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As Dr Zak mentioned, Misplaced Pages's policy is that fair-use images may not be used on user pages; unfortunately, that includes the Frankenstein image on your user page. I took the liberty of removing it for you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Five-pointed star and pentagram

Please supply a citation for your assertion that a five-pointed star is a pentagram. If you go to a dictionary (such as at ) you should see a pentagram pretty clearly defined as being composed of five crossing lines, which create an internal pentagon. I have put in a request for deletion for the Five-pointed star redirect, since clearly, not all 5-point stars are pentagrams. See Talk:Pentagram for more info. Fuzzypeg☻ 04:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• star shape: a two-dimensional geometric figure in the shape of a star, with five points, especially one used as a magical or occult symbol
  • http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/pentagram.html

Quotes from the Pocket Oxford Dictionary 1978: "a 5-pointed star formed by producing sides of pentagon both ways until they meet, formerly used as a mystic symbol" and Merriam-Webster Online: "a figure of a 5-pointed star usually made with alternate points connected by a continuous line and used as a magic or occult symbol; also : a similar 6-pointed star (as a Solomon's seal)". We've already seen that Princeton University's WordNet gives "a star with 5 points; formed by 5 straight lines between the vertices of a pentagon and enclosing another pentagon".

I'm at work at the moment and don't have access to the full OED, but together these seem more authoritative than Wiktionary and Encarta (it looks like the Wiktionary entry might have been based on Encarta, but I've now corrected it). Fuzzypeg☻ 06:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

User pages

May I ask why you are creating a user page for user who left Misplaced Pages and requested that his user page be deleted? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ask Away. South Philly 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That is not an appropriate answer. Why are you repeatedly creating a user page for a user who left Misplaced Pages and requested that his user page be deleted? Please do not recreate it. Editing another's user page in this manner, especially in the face of explicit wishes to the contrary, is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You said, "That is not an appropriate answer."I answered the question posed to me. It was appropriate. As for your second harangue ... The user that left had a lot of edits. There should be some place holder that shows people that the person is gone. Unless you can cite a wikipolicy that says what I did was wrong, I would like you to leave me alone. South Philly 00:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • As you have declared that you are a native speaker of English, I assumed you were familiar with that construction. They "May I ask...?" construction is not intended to be taken literally; it is not asking permission to ask the question. Rather, it is a more polite way of asking the question. I will gladly leave you alone if you stop editing his user page. For the relevant policy, please see Misplaced Pages:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space, especially "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." Creating a user page for a user who does not have one is almost always inappropriate, as it is not an easily revertable action unless the user is an administrator and can delete the page. A glance at the deletion log will further reveal that User:Jtkiefer requested deletion of his user page, so to create a page for him when he specifically did not want one is even worse, and why I deleted your edits. I hope this makes sense; please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Your fool question was answered with a fool answer. Don't be naive. I went to the page you cited, and read the sentence that said, "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission." What you fail to mention is that the whole paragraph is preferenced by a sentence that reads, "However, pages in user space still do belong to the community"

Farther on it also reads, "User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them.'""

The user has left wikipedia, and no one owns the page. I'm going back and placing the {{User EX-WP}} template at User talk:Jtkiefer --South Philly 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• The page reads, "User pages that have been deleted can be recreated with a blank page, or a link to Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians to avoid red links pointing to them.'" I'm going back and placing the {{User EX-WP}} template at User talk:Jtkiefer.--South Philly 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move of Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians

I deleted your CfD notice; this page is not a category. If you wish to discuss a move, it should be done on Misplaced Pages talk:Missing Wikipedians. Thanks. Grandmasterka 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted Users not currently active, which you created as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians. I understand why you created the redirect (the category template expects a main article with the same title). However, redirects should not cross namespaces (that is, a redirect in the "main"/article namespace should not have a target in the "Misplaced Pages:" namespace). I updated the information in your cateogory. If you have any questions, please let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

As I mentioned above, fair-use images are not to be used in user space. Please do not re-add the image back, or place any other fair-use images in user space. If you continue, you may be blocked. If you have questions or do not understand, please ask me rather than restoring the image. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I can assure you I will take your grievances seriously whether you express them with hostility or politeness. I am unaware that I ever expressed an opinion on the use of {{User EX-WP}}, though I prefer not to use userboxes in general; if I was wrong about its use, I apologize. Yes, I reverted your page again, for reasons I explained on your talk page, and with which I believe you agree. I was not aware my enforcement was selective; if you know of an instance where I was aware of a fair-use violation but failed to object to the user or remove the image, I'd appreciate you sharing it with me. Thank you, yes, I quite enjoy my work on Misplaced Pages, both in being able to contribute to this body of knowledge, and also do help maintain the administrative side when I can. Misplaced Pages's policy is quite clear on fair-use images. I'm sorry that my removal of the image upset you so much. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have temporarily blocked you from editing Misplaced Pages due to your repeatedly placing fair-use images on your user page. Making a derivative of a fair-use image does not give you the rights to release it under a less restrictive license. As I mentioned before, if you have any questions about fair use and copyrights, please ask me (or another user) before placing these sorts of images on your user page. Let me know if I can help, or if any of this doesn't make sense. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Stop being a WP:Dick. Most art is derivative. Please show me where it says that a piece of self-made art that is derivative of another work can't be released under a less restictive license by the creator. If you can, great. If not, I want an apology and I want to leave me a lone or I will file an RFA.

By the way, you said, "The reason given for South Philly's block is: "repeatedly posting fair-use images in user space, despite 3 requests." Could you please site the three times you asked me not to post my piece of derivative art?

--South Philly 00:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think taking a screenshot and using a Photoshop-style transformation will grant you rights over the image that the original license did not. Please see Misplaced Pages:Copyright FAQ#Derivative works for some information. If you dispute the applicability of this, I would be happy to seek feedback from other users. The instances to which I was referring are as folllows: , , and . — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, derivative works are subject the same licensing as the original work unless the original copyright holder specifically licenses differently for use in a derivative work. --pgk 09:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Could you plese show me the exact line in the policies that says this, because I read the cited guidlelines and did not see this. It seems like both of you are making leaps in judgement. In any case, the block was unjustified (it was petulant and retalitory). I would like the exact citation of the policy that says derivative artwork is not permitted on the user space and I want an apology for an unjustified block. --South Philly 17:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we are. Misplaced Pages's policies are written out as guidelines, not with legal precision. One may be able to find loopholes and such, but rather than increase the complexity of the rules, it is preferred that the spirit of the rules be conveyed, and that administrators use their judgment in making decisions and enforcing rules. What matters in this case is that the copyright holders' rights are respected and that Misplaced Pages is protected. Incidentally, there are no problems with derivative works per se; fair use is what is problematic. Please ask me or another user if you have any questions; do not add it or any other fair-use images to your user space. I'm not sure why you think the block is unjustified; I explained the justification for the block both in the blocking comment and in my comments to you. Nor do I see why you think it is petulant or retaliatory. The primary definition of petulant is "insolent or rude in speech or behavior"; I suppose blocking a user could be considered inherently rude, but I otherwise don't really feel this applies. Retaliatory makes even less sense to me; what do you suppose I would be exacting revenge for? In any case, the block has now expired, and you are free to resume editing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• No where in the guidelines does it say you can block me for posting my choice derivative work to my userpage. Because of your failure to apologize, not today, but when i get a chance, I will post and RFC to protest your abusive behavior. South Philly 00:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's actually spelled out rather explicitly in the blocking policy. I'm sorry you are dissatisfied with my handling of the situation. You are certainly welcome to file a request for comment; as always, I invite feedback on my behavior. I'm also willing to help you properly construct the RFC (or a request for arbitration, which is what you suggested earlier)—many users run into trouble for posting malformed RFCs. Let me know if you need any help, or if you don't understand the difference between an RFC and an RFAr. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Assistance

Mmm, I don't recall doing anything with the Scouting project, but that could just be forgetfulness on my part. Is there something specific you need help with? You should be able to just copy the contents over to your page and then remove any links that don't apply to your project, I think. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I set up the Scouting project, assessment, and portal. I copied and then altered a lot of the MIlHIST project code. Let me know if you need help. Kirill helped me some on the portal. Rlevse 22:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I just set the whole thing up. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Philadelphia/Assessment and Category:WikiProject Philadelphia. We'll see how it works. --South Philly

• Why did you put your Philly portal and text on a category that deals with international Scouting?...Category:Non-article Scouting pages Rlevse 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Appears this was an honest mistake while you're setting up your project/portal/assessment. If so, no problem. Rlevse 22:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would consider it a 'good deed' if you could review the work I did in creating our assessment. --South Philly 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what do you want reviewed? The assessment page, cat set up, or what? Not sure what you're looking for. Go Misplaced Pages:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index and you see the bot ran. You can also look at listings of your pages and such, pretty cool. Rlevse 01:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I looked over your categories and assessment page, and project page. They look fine. It may take awhile, but it'd be worth the time to finish rating your articles. I just created "past picture" and "past biography" categories and tag parameters for our Scouting project. Rlevse 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Congrats

This was a good idea.

• Thanks to you for helping to shepard a lot o the work. --South Philly 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Portal

Hi. Please refrain from spamming the Philadelphia portal template on articles that are only tangentially related to the city. While it's acceptable to use on articles relating directly to the city, putting it on articles like Pretzel, Hoagie, and Stromboli is taking things too far. Thanks. - EurekaLott 04:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• I have responded to your post on the apprpriate talk pages. --South Philly 12:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit at WP:SFD

Any insight to offer on this edit? If you were looking to add a "vote"/comment/argument to the effect that this stub type should be kept, this would not be the right way of doing it. Alai 01:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• I added a reason to the box. --South Philly 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Or indeed, that one. This should be pretty basic stuff: don't make changes to deletion nominations under other people's signatures, add your own, separate comment, under your own signature. Doing so could be interpreted as vandalism or "forgery" of the other person's edit. Alai 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• ummm, forgery? What are you smoking? One thing I dislike about wikipedai is how some random ediotr can nominate something to be deleted and then everyone has to go to 'red alert' to keep something stupide from happening. The stub is useful. Keep it, and leave me alone. --South Philly 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)