User talk:Michael Snow/Archive (Jan-Feb 2006)

More Plagiarism News
A while back I received a note through the Help desk mailing list by someone who noticed the interview at  borrows its introduction from  without attribution. I mailed them immediately on December 15th, but have yet to hear back. Ironic really, because Chinese people don't seem to be able to visit Wikipedia anymore. Is it something you can use as a follow up? - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A follow-up...
Remember I asked you some two moths ago about a photograph of Paul Kane? I just thought you might enjoy having a look at the article on him now. :-) Lupo 09:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Vellore Institute of Technology
Hi! Thanks for cleaning up this article. The article has been subject to vandalism. I will try to clean it and further expand it, providing the necessary citations. - Yogi (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Legal concerns - does Polish law affect Wikipedia Polska ?
Hello!

I wonder if you may help us in resolving the following legal problem:

Currently there is a lot of noise around Marijuana article. Some users point that under current Polish law, Wikipedia Polska should not publish articles related to growing marihuana, its use, preparation, and should not provide links which contain such information.

Example article: Cannabis_cultivation

(I plan to make a polish translation of this article)

the law quoted, sorry for very poor fast translation (i can provide more accurate translation if you request) (http://isip.sejm.gov.pl/servlet/Search?todo=open&id=WDU20051791485 )

Kto, wbrew przepisom ustawy, udziela innej osobie środka odurzającego lub substancji psychotropowej, ułatwia albo umożliwia ich użycie albo nakłania do użycia takiego środka lub substancji, podlega karze pozbawienia wolności do lat 3.
 * Art. 58, p. 1

Who, against the law, gives to someone drug or psychotropic substance, makes easier or makes their use possible, or enforces to use such substance, goes under penalty up to 3 years of prison.
 * (free translation)

Kto, wbrew przepisom art. 20 ust. 1, prowadzi reklamę lub promuje substancję psychotropową lub środek odurzający, w celach innych niż medyczne, podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do roku.
 * Art. 68, p. 1:

Who, against art. 20 section 1. , is making a promotion or promotes psychotropic substance or narcotic in other uses as medical, goes under financial penalty or one year of prison.
 * (free translation)

I hope that i'm not spamming your personal place (and ive made a proper request, if not, please redirect me to a proper person/place)

Thanks,

--Devein 19:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(my talk at pl:Dyskusja_Wikipedysty:Devein )

PS original talk at : pl:Dyskusja:Marihuana

PS2 I found the rule: What Wikipedia is not last line says aboud conformance to Florida law.


 * Most language specific Wikipedias attempt to adhere to the laws of the country or countries where they are most likely to be used. This would, for example, make it easier for Polish citizens to make derivative works incorporating Wikipedia content.  However, as a US based operation the Wikimedia Foundation does not require conformance to Polish law.  A potentially important caveat to this is that depending on how the law is written, a Polish citizen could still be violating Polish law by providing such information even if it is published from a foriegn jurisdiction.  PS. IANAL and Michael may be be able to provide a better answer when he gets the chance.  Dragons flight 10:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A big "thank you" for help in clearing this issue out! :) --Devein 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) PS this line discussed should be more properly translated as "who... makes it easier to use or makes its use possible..." (where "it" means the illegal drug). I think you understood my first translation this way, didnt you?

Your vote
I understand fully, and appreciate your honesty in voting. Sorry I haven't checked in that much in the last week...it was a bit hectic around here in the last week. Thanks for covering my back this week on the Signpost. Ral315 (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be a problem at this point. If it is, I'll leave a message here or in the Newsroom, but I doubt that'll happen.  Ral315 (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nitpicking of the masses"
Just a short note, the Nitpicking of the Masses also noted Hwang Woo-Suk's birthdate was different between Wikipedia and EB. This directly led the article to be clarified with a footnote. Could we update Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-09/In the news? You can also note that I was in contact with the author, George Johnson, who said he found it "interesting information indeed. It is fascinating the stories that unfold when one tries to chase down facts" and that his "admiration for the project continues to grow". - Ta bu shi da yu 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI: plagiats
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?750c1b2b-cd3e-4ce3-b244-1e2f3fc08678 -- 21:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions for television shows (again)
I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)&bull; 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Kitty
Thanks for letting me know that the picture on my user page had to be removed. It's not terribly important. I just thought it was cute. :·) -- ¿   WhyBeNormal   ?   05:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats...
Congrats on getting mentioned in. If you're writing articles this week, you might write the followup to it; if you can't, I'll take care of it. Ral315 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

User page image removal
Don't worry about the kitten - someone else had added that after my request to "go ahead and edit this page", so it's not really my concern. :) -- Grunt 23:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Phoenix Labs
Hi there -- User:Sean Black locked the article because you told him legal threats were made off the 'pedia. What was the nature of the legal threat? Was it a letter from a law firm? Sdedeo (tips) 07:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Signpost article on AAP
Thanks for writing that. I've made some small corrections to the article (hope you don't mind), please take a look at it. In particular, some of the new questions were missing from the statistics, one %number was incorrect, I've clarified the bit about the RFC proposal to more accurately match the actual proposal, and I've reworded the initial reaction to the WP:COC, since to my best knowledge there have not (yet) been any comments that it may be undesirable (if there are, please let me know, I'd be happy to discuss it with them). Oh yes and I've added a short warning that the statistics don't fully represent the opinions. Yours, Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance: Please place this notice at the top of the Main Page:
Voting for the new Main Page has begun! There are several candidates to choose from. Voting ends January 28th. To see the candidates, CLICK HERE If you think the voting time should be extended another week, feel free to change the ending date to February 4th.

Thank you. --Go for it! 00:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1984 (opera)
I tried a new approach, and added a spoiler warning. Please see if you can agree with this. Oliphaunt 11:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Check your e-mail
You received an e-mail via the Wikipedia Signpost's e-mail address, which I forwarded to your e-mail account. Ral315 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it's not surprising that we're getting more into things like that, being as high-ranked a website as we are. In fact, I'm a bit shocked that it happens as little as it does- Seigenthaler really was a wake-up call for us.  Thanks for your comments on the Signpost as well.  Ral315 (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Abusive Admin, POV Pusher/ Abuse of Priv
Michael, An abusive admin has blocked my pal on IP address 24.147.103.146. The admin is named Gamaliel. This admin has been reported in the past by 24.147.103.146 for copyright violation and made to revert. He must be holding a grudge. It may also be due to his POV on the Kennedys and his past invlovement in edit wars. The reason given for the block was an old RFC on Ted Kennedy. My pal added appropiate links to other Kennedy pages not mentioned in the RFC. The admin is pro Kennnedy so he blocked my pal. In any case, this is an abuse of his priv and I ask your help in bringing this to light. Thank you193.120.103.205 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Congress affair
Hi Michael, could you please check your email? Or contact me on my talk page if you can't access it now. --Elian Talk 14:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) I fixed the address and removed the footer since the intention is to have this as an information page on Wikipedia (like the german press FAQs for certain topics on de:Wikipedia:Press). Could you also add the information about the blocks, since this is in most headlines as well (even in germany already)? Media reports indicate that staffers - weren't these edits discovered by wikipedians themselves and not by the media? --Elian Talk 18:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * a pity that wikipedia didn't discover it itself. Otherwise the page is fine with me. If you like, we can also send it out as a press release in addition to having it on the wiki but in my opinion this will create only more of a stir than less. --Elian Talk 18:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Special Seris/Edition?
I want to know if starting next issue, I can create a seris about how Wikipedia got to where it is today, and about the 1,000,000 article milestone. Thanks! Wiki e Zach 20:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User:143.231.249.141
This user has continued to vandalize. If it is a multi-person IP Address as you claim, then it would be a good idea for the people who use this IP address to figure out the vandal and stop him. Until then, this IP address should be blocked. He just vandalized the Polk page and revandalized it after reverts and although I believe Polk to be the greatest president, it still is vandalism. He has been banned numerous times before. Bsd987 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Signpost
Thanks for publishing...I've felt sick lately, and kept falling asleep yesterday and today. Ral315 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi Michael, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. I am sorry that you did not understand the explanation on Curps' talk page - my lack in realising what the whole thing was linked to was an oversight that I very much regret making. All the best, Proto t c 10:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Dragons flight 08:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Abrams
Thank you for cleaning up here. --DanielCD 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have appreciated some comment, though, about it, especially since you removed the protect I put on it. I would assume protocol would have one administrator request that the other remove his protect himself. Forgive me if I assume wrong. It is difficult to learn, though, without feedback, and I hope you can provide a tad here. Thank you. --DanielCD 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that comment. I knew it was fishy and I was missing something, but I did it anyway, for better or worse. I'm not sure why I made that assumption, but I think your comments have set any misgiving I had straight. I appreciate your taking the time to respond. My kind regards. --DanielCD 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion of the stats page
Care to offer any examples of "places you can get data comparing Wikipedia against the rest of the internet"? If you know of them, why haven't you linked them from the page? I'm inclined to doubt that any good ones exist.62.31.55.223 17:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Break
Thanks for the compliments! Good job to you as well, and thanks for your efforts in creating, writing, editing, etc. for the Signpost. My schedule on weekends was getting tighter, so I just felt like a few weeks off from writing for the Signpost would be beneficial. I'll be back soon, though. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

About the warning
I knwo the disiples of Acharya compaliend, butthey are want to. If you check the acharya S article, you will see they use any mechenation to eliminate those who disagree with them. As for me, I didnt insenuate anything. I wrote an article ont he subject of the wikipedia article, and know her hisotyr as part of my former invesitgation. I didnt stalk eher. I didnt get informaiton from her ex lovdr. I didnt bother to contact anyone wiht a grudge on her. I used standard press tactics to garnr basic public informaiton.

Now, they compalin, of ocurse, btut hen, they compalin about nayone who "Opposes" dorothy Murdock, AKA Acharya S. Pleas eod nto thraten to ban me, because if you do, it will encoruage them to dig up dirt on other editors till they have silenced htem all, so that they can effectilvey clisam full contorle ocver the acharya S artilce.

Yes, I knwo I make them sound petty, and if you look at the tlak page, you will see that they are.

All I threatened to do was post my former investigative mateirals, or else my own article on her, onto the web.Thats harldy criminal behavior and its nto veild. Ive said as much int he tlak page.

ZAROVE 17:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DMCA
Hi, I work at WP:MF, where we work to find non-compliant mirrors of Wikipedia (and other projects) to improve their compliance. Unfortunately, many (if not most) of these mirrors are non-compliant and the owners/administrators either refuse or do not respond to our request for better compliance. In these cases, we have to contact the ISP or host to stop the mirror's service.

This is where we would like your help. Most ISPs, if not all, take advantage of the DMCA safe harbor provisions and will not accept any claim of copyright violation that is not in the form of a DMCA takedown notice. We have contacted Jimbo Wales and several other people (sj has also posted to juriwiki, yielding nothing), but nobody has agreed to help us. The current maintainers of the page are minors or otherwise uncomfortable with filing a DMCA takedown (which requires revealing your full identity and contact info). Given that you are an (adult) lawyer who has revealed their identity on-wiki, we request your help in sending DMCA takedowns. Though you probably know this:

A standard DMCA requires the following.
 * 1) an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the trademark or other intellectual property interest;
 * 2) a description of the copyright that you claim has been infringed;
 * 3) a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the site;
 * 4) your address, telephone number, and email address;
 * 5) a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law;
 * 6) a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the trademark or intellectual property owner or authorized to act on the trademark or intellectual property owner's behalf.

We have a standard notice in progress, which you should feel free to edit. If you are able to help, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks. Thank you. -- WB 02:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (edited by Superm401 - Talk 05:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Vandalism
Please check the recent history for. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The 50 Worst Movies Ever Made
Hi Michael. Fellow editors have already told me that this article was considered a copyvio. If this is the case, then I agree with its deletion. I would still be interested in seeing the relevant discussion, which I've failed to locate. Would you mind pointing me in its direction? Thanks. The JPS 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained "Page to be deleted" link deletions
You are removing a lot of links to Rolling Stone's List of the 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time, claiming in the edit summary that the page is to be deleted, while there is no AfD or any evidence it will be deleted. Please stop. Hu 13:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noticed this too; what's going on? Even if there were an AfD, the time to delete links is when the decision has been made to delete the article, not before. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was listed as a Copyvio on the 4th. Some anon removed the tag yesterday.  I have just put it back.  Dragons flight 14:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely the proper order for this would be to get the page deleted first and then delete the links. It would save a lot of bother for everybody to do it in that order. Who knows if the page will actually be deleted. If it is a slam-dunk, then it should be deleted already. But it isn't. If you can't speedy delete the page, then don't speedy delete the links. Hu 19:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, it is not a speedy deletion, so don't speedy delete the links; there is a more thoughtful way (read on). If there were zero doubt, then it would be posted, but since this has apparently been going on for weeks, then it is not decided that the page will be deleted, or it would have been deleted long ago.  Once the decision has been made, i.e. some number of minutes before the page is deleted, and after a notice is posted on the talk page explaining, then by all means use the page to find the links, as you say, but do it properly, not like it has been done.  A very important thing is that non-copyrighted information would be erased from Wikipedia by doing this improperly the way it is being done.  If it were done properly, then you would make a note on each guitarists page about the ranking in the list.  Each individual ranking is not copyrighted, though the list may be.  Furthermore, whether or not the list should be deleted, the page should NOT be deleted because there is non-copyrighted discussion of the list and the controversies surrounding it.  Hu 19:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was thinking of the Rolling Stone 500 greatest album page that has a lot of discussion, but the principle is the same. Hu 19:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem might stem from that illegitimate removal of the copyvio notice, thus excluding interested editors from the discussion. Not everyone visits Copyright problems! The first I knew about the deletion of the movies lists was when I saw that an article had turned red whilst I was editing my watchlist. The JPS 20:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a little uncertain about this. When you say that it has been decided, you seem to mean that you're certain that it will be decided. You may well be right that it will be, but it's still not the same thing. And it's actually just as easy to find the links after article deletion (I've just done it on the red link above, to make sure). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, OK; I'm still a little uneasy (especially given your original explanation: "But the typical order is to remove the links first, then delete the page, because it's easier to find the links while the page still exists."), but let it pass. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

A copyright problem
Greetings. Over at Copyright problems/Other, there is an issue about the list Districts of Ghana. I was wondering if you could weigh in. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time
While the list itself may be eventually deleted on copyright grounds, there is plenty of original material in the article on the list that will remain once the list itself is removed. Thus there is no reason for you to delete links to this article. Gamaliel 05:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost/2006-02-20/Wikimedia UK
Hi. As there's your byline on it I didn't change the text but I've put a note on the talkpage about your article about us. Thanks ;-) --AlisonW 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Intel Excellence Award
Hi, you removed Intel Excellence Award from Sarah Flannery, because it was a dead link. I have found Intel International Science and Engineering Fair and I put it under the old "see also". Timothy Clemans 00:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Intel International Science and Engineering Fair
 * Esat Young Scientist Exhibition
 * RSA
 * Linear algebra
 * Cayley-Purser algorithm

Larry Sanger/Origins
Thank you for keeping this - that was embarrasing. Trödel&#149; talk 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

MfD debate
The debate on Sanger's page was not all keep. It had two deletes.

I suggest you reopen the debate until the closing time. SushiGeek 03:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Lists
Thanks again for dealing with the lists, we'll see how things go with the new pages describing those lists.

If you are looking for something else to deal with, there is always Wikipedia's index to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography. That one has got a bit more motivation behind it than the lists you just dealt with, but still strikes me as quite analogous to the Encyclopedia Brittannica and Encarta lists that Jimbo had speedied. Dragons flight 18:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Comms
cf. this fledgling translation guide. Not comm-specific; but perhaps we could use something like this and a writing style guide for communication (otrs, pr, &c). There are some simple aspects of the Wikipedia style guide which should be clarified elsewhere [the general article, or not the? to Inc. or not to Inc.?], too. Cheers, +sj + 01:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

again a list deleted : vanity fair’s 50 greatest films of all time
i saw you deleted the above mentioned list (+ a lot of others!) on feb. 16: even if in the comments there was Girolamo Savonarola's and mine: the arguments for me: so i do not see any copyvio problem, as for the majority of the ones you deleted, and i think this is an exagerated interpretation of it kernitou talk 09:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Vanity+Fair%E2%80%99s+50+greatest+films+of+all+time
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_February_7&oldid=38891442
 * i do not think there was any copyvio
 * the vanity article was like 9 pages long and i took from it only the list (which means like 1/2 page!), i did not take any comment from the article
 * the vanity article (dated sept. 2005) will never be published again
 * the goal of vanity fair publishing such an article is: people and medias have to talk about us! "we want the list published, we want it as a reference"