User talk:Jerzy/Richard J. Doscher


 *  (This approach to Wiki-talk (using two templates) is an experiment; i've so far imposed upon a number of colleagues with it, who have responded thru it (even without this 'graph) well enough that i can describe it as "working" (though an otherwise angry one nevertheless described it as "ridiculous"). My hope is that it will slow the growth of my talk page, make my archiving simpler and more timely, and thus make leaving talk for me less burdensome (especially for slow-pipe colleagues) than it has been for too many months. I cordially invite discussion of it (or one-shot comments, from those who prefer).)

''If you add to this discussion, most other participant(s) won't be nearly as quickly aware of that as they would, if you had also edited their respective talk page(s). (A link to the corresponding section of each is at their corresponding "*" below, and your updating the edit count and editing-time-stamp range there also gives that participant further information. But no one other than i has done so yet.) For my own notification, i've started a list that i can check via "Related changes" more often than i am willing to check my Watchlist or "My contributions", tho of course that is still less often than "You have new messages."''


 * 4 msgs,14:45, 27 thru 15:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 14:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC J
 * 02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC) R
 * 04:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC) R
 * 15:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC) J
 * 2 participants: Jerzy·t·c·*; Rdoscherca·t·c·*.
 * general topic(s): His auto-bio art; "vanity"; copyvio issues
 * relevant reference(s): Votes for deletion/Richard J. Doscher; (& peripherally Richard J. Doscher)

...hope we don't lose you ... VfDed Auto-Bio
Please don't overlook my new remarks close to the top of Votes for deletion/Richard J. Doscher. I hope this isn't too late to be saying what i now have. IMO you've got nothing to prove, and IMO we owe you to some extent, rather than the other way around. But i'm not sure your autobio was a bad starting point for your WP affiliation, and it sounds to me as if there may be plenty of intersection between the articles that serve your purposes and ours, so i hope we don't lose you. Thanks for sticking your head up. [smile] --Jerzy·t 14:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU for your kind comments. Rdoscherca 02:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain to me the process relative to the copywrite hold on the page. Thank you. Rdoscherca 04:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The quick, flippant, and sadly accurate answer is "No. No one can really explain anything about WP, because that's like nailing Jello to a wall."
 * A more helpful one is that if you haven't already been to WP:CP, read whatever introductory matter is at the top of that page, and find the entry that refers to the autobio that presumably prompted this request to me by you. I think you'll find an appropriate place to say whatever you think will help.
 * (If i were you, i would probably say
 * I think i've established that i am the sole authority entitled to exercise the rights US law grants to the "author" of the copyright-protected page that is the source. I have knowingly placed it under GDFL, so treating it as a "copyvio" here and on the VfD sub-page is unjustified. How do we get the VfD back on track?
 * I haven't carefully studied our copyvio policy (or if i did, it was around 18 months ago, when i helped two purported authors of external Web pages re James MacArthur), and if you want more info from me, just say so and i will go read WP:CP at least twice (especially for the sake of the parts that may make more sense to me than you), before replying further.
 * --Jerzy·t 15:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * --Jerzy·t 15:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

RickK has written me (at the end of my talk page) apparently hoping i can facilitate getting the VfD process on the bio article abt you back on track. I hope that the removal of the VfD msg you apparently did was due to misunderstanding -- possibly involving his use of an IP address instead of his registerd ID, which IMO is certainly confusing: these can't be removed until the process has run its course, and the red herring about copyvio has interfered with the completion of that one, so
 * 1) it still needs the notice in place, and
 * 2) even before, and still moreso since you've done it at least once, you (as the original and principal author) should not be the one to remove when it is time for that.

Please be patient; the kind of merge proposal that i recall as seeming likely to prevail would keep your name as the title of a page that automatically delivers the page the article gets merged into, so merging will leave yr name among WP page titles and probably the core info -- IMO things are going well for you, but removing the tag at the least could generate needless hostility even if people are cool enuf to judge the article instead of you.

Look, i'd like to have gotten some dialog in with you on this, but i am going to be offline for about 60 hours. "Be cool, like Fonzie", and i'll try to be helpful when i get back on-line.

--Jerzy·t 03:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)