User talk:Alex756/Archive

Alex756 never thought when granting a GFDL license to the foundation that his membership rights would be unilaterally terminated and he hereby gives notice that he also revokes all GFDL and CC licenses due to said misrepresentation of the Board of Trustees (BoT) and herewith demands that all his contributions to the Wikipedia encyclopedias prior to this page be removed because they are infringements on his copyrights.

Comments?
The concept of membership was started with the approval of the first bylaws. That was well after you first started to contribute. How is the current situation different than that of before the creation of the foundation? Contributors are still able to vote for member reps on the board even without membership rights per se (something that never really was set-up). I’m also curious as why there would necessarily be a link between the GFDL and membership or lack thereof. -- mav 16:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was discussed since I first got here mav, also you will see my posts about the Association of Wikipedians, the group of Wikipedians is not the same as the Foundation and it exists when I first started contributing, it required no formalities just the fact that we were contributing. Your statement, "contributors are still able to vote for member reps" How can you vote for a "member rep" when there are no memebers, there is just a vague promise that people from the "community" will be allowed to participate in some kind of "election" that the Board decides. Sounds to me like the way the Communist Party used to have elections, it is all at the discretion of the powers that be. As far as the link between GFDL and membership? Well, I thought I was participating in a collaborative venture, I was personally told by Jimbo Wales that he wanted it to be a communal undertaking and yet any rights that I might have had, to make grievances, to be taken seriously, to be treated with respect, where unilaterally terminated on December 11, 2006. If they can terminate my membership rights, why can't I terminate my copyright license? Seems like the founder(s) of Wikipedia are going back on the promises they made, so if they want people to contribute it should be voluntarily not by coersion and misrepresentations about their intentions. If Jimbo wanted a membership organization why did he just get rid of it without any consultation with the so called "community"? It seems to me that this ability to participate as memebers meant very little to him and the rest of the board members who decided to get rid of membership without giving any notice to the members. That is my opinion and I think I am entitled to express it. Thank you for your comment. Alex756 16:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of a good summary of just what the h*** is going on with the foundation? I'm a relatively new entity to the wpworld, and read your user page and the petition, but find it a bit confusing (maybe due to the lack of background). Thanks. Citicat 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: I don't agree with you.
Please see my response at User talk:The Thadman/Give Back Our Membership. Thank you – Qxz 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you moved my posting I think it is ok to move your posting and I have returned it to your talk page. You are entitled to your opinion, but you ended it with a personal attack. That is not nice. BTW you were never a member because you started contributing after the Board passed these new bylaws, so you really don't have standing to ask for your old status back now do you? Alex756 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments and Questions
Hello Alex. I would like to make some comments and ask some questions.

First, I am personally not so sure if the tone of the argument is warranted. I respect you a lot, but then I respect Jimbo, Anthere, and others.

For example, to me, associating the Board with "absolutism" does not make sense. I could be naive and wrong you might say, and I am quick to admit that I do not have knowledge on how a non-profit organization like the Wikimedia Foundation is run, or what's really going on in the inner circle. But then I would appreciate if you could explain more concretely how bad the bylaw change was, what the potential consequences are, etc. that led you to use such strong languages. That would empower me or others who are interested but naive enough not to understand your points well, don't you think?

Second, I am wondering if the change in bylaw is really irrevocable. Here again, I think you know far more about the workings and inside baseball among the Trustees than I do, but I have a general expectation that if you or some others can come up with a counter-proposal, and gain support from other Wikimedians, I guess the Board will implement it or try to come up with a reasonable concensus.

Do you think that is a possible course of action? Have you already expressed some of these concerns via some more internal route and was rejected?

Third, you are criticizing the board's hiring and appointment decisions. I would like to ask a little clarification on that. For example, when you write "a mistaken belief that a membership organization could only have directors from amongst its members," I am not sure what you are referring to. The Board of Trustees has such a mistaken belief? Are you referring to the Trustees by "its members"? I am sorry to show you my poor understanding of your points, but obviously I need some help..

I have been learning from you for a long time, and I feel I owe you a lot. Sorry that I am still asking questions. But I thought you might be kind enough again to respond, like you were so many times..

Respectfully, Tomos 11:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Statement of support
I want you to know that I admire your stand against the increasingly authoritarian and unaccountable behaviour of Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation. I have signed the "Give Back Our Membership!" petition, and would like to help in whatever other way that I can. Walton monarchist89 19:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL
I don't know if you realised this or not, but: So this means that the Foundation is not the one you have given the license to, you've given the license to everyone, and it also means that there is no way under the license to revoke the license. --bainer (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Publishing material under the GFDL "grants a world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration, to use [the material] under the conditions stated herein", and that "Any member of the public is a licensee";
 * There is no provision in the license for terminating the license, other than if the licensee "attempt[s] to copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document" except in the ways set out in the license.


 * Thank you for your comment. However I should point out that if you do something on the basis of a misrepresentation, i.e. I gave my contributions on Wikipedia because I believed that Wikipedia was an open organization that would be kept open and that the structure of controlling it would also be keep open (i.e. if I wanted to attend board meetings I would be allowed to do so). However on December 11, 2006 I was asked to leave a Board meeting after the bylaws were reviewed and I was not even able to see what they were discussing because I did not have the secret password (sounds like some kind of freemasonic fraternity) to see what was being voted on. Effectively I was lied to and induced to contribute under the misconception (either negligent or wilful) that I would be participating in the development of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia organization/association. I feel that this agreeement was broken, therefore what I gave up to gain this status of being part of a collaborative venture can be retaken by me. Is that a clear explanation or do you have further questions?  Note that I would agree with you if I had released my work on another web site and WMF had republished it, but thought I was agreeing to the license because Wikipedia was going to be a transparent activity not just a way for people to take my work make lots of contributions and use that to hire people and pay them six figure salaries. Is that even fair to all the poor people who have given five or ten dollars to support Wikipedia? It seems to me the repeat of the same old story, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...Alex756 02:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Totally irrelevant. You didn't licence it to Wikipedia, you licenced it to the world. Other sites are already using your material and they've not misrepresented anything to (or had any dealings at all with) you.
 * That's not to say I don't agree with your agument here. Jimbo holds on to power at Wikipedia in order to help promote Wikia and to have them be linked in peoples' minds, imho. We do the work, he gets the money. It's as simple as that. --kingboyk (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: YOU WERE NEVER A MEMBER
Indeed, I wasn't. It's possible that this does indeed make me unworthy of participation in this discussion; if so, I apologise. However, I don't feel I'm missing out on anything; I've spoken to a few people who have been involved with the project for longer than I have, and they don't seem to feel that way either.

A couple of things:


 * If you wish to be notified of changes in Foundation matters via email, subscribe to the mailing list. I doubt the bylaws are intended to require the Foundation to mass-mail all 5,000,000 registered user accounts across all projects.
 * You claim that the Foundation has four fundraisers a year. As far as I can tell, from here and various other places, there were fundraisers in January 2004, July 2004, September 2004, March 2005, October 2005, December 2005 and December 2006 (running over into January 2007). So there were never more than three per year, and more importantly in the past year there has only been one.
 * You also suggest "We don't need employees, it is a waste of money ... Let us just use the money to pay for servers and stuff rather than having all these self proclaimed "big shots" being paid to do all kinds of things." According to this week's Wikipedia Signpost, the Foundation has nine employees; hardly excessive, and actually pretty small considering the size of the Foundation's projects. This staff includes an intern, a PHP programmer, a lawyer, a guy who looks after the hardware... hardly what I'd call "big shots", and I'm sure their salaries don't measure up to that description either.
 * I don't see how the $300,000 figures you quote for the salaries of some NPO CEOs apply here. I've looked at the financial statements; the Foundation simply doesn't have that kind of figure available, and the money that the last fundraiser brought in will, as I said, barely cover hosting and bandwidth until the end of the year.

I'm a little taken aback to see allegations that I am a "sockpuppet", though a little browsing suggests to me that it happens rather a lot on this project, so I shan't take it too personally. You ask what my motivation is for supporting the authority of the Wikimedia Foundation. It seems to me that the projects could not exist as they do now without it; is that reason enough?

Finally, I apologize if you view anything that I said as a personal attack; that was in no way indended. I recognize that we have different views on this matter, and I feel that your comments have at times strayed from the issue at hand (I don't intend to engage in discussion about Jimbo Wales or his actions as an individual), but I don't hold that against you. I feel at this stage it's probably best if you try to resolve your issues with the Foundation directly, so I won't take things any further. Thanks for your understanding – Qxz 13:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One other thing; on the subject of personal attacks:


 * "You" recommend that "I" check pages on Wikipedia? Have you checked my user contributions? You don't know who I am? I was writing Wikipedia articles when you did not even know about wiki software. Ha!

I must confess ignorance; I did not know who you were, and in fact I'm still not entirely sure. You have indeed been around a lot longer than I have, and were indeed writing Wikipedia articles fully three months before I first heard the word "wiki" (I didn't really understand what it meant then, of course). However, I'd appreciate a little less discrimination against newcomers. Thanks – Qxz 13:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Telautograph-01.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Telautograph-01.gif, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex  16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:KD-Order-2-02-cr-00009-JWB.pdf listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:KD-Order-2-02-cr-00009-JWB.pdf, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This was never really a membership organization
To the best of my knowledge, this was never really a membership organization. Yes, the bylaws at one time referred to "members" but no place that I know of spelled out exactly who qualified to become one; who was one; what their rights were; how to evict members; or any other detail. The only detail I recall was something about annual membership fees that were unspecified in every way and to my knowledge never collected, leaving me to believe that the whole membership idea was a concept that was never actually implemented. WAS 4.250 21:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please contact
Hi Alex. Would you please contact me? See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Ewen Stephen Ewen 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins
Hi Alex756. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee    t / c  22:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Tikhon-of-Moscow.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Tikhon-of-Moscow.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Raoul-wallenberg-1997.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Raoul-wallenberg-1997.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Neva--etching-small.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Neva--etching-small.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Trumbull-small.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Trumbull-small.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sargent-large.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sargent-large.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BlueAzure (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Green-Market-Grand-Army-Plaza.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Green-Market-Grand-Army-Plaza.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Historic-Map-Prospect-Park-vs.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Historic-Map-Prospect-Park-vs.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:US-Treasury.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:US-Treasury.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:LP-G-G-Australia-s.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:LP-G-G-Australia-s.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ViperSnake151 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Minsk-Crest.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Minsk-Crest.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. - AWeenieMan (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:A-Cup-of-Java.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:A-Cup-of-Java.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Oblomov_Cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Oblomov_Cover.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  Chris  06:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Alexandria-June-11-1882.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Alexandria-June-11-1882.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Raoul-wallenberg-1997.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Raoul-wallenberg-1997.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. ww2censor (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Machine-Cancellation.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Machine-Cancellation.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Papa November (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of notable United Kingdom House of Lords cases until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ironholds (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

hi
I ran across your username on a talkpage where you were researching Napster. Didn't realize there was a wiki connection, but then I never used Napster.

The more I dig into talk pages and archives, the more I former W'p'ns I learn about. At first I thought it was just volunteer burnout, which is quite common, even routinely expected, with many organizations which have nothing to do with the internet or technology. But there seems to be more of a problem here of a shifting of values. RickK was very active in antivandalism at one time, I don't think he even checks his talkpage anymore. Chazz seems to be working the helpdesk again, a little, but he's almost gone. I probably shouldn't name too many here, this being a fairly public forum. Suffice it to say these are not unique, isolated cases: they are, but they aren't. Have to go to work, now. Maybe you never look at this page, either. It's been 5 years. That's a long time. 69.171.187.21 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

new utopia sued ?
hi i did see that you wrote abut new utopia on wikipedia any idea of what happrn to the charter citizens '? did they sue him and get there mony or id fraud thing back ? and maybe started somthing else somewhere else ? becuse it looks like nobody commented abut the project and not much happend (rumoers on a website says that lazarus long found guilty of fraud in 2007 )since june 2007 the same date the website moved. one of the ambasoder or conslate was found guilty by sec of fraud in costa rica 6 month ago or somthing like that

some of the hospital and tech stuff parts of the new utopia changed its localtion now its suposed to be in panama and before that in river hutt province or somthing like that in austraila if he could not pay how could he affored to move to fort meyers and then to saresota... sombody sued his caymen office (as you could see on he did have in the youtube video )?

the bank that was suposed to keep the mony for some coins in this project was selling was busted in a bank fraud in antigua or somthing like that by sec just scarch for new utopia citizsnhisp

sorry my english is not my first langues :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.187 (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

File:ProspectPark-Lake&Boathouse-01.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:ProspectPark-Lake&Boathouse-01.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.


 * If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Captaincollect1970 (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Obligation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Obligation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Obligation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Banner talk 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 22:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:A04 1705-deriv-former-member-s.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)