Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 19 October 2007 (→FeloniousMonk and Odd nature). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please read if you are here to discuss an image:

If I tagged an image of yours for deletion and you do not object, you do not need to notify me. If I have tagged it as missing a source or missing a copyright tag and you have added the required information, just remove the deletion tag. Take care, though, that you have added a full source, not just "I got this from their website". If I have nominated a freely licensed orphaned image for deletion at WP:IFD and you feel that it might be useful somewhere sometime just not right here, right now, see directions for moving it to Wikimedia Commons.

User:B/header

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Misplaced Pages. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption.

Interred Scouts photos

Check out this article we're working on in someone's workshop and this section on the talk: User_talk:Phips/workshop/DP-Scouts#photos. I'm sure some of these are government photos and PD, but most of them have no license info. What can we do about this and where could we find some free ones on this topic of DP Scouts? Rlevse 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No idea ... one of them says the photo is at the UC Berkeley library ... maybe the library could be contacted to ask what the source is. As for some of the others that are just on random websites, the only think to do is contact the site owners and ask. --B 00:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This one says "cite as", would that be GFDL or CC of some type? see: girl scouts Rlevse 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No. That's just saying, "if you use it, here's how to give credit to the author", but that isn't actually a license of any kind. When someone licenses an image under the GFDL or a CC license, they have to actually use those words. It's probably public domain (I doubt that the copyright was ever registered) but it can't be proven from that information. I would just tag it with {{Non-free historic image}}, state that it is a historically significant event and obviously irreplaceable, and credit the author as indicated there. --B 02:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Input requested

As a contributor to a related subject, I'd like your input at Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#Discussion on All-time Lists. —Disavian (/_contribs) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong

What pray tell is wrong

Nothing. He probably considers the use to be purely decorative. See WP:FAIR#Policy #8. I think it's an image of historic value and worth having in there. --B 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'll rv it.Rlevse 12:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be free or not

Can we tell if this is free (Colorado state site) Rlevse 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. Only works of the US federal government (not state governments) are public domain. It is distinctly possible that this image might have been published before 1978 without a copyright notice in which case it would be public domain, however, no information is given on that website that would allow us to make a determination one way or the other. We don't even know that the state of Colorado is actually the author - for all we know, it could be a news media photo. I've seen several online state libraries (Florida comes to mind off hand) that include news media photos as a part of their collections. --B 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WRA staff

If a photo is id'd as War Relocation Authority staff, and as the WRA was a US gov agency, wouldn't that make it free? see (this is california site) Rlevse 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost certainly yes ... in general, works of agencies of the US Federal government are public domain. Just upload them and mark them as {{PD-USGov}}. --B 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The ones on the internment (none Scout images), all use {{PD-USGov-Interior}} and a NARA tag for the ARC number. Thanks. WRA was under the DeptOfInterior. Rlevse 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

End Times Page

Your statement: "Good grief, you don't need to list every capitalization variant)" Please don't assume that I did this. I just came upon the page a few weeks ago and am doing considerable edits on it.--MurderWatcher1 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that was my edit summary when I made an edit, not anything addressed to anyone in particular. --B 00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

NFCC

FYI: I noticed that Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria policy seems to have been changed at some point. It used to explicitly state "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable," but this was removed. But, this is now stated in the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content guideline. Policies and guidelines are confusing enough . . . --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

You hit the nail on the head. Outstanding job and very well said! I'm amazed that after 24 hours, only one arbiter has thought it worth accepting the case. --B 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! What we really need is an efficient community based deadminning and the process of recalling the arbitrators who don't do any work this making the ArbCom so ineffective. But any proposal of that or of a reform of the RfA process that I have seen led nowhere. --Irpen 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that everyone agrees there needs to be something. I've thought about it and I'm not sure what the right way to do it is. The problem with RFA, AFD, and any potential de-adminning process is that they are all susceptible to the tyranny of the heckler. I don't know what the right way is, but there needs to be something. --B 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I also thought about it and I think I know of a way that would have worked but there is no chance that it would be accepted. I can go into details if you have time and interest. --Irpen 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure go ahead ... I'll give it a listen. --B 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts I wrote earlier: User talk:Geogre/RFA-Derby#Suffrage and User:Geogre/Talk archive 18#Another improvement idea. Trouble is, very little chance they have to be adopted. --Irpen 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea of forced admin breaks is interesting, but it won't work because either we'd rely on people not doing it on their own=unenforceable, or someone would have to turn all those admin bits on and off=managerial nightmare. I do agree you were dead on with the Alkivar Arbcom case, the arbs should be all over it and rocket docket it.Rlevse 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... forced admin breaks would cause a real problem as it stands now. Take a look at User:Dragons flight/Log analysis. 10% of all edits are reverted right now. I'm frequently finding more and more libel in my watchlist that isn't caught on RC patrol because there just aren't enough people doing the work. Obviously, you don't have to have the admin tools to do RC work, but you're much more efficient with the server rollback and the ability to block the vandal. As for deadminning, I think arbcom or an arbcom-like function is the right idea. It just needs to be more efficient and not take a month to open the case and another month to deliberate it. Maybe there could be lower arbcoms and the supreme arbcom, just like our court system? Temporary adminship, IMO, won't solve anything because frankly, there the people who shouldn't be admins never should have been to start with and there were warning signs beforehand. --B 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, forced admin breaks would effectively reduce the number of admins by about 15% thus cotnributing to a baclkog. I thought of that too. But note that if the effective workable community deadminning is introduced, people would get less hesitant to support on RfA making the latter less torturous and the total number of admins would grow much faster. Adminship would cease being a big deal once it becomes easily removable if the community see that it made a mistake. An onerous suffrage requirement in any admin-related discussion would completely eliminate trolls and socks while restricting the suffrage requirement to mainspace edits would put the decision into the right hands, the hands of content writers, the very users whose comfortable editing environment should be the primary concern of our janitors. --Irpen 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

3 arbs accepted this case, isn't that enough? Let me know when there's a spot I can chime in. Rlevse 18:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It has to be a net of four, meaning at least 4-0, 5-1, 6-2, etc. Once it reaches that point, someone will create a separate subpage for it - that's when you can add evidence to the /Evidence page or comment on suggested remedies at the /Workshop page. --B 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's 5-0 now, how often does that happen? Rlevse 10:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, last year against Cincinnati, we kicked a field goal and then blocked a punt out the back of the endzone for a safety to score 5 points. ;) In all seriousness, a clerk will open the case within 24 hours. --B 12:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Bible

I have no particular preference for the current method of organizing the articles involved and I may well prefer the user's approach. I was simply enforcing WP:CONSENSUS given that there had been a conscious prior community decision on how these articles should be organized. A discussion on whether to make this change is proceeding and there are certainly good arguments that the approach should be changed. I would encourage the user to participate in the discussion. I don't consider myself a party to the content dispute. The page had been subjected to multiple back-and-forths. Blocking the user would prevent his participation in discussion, so I thought briefly protecting the page the course of least intervention. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Profg

I think that's a very bad idea. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, provided one single positive contribution to wikipedia. Adam Cuerden 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Heya

You've got mail! Or post, depending on your geographic location. :) Skinwalker 23:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's mail. I have read it, added to my comments on his talk page , and will keep an eye out for anything in this respect. --B 23:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and request

Thank you for the unblock. Again, I would like to ask you to monitor all of my activities and interactions with others, especially with those who brought and fought for the charges resulting in the indef block, with the purpose of giving me warning, instruction, and (in general) mentoring me along the way here at Misplaced Pages. I admire your fairness in contributing to the WP project, and would appreciate your assistance here. --profg 00:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

reQall page

I am not done creating the page yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/Reqall, this is the page that was deleted by you. I and some of my friends have been using this product in a modified version for our group. we are a group of people working on green technology, we have our own project. we have a web site http://groups.google.com/group/oldschoollabs. Regardless, I can establish the legitimacy of this product, please check this website out:http://www.demo.com/demonstrators/demo2007/91344.php. They have won Demo God award for the year of 2007. We have found this product extremely useful and so I wanted to show people about this website. I in fact started modifying the code of skype page to build this page. I am not sure if you have seen any similarities.....it is the same website as skype with a change in brand name. So I strongly urge you to recover the website, or explain me how I could change the website to not get deleted next time..:)

Please see Misplaced Pages's guideline for inclusion of corporate articles and products at WP:CORP. For Misplaced Pages to include it, there would need to be non-trivial reliable sources of information external to the company itself. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for advertising and articles need to be written in a neutral way, not giving out phone numbers to buy the product. If you believe that there are multiple non-trivial sources of information about this company/product, please let me know and I'll restore the article. --B 02:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Demo GOD, demo.com, this is their website. reQall is not a company, Qtech owns the product reQall. Qtech does not own Demo in anyway( which I hope is not a trivial source to you I assume). The phone numbers given in the page are not for singing up. They are numbers that will be used by every user once they sign up and thats the only way of accessing reQall account via a Phone(not smartphones). So they count as features for the product, not for propaganda in anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NavaDavuluri (talk • contribs) 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. If there are multiple non-trivial external sources of information, we can have an article about it. If there isn't, we can't. --B 08:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

They got Barry Bonds convinced not Misplaced Pages: http://www.barrybonds.com/reqall/

They were on CNN, not Misplaced Pages:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPnFXHh0LBM (the guy in the video is a cofounder of Qtech) EEtimes:http://www.eetimes.com/press_releases/prnewswire/showPressRelease.jhtml?articleID=X575016&CompanyId=1 DEMO again: http://andyabramson.blogs.com/voipwatch/2007/01/demoreqallcom.html One on Information today: http://www.reqall.com/files/infotoday.jpg?.v=95 Another on Wired: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/10/apples-web-app-.html

I got these from their website and blogs

and a spanish one as well http://www.lacofa.es/index.php/tag/evento

Advertisements are not external reliable sources. --B 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

did you check CNN video? that is not an ad —Preceding unsigned comment added by NavaDavuluri (talk • contribs) 05:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen nothing that would convince me that an article is appropriate. If you would like to appeal that decision, you are welcome to do so - please see WP:DRV for more information. --B 15:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

can you give an example to what kind of stuff you are looking for?, I just don't understand what you are looking for. So if you can give me few examples, I can probably find something on those lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NavaDavuluri (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Except for the CNN piece, everything you linked has been an advertisement or a blog entry. The standard is multiple non-trivial (meaning, not merely a listing of products) sources of information by reliable (not blogs) sources that are independent of the subject itself. The CNN piece is a good start, although please note that by rule, we do not link to sites that violated others' copyrights. Reliable sources include news articles (not advertisements), books, journal publications, etc. Further, please see our conflict of interest policy. It is inappropriate for you to write about this company if they are your employer or you otherwise stand to gain from it. --B 17:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar arbitration evidence page

Oops, sorry for this, I meant that he unprotected Phil Sandifer's talk page, he didn't protect it (as your evidence states). I accidentally substituted "protection" for "unprotection" at the wrong place :) Melsaran (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

LightSource images

You just deleted images from the LightSource wikipedia page that were given to me by the webmaster at Lightsource.com. Can you tell me what the right way is to show the copyright for this so that the images don't get deleted? Thanks! RopeTrav 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not use images of living people unless they are released under a "free" license, such as the GFDL, or into the public domain. You can see the image use policy or Commons:Licensing for a long and arduous list. It is extremely unlikely that LightSource actually owns the copyright to those images. I assume/guess that the copyrights are owned by the ministries themselves and they have granted LightSource permission to use them. If that is the case, in no event would it be acceptable for us to use them based only on LightSource's say so. In order for us to use them, the copyright holder (most likely, the ministries themselves) of each image would need to license them under the GFDL. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission for a sample letter requesting permission and further instructions if you would like to pursue that route. Often times, companies and organizations are willing to grant the necessary permissions. Alan Keyes and Jerry Falwell both have nice freely licensed photos because I contacted their respective ministries and asked. --B 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• But of the ministries gave their images to LightSource because they are a client, then LightSource then has the freedom to give those to whomever they choose. If that be someone who contacts them and asks for the images for use on Misplaced Pages, then that would be OK. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RopeTrav (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily. If I give you a diet coke, you are free to drink it or give it to a friend. But in the case of a photo, we're talking about intellectual property, not just the physical object itself. We don't know that there was actually a transfer of copyright or an agreement to allow LightSource to sublicense their permission. And even if there were, Misplaced Pages does not accept images unless they are licensed to us under a "free" license, which for our purposes means that the copyright holder must authorize anyone (not just Misplaced Pages) to use the image for any purpose (including commercial) provided that they maintain the viral nature of the license. The GFDL is similar to the GPL software license - you can use and redistribute GFDL content, but any modifications you make must also be GFDL. Every article in Misplaced Pages is licensed under the GFDL. Misplaced Pages content is reproduced by a number of other websites like answers.com and about.com and we ourselves have plans to make a CD based on Misplaced Pages articles that can be given to schools. If an image is only licensed for use on Misplaced Pages, then these downstream uses would be copyright infringement and thus we cannot accept them. So there are two separate issues here - whether LightSource actually has rights to sublicense the images and whether or not the images are released under a GFDL-compatible license.--B 14:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow! What a great explanation! Thanks for helping me understand all the jargon and reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RopeTrav (talk • contribs) 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. Glad to help.--B 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
        • That's funny you mentioned Jerry Falwell out of all the ministries in the world. I went to college at Liberty University :) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.81.23 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alfred Enoch.jpg

Hello,

Why have you tagged Image:Alfred Enoch.jpg for speedy deletion? --Law Lord 22:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The image has no source information. --B 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now added the source. What is the problem? --Law Lord 22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Several different problems. (1) A non-free image cannot be used to illustrate a living person. It can be used to illustrate a character in an article about the movie/character/story, but not a living person in an article about the person. (2) Most meaningful content on answers.com is actually copied from Misplaced Pages. It is one of a number of "downstream" uses of Misplaced Pages content. That photo was actually originally originally uploaded to Misplaced Pages as Image:Dean_Thomas.JPG. That image was deleted. I am looking at the deleted edits and it did not have a source. So just saying that the image is from answers.com doesn't actually tell us the source. --B 22:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned vandal returns

Hi, yesterday you banned an editor who made death threats. I think he has returned. Charles 05:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI for anyone looking at this, it has been handled. --B 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment after IFD close

People don't ordinarily leave comments after deletion discussions are closed. I don't think it's worth taking that deletion discussion to DRV right now; in a few months, I think there will be more widespread awareness of NFCC. Already Intelligent design stands out in lists of articles with excessive nonfree images, and in a few months it will stand out even more. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've removed your comment on Alasdair's close of this IfD . Criticism of the close should really be taken to the closing admin's talkpage or to DRV rather than adding a postscript to an archived debate. I'd hope that in the case of a very new admin his more experienced colleagues might choose to offer guidance as to how to improve, rather than browbeating him for his perceived failing. WjBscribe 01:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea he was a new admin (didn't look). It still should be handled by regular IFD closers. --B 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Although upon further review, there's a nice shiny RFA nomination up at the top of the page so I should have noticed it. --B 01:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that DRV wouldn't be necessary. What I think would be appropriate and hope would be mutually agreeable would be to have three uninvolved admins who normally handle image issues review and deal with it. --B 01:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

. He may prove me wrong, but I would rather give the benefit of the doubt - even if he is a common vandal, why not give him enough rope to hang himself properly. Viridae 06:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassment?

Are accusing Guettarda, an admin, of harassing you? If so, that's a serious enough allegation that needs some backing up or else it looks like a smear job. Odd nature 21:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Have a nice day. --B 22:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

And when will you be deleting this message? •Jim62sch• 22:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the input you have given me. I hope it will help me to become a better editor. Have a nice day. --B 22:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice Passive aggressive behavior. But you really don't care what we non-believers think do you? So let me be passive aggressive back. Whatever. OrangeMarlin 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my discourteous courtesy. Please feel free to correct me on how I can better reply to these comments. --B 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk and Odd nature

I happen to know that these are two different people. I strongly advise you to revert yourself on Ferrylodge's Rfar and strike through your proposals on the workshop page before you end up with egg all over your face. As an additional comment, to tack this kind of accusation onto an unrelated ArbCom case, without even bothering with checkuser, is inadvisable under any circumstances. KillerChihuahua 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless they are brothers or best friends or something, I'd say it's highly unlikely they are two different people. --B 03:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

B, I would advise against pursuing this claim of sockpuppetry . Launching such a campaign against a well-known admin can only lead to an untold amount of collateral damage. If you, for whatever reason, feel this to be true, there are other means to pursue the case. It should not be included into the current ArbCom case. Firstly though, I think you need to take a step back and realize the absurdity of your argument. Why would FM decide to open another account and blatantly work on the same articles? Why would he drive home (or to an internet cafe) to block someone then go back to discuss it under another name? It sounds unbelievably implausible. Baegis 05:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Its relevance to the current case is obvious however, if any arbcom member reading this feels that it should have its own case, I don't mind. --B 05:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What a coward. You make the accusation publicly, now you hide behind some false wiki-lawyering crap. I wish you would pursue the sockpuppetry case, just to make it very easy to desysop you. But the false and pathetic accusation is now public, and it will be used against you. I knew someone as arrogant as you will be his own undoing. Pride goeth before the fall.  :) OrangeMarlin 05:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to see me desysopped, WP:RFARB is that way. --B 05:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)