User talk:Fungible

Blocked
I've blocked you indefinitely for re-creating the copyvio Alan Chartock William M. Connolley 21:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, I do not comprehend the nature of the infraction for which you have placed a block and request that you reconsider.

For the past week or so I have been updating the Alan Chartock article. He is an extremely controversial figure in upstate New York, and his original article, which I did not initiate or create, was essentially puff biographical stuff without dealing with the nature of the kinds of things the man has been involved with both at the university where he taught, and at the public broadcaster, WAMC-FM, for which he is chief executive officer.

Anyway, I operate a Web site dealing with fraud, waste and abuse at WAMC -- my Web site is http://www.wamc.net/. The material that I have been adding to the Alan Chartock Wiki article is material that is labeled 'fact' when it is factual, and labeled 'allegation' when it is allegation. Other Wiki people have made corrections and additions which changes have been valuable and which I have kept intact because they added to the quality and balance of the article.

In the past few days though, Mr. Chartock and his defenders got wind of the fact that I was adding 'unfriendly' material to the Wiki bio and that is when the biomass hit the fan. Suddenly, the edits and changes were no longer by Wiki purists, but rather by people misidentifying themselves, masquerading as others, even going so far as to use my real name, Glenn M. Heller. Throughout, I have played it relatively cool by sticking with my UserName: Fungible (even that was co-opted a couple times), and I continued adding to the discussions page when it was warranted.

The defenders kept deleting the portion of the article labeled 'Controversy'. When they did that, I would restore the deleted portion. Someone even deleted portions of the discussions page at one point (though I did not restore that). This went back and forth for awhile. The marauders went so far as to change legitimate links to articles. Instead of linking to material that backed-up that which was being stated in the Controversy section, now suddenly the links connected to pornographic Web sites.

Anyway, then you came along and deleted the entire article on the grounds of some arcane copyright violation. It was not I that created the original entry in the first place, nor posted the original bio -- that was done by the originator. All I have been guilty of is adding relevant material to the entry in the section forthrightly labeled as Controversy.

Therefore, I would appreciate knowing where you believe the copyright violation to be (Lord knows, we don't want to violate hallowed copyrights on the Internet), and let's see if the problematic areas can be addressed sufficiently to satisfy the Wiki gods.

Mr. Chartock (and the nature of the controversies which surround him) certainly are worthy of a Wiki article. That said, I also feel it appropriate that valid factual and material information, that some might consider less than flattering, can become a part of that article so that people can make up their own minds concerning Mr. Chartock.

Thanks for your time on this. Fungible aka Glenn M. Heller, Washington, DC.Fungible 00:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley,

One more thing. I've been reading up on some of Wiki's policies. On this matter of copyrighted material, am I to infer that if I just delete all of Chartock's biographical information (that was part of his original article), that I could then create my own Chartock article made up of my own biographical summary plus the "Controversy" section (plus whatever anyone else might want to add)?

Sorry to take time on this, I am somewhat new to Wiki-topia.Fungible 01:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"{{unblock| Request to be unblocked because it is not clear that Alan Chartock's bio information concerning his State University work is actually copywriteable. He is a retired professor from the State University of New York, and all of the university material on Chartock is automatically within the public domain. If there are any questions concerning this I would be happy to discuss it further with a Wiki person. My IP address is 68.110.232.207. Thanks. }.}" Fungible 01:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My IP address is 68.110.232.207. Fungible 02:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Um. There was I about to give you a chance when I read what you wrote. You must understand that simply pasting in text is not permissable. Even if all the facts are PD, the text isn't. 08:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, A couple things: First, in Wiki's 'Blocking' section: RE: 'Copyright infringement and plagiarism.' It states: 'In cases where an editor is acting in good faith, exercising caution with regard to the copyright issues, and there is no imminent legal threat, the editor should not be blocked.'

Second, Wiki says with regard to disputes over whether certain material is copywrited, that a factor to consider is that: 'it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.'

My argument here is the fact that all of what Mr. Chartock's bio consists of is a listing of information and awards given from a public university and listed on that University's own Web pages (which are in the public domain), and would thus imply that the material is likewise in the public domain due to 'source'.

Okay, so where do we go from here? Suggestion: If permissible, I'd like formally to request that the article be undeleted. And I hope I am using here the correct Wiki command for this.

Next, I suggest that in order to comply with the rule of 'no copy and pasting text', that either I should rewrite his bio in my own words OR simply paste Wiki's 'copywrited material' indicator link into the bio section to enable people to link to the fellow's own Web site to access his bio material. Theoretically, that should take care of the perceived copywrite violation, and simultaneously should then enable the raging debates to continue in the Controversy section. Is that acceptable, or is there something else that would work even better? Let me know. Thanks.

An editor has asked for deletion review of Alan Chartock. Since you closed the deletion discussion about (or speedy-deleted) this page, your opinions on this will be greatly appreciated.

Fungible 10:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that link doesn't work, so I don't know what you mean. You cannot re-create the page using that text source. Facts yes, same text no. I'm going to unblock you; recreate the page from the same source; or return to edit warring over it, and I'll re-block you William M. Connolley 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley: Sounds good. Thank-you! (I'm checking and I still am getting the 'blocked' message.)

My IP address is 68.110.232.207 and it says "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Fungible". Do you need any other info to unblock me, and do I need to do anything else other than notify you to complete the un-blocking process?
 * I've unblocked this, though I could find no record of it being blocked. Try again William M. Connolley 16:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, does this mean that the article itself will not be undeleted, but rather that I, myself, will need to totally to create a new article (with the copyright-claimed areas rewritten, of course)?


 * I think that would be best. If you think that substantial section were non-copyvio's, then I could maybe restore those bits. William M. Connolley 16:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is the recommended course if the fellow's defenders keep deleting the non-copyrighted 'Controversy'? (With most of that going on by just one or two masquerading as many.) Am I limited to just being able to restore the deleted portions 3 times per 24-hour period or can I respond as often as I need to against the fellow's 'defenders'? Let me know. Thanks. Fungible 17:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats a simple common-or-garden content dispute. Read WP:3RR in the first instance, and continue with WP:DR William M. Connolley 16:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Connolley, I have replaced the Alan Chartock article with a new one, Alan S. Chartock. I hope this meets the approval of the wiki-gods as far as respect for copyrights. Let me know if you still see any actionable items in it. Thanks for your advice and I will keep you on my mailing list if I have any gnawing queries. (By the way, I like that 'common-or-garden' reference. It is an idiomatic phrase one does not often hear on this side of the Atlantic.)   Fungible 00:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers
I don't think I have but I've left a note at the admins noticeboard.Geni 18:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on my investigation, I see no abuse by Geni, but I do see a violation of the three-revert rule by you on Alan S. Chartock, Fungible. As you've been given notice about the rule before, I've blocked you for 24 hours. --Michael Snow 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock 68.110.232.207 at the close of the 24-hour cycle. Thank you. Fungible


 * There is no autoblock outstanding against your name, so there isn't any block to undo. Please only post unblock requests when there is something to unblock, e.g. You've got a block message relating to an autoblock. At the time of you posting your previous block hadn't actually expired. --pgk( talk ) 09:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Democrat Party
It's pretty much consensus that 'Democrat Party is a political epithet, as noted farther down in the Democratic Party article, so much so its garnered it own article. I've reverted this addition once, and so has another editor, to the Democratic Party page.--Primal Chaos (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your post, the term "Democrat Party" has never been an official name, nor has it ever intentionally been used by a legitimate unbiased agency (except in the case of typos). Given it is considered an insult to use the term, it would be the equivalent of saying "Italian Americans, also known as wops". Since it is neither an official name nor a self-identifier in any way, I believe its place further down in the article is appropriate.--Primal Chaos (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Broaddrick and rape accusations
There are policies here regarding what can be put into articles of living persons, and they come down pretty decisively on matters such as inserting rape allegations into a person's article. If the court did not file charges in the matter, then that pretty much ends the matter there. The section in Clinton's article now describes what happened to the extent that is necessary. Anything more really isn't acceptable per wikipedia policy. Tarc (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)