User talk:K8tey

Mwanner wrote: "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Interior design article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. That is why the section that you "fixed" did not read identically to your cut'n'paste version.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)"

You wrote: "It is imperative that the exact wording of the legal definition of Interior Design is used on the Interior Design page. The Interior Design Educator's Council (of which I am a member), The National Council for Interior Design Education, the International Interior Design Association, the American Society for Interior Designers, and the Council for Interior Design Accreditation have all agreed that this is the definition of what constitutes an Interior Designer. Paraphrasing or changing the definition creates problems of misunderstanding an Interior Designer's legal responsibilities and qualifications. As an official legal definition, I cannot imagine that it violates any copyright laws and am certain that misquoting or paraphrasing causes harm to the profession."
 * I have reverted it again to the non-copyright version. You may not be able to imagine that it violates copyright, but until I see something explicitly indicating that it is in the public domain or licenced under GFDL or the equivalent, I will remain convinced that it is a copyright violation.  Please note that text does not have to bear a copyright notice to be copyrighted-- rather copyright happens automatically upon publication.  Thus, for this text not to be a copyright violation, there would have to be an explicit statement  releasing copyright or stating that a free distribution licence applied.  Please do not restore this text without pointing out where copyright is waived.
 * Further, I feel quite certain that Wikipedia has no reason to worry about your legal issue-- it should be possible to satisfy any such concerns by reference to the text on the Association sites. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't *my* legal issue, but a huge concern effecting thousands people who are part of a profession that I don't believe you possess any knowledge about - forgive me if I am mistaken. I am unsure why you use the royal "we" when referring to Wikipedia. Both you and I equally constitute Wikipedia - that's the joy of the format, yes? I am going to contact the NCIDQ for explicit information on public domain for the definition. In the meantime, I will continue to edit the article for incorrect content and add content as needed, as I am an expert in the subject matter. I do appreciate your diligence in trying to make wikipedia an encyclopedic reference, but I wish your tone was more friendly and inclusive. We are both working toward the same goal K8tey 00:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you find my tone unfriendly. I don't quite see where I have used the royal "we".  You're statement that "It is imperative that the exact wording of the legal definition...is used" seems to imply that it is imperative to Wikipedia, and that to fail to do so would violate some law, a notion which I find incomprehensible.  For Wikipedia, it is fundamentally important not to violate the laws of copyright.  It is not at all clear to me in what sense the NCIDQ definition language has a legal status-- perhaps you could clarify the point?  As for inclusiveness, your claim to exclusive expertise seems, to me, more non-inclusive than anything I have said-- or is it that you find any and all disagreement with your position offensive?
 * In any case, yes, we are all working towards the same goal. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, now, the royal "we". That actually isn't my language-- that is a boilerplate template-- nothanks-- I didn't write it.  I'm sorry, but it is ordinarily used as a notice after any cut'n'paste edit. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh! That makes more sense. That's sort of a bad boilerplate then, but not your fault! Don't you think it has a negative tone? I suppose driven by the annoyance of spam and garbage all over wikipedia. :) K8tey 01:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're probably right that it is a bit cranky, and yes, spam and copyvios and vandalism and whatnot do get many of us down over time. Probably we ought to institute mandatory wikibreaks periodically.  And it is true that most copyright violations fall somewhere between stupidity (the user ought to know better) and arrogance ("they'll never catch me!"), whereas your instance was quite intentional and well-intentioned. (more below) -- Mwanner | Talk 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The royal "we" was used in your first message to me, as seen on my talk page. The implication was that you were speaking *for* wikipedia. I wish that you would assume good faith in my editing attempts. I see wikipedia articles requesting expert input all the time, I thought that was valued on Wikipedia! I do not claim expertise in any other subject area, and I don't claim exclusive expertise in any area. I do claim specific (but certainly not exclusive!) expertise in this area. I only pointed this out because I felt that the tone of your initial post was chastizing me as if I had no understanding of the subject matter.

Without that "expertise"/understanding you would not be aware of the legal issues and history surrounding the specific definition of the profession, but I wish you had asked that question upfront instead of assuming bad faith and reverting. The definition is actually a legal definition of an "Interior Designer" in almost all states/provinces and is something that Interior Designers have fought hard for in state and provincial legislations. It just seems wrong that after all the debate between hundreds of professionals, educators, and legislators to reach a CONSENSUS on specific words to define "Interior Designer" that wikipedia should contain a paraphrased version of the wording. I do agree with you that before that wording is placed in the article that explicit understanding of the words belonging to public domain needs to be gained, and I have already stated I will be pursuing this.

I don't know why you would ask if I would find any and all disagreement with my position offensive, as I have already stated that you are correct that an explicit lack of copyright needs to be proven before replacing the definition on wikipedia. As you can see from the history I have been diligent about removing spam links and keeping the article NPOV. The tone of your messages regarding this matter has been very off-putting, as was the lack of presuming good faith, and the remarks made in the edits field on the Interior Design talk page. I also do not like that my assertion that I happen to possess (non-exclusive!) expertise in this particular subject area was pointed to as some sort of incivility on my part. It is simply a fact, and I wish you had offered me the courtesy of explaining the position of many Interior Designers as well as licensing boards and legislators. I have now taken that opportunity, and will continue to edit boldly. K8tey 01:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Peace! I am very sorry if I have given or taken offense!  Yes, expertise is certainly needed.  I will henceforth leave this article in your capable hands.  Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your vigilant editing, and for being patient with me. I also am sorry that I took offense readily and for any offense you felt. Please keep up the excellent work in editing out spam and copyvios, etc. :) Peace to you! K8tey 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)