User talk:Wikidemon/Archive 2

Your AfD comment
Query for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered. Thanks.  Wikidemo 00:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Fildelfair issues
I already blocked him. That was strange. I don't think any of us are averse to discussing these issues, so there was really no need for that complete meltdown! -- But | seriously | folks   02:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rebellious spirit, I think.  Wikidemo 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Smiles for you!
 Hello Wikidemon, MissMJ 03:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Welcome to the League of Copyeditors
I'm very sorry I haven't had a chance to welcome you earlier, I have been incredibly busy lately. We are glad to have your help. Currently, we have really cut down the backlog of articles in need of copyedit. Therefore, a major goal at this moment is to identify new articles that are in need of work. When you run across them, be sure to tag them for copyediting.

If you have any questions at all, do not hesitate to drop me a line. Trusilver 06:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Listing?
Wikidemo: Have you listed yourself in the wrong spot here? Are you an administrator? Members: Administrative members. There is another list of non-admistrative members. I just happened to notice this when I followed a link on your talk page yesterday and I thought I should bring it to your attention. --NYScholar 23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thanks for the heads up.  I migrated my listing to where it should be.  So far nobody has asked me for any administrative intervention....Wikidemo 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to offend you by asking! Thanks for pleasant reply. Same caveat re: a question about your adding Maya Angelou recently to your own user page list of "Significant contributions": Wouldn't you want to list her in your "music, art, literature" column? (sorry--you popped up on my watch list bec. I had come here to post the earlier comment, and I just noticed that before logging out after coming on to do something else to another literary topic.)  --NYScholar 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quite the editor....yes, she was in the wrong column. Thanks, I moved her over.  Wikidemo 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI/N - Wikia
Thank you for your comments on the Wikia discussion at WP:COI/N. It would appear that many of the "sensitive" things you warned about are actually taking place under the direction of Wales and Beesley. --Dude Manchap 16:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To be clear I'm not personally taking a position that there's an actual problem, just pointing out that there's an area where people need to be careful.  Even if there is a conflict, I have other fish to fry than thinking about accusations of conflicts of interest among Wikimedia board members.  That kind of governance issue is not my reason for being here.  I'd rather write articles and discuss policies.Wikidemo 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood, and as it should be. I just don't understand why Angela Beesley needs to stay involved with Wikimedia Communications and Advisory Committees, and why Davis needs to be Wikimedia's Treasurer.  Can't they find other people for these posts?  Wikia should keep them busy enough.  Also, it would perhaps not shock you to learn that Beesley has used the WikiEN-l mailing list to announce publicly an effort of hers to co-opt rejected Wikipedia articles into the Wikia fold.  This would be exactly the type of conflict that you would recommend we be on the lookout. --Dude Manchap 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for undeletion - San Jose Lasers
Hi, would you kindly consider undeleting San Jose Lasers, which you deleted in September, 2005, or sending me a copy of the content? I had nothing to do with the original article so I don't know it's shortcomings but this is one of the American Basketball League (1996-1998) teams. Of those teams the majority do have their own Wikipedia article and this is the only one to have been deleted. The Lasers seem to be among the better known teams in the league and despite going defunct with the rest of the league in 1998 have more than 3000 google hits and 1,000+ news hits. I know these counts don't prove notability but I'm pretty sure that with a little digging I can find some reliable sources to show the team is notable, particularly in a time when there is increasing interest in women's sports, particularly women's pro basketball. As I said I have no idea what's in the now-deleted article but it would sure help to see the contents instead of trying again from scratch. Thanks, Wikidemo 18:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, knowing the contents of the deleted article will not help you; its exact contents were "San Jose Lakers" (without the quotes). In case you are interested, the deletion reason was CSD A3 ("no content whatsoever"). --cesarb 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks for checking for me.  Wikidemo 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question about sounds of nature
Greetings. I asked a copyright question here. Since you know a good bit about copyright law, I thought I'd specifically solicit your opinion there. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ted Frank
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ted Frank, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ted Frank seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ted Frank, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed images posted by us PersonalityPhotos
We have added the following to our wikipedia directory as per suggestions from a number of other users.

http://www.personalityphotos.com/wikipedia/license.html

we still need to resolve how this will be tagged to images in dispute and who would do that. Obvioulsy because of a conflict of interest we cannot do so.

I apologize in the dleay of the reply, but we were involved in a number of other projects which consumed our time.

PersonalityPhotos 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting and sincere effort at a license to Wikipedia that might satisfy Wikipedia's need for free content. Normally Wikipedia wouldn't want any license other than an absolute one by GDFL.  Here, the few reservations are not restrictions on use but an attempt to protect the licensor.  I have to think about it more, and I'm not the one to decide, but very considerate and thoughtful.  Thanks.  Wikidemo 06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent article creation
You forgot and categories. Please keep a strong BLP watch over it, as it will surely attract trolls. THF 20:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * thx. It's a worthy addition to Wikipedia (IMO), and an experiment [exercise] in maintaining neutrality.  Wikidemo 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some useful wikilinks:


 * Overlawyered
 * alt.folklore.urban
 * Troll (AFU), I think, works better than leaving "troll" unwikilinked, as it provides the proper context.
 * conspiracist

There are two places in the article where there are ellipses used to quote outside sources, and, for the life of me, I don't understand why the text that was removed was removed, but who am I to suggest edits? THF 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Project templates belong on Talk pages, not in articles
Regarding this edit, please note that Wikiproject templates belong on Talk pages, not in the articles themselves. In the case of that article, the SFBA Project template had been on the article's talk page for a number of months already. If you have done this in other articles, please go back and either move them to the corresponding Talk pages, or remove them if the Talk pages already have the project template. Thanks, MCB 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. No, I put project tags on talk pages, not main space....I've added several hundred so I was probably in drone mode being sloppy.  Thanks for catching that.  Wikidemo 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability
In this post Diff at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability you made the comment - ''and probably 75% of the facts that ought to be cited are uncited. Fixing them all would be a task equally as great as creating the encyclopedia in the first place''. Let me say, we are working on it. Come to Unreferenced articles take a look and maybe add a couple references. Jeepday (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

IvyGate
It seems you are now the hero of IvyGate!! Thanks for the work on restoring and patching up the article ;-) -DMCer 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No prob. Happy to correct (most) any injustice! Wikidemo 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project Newsletter
Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

The next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Kat Walsh's clarification
Can you point me to where the original clarification by Kat Walsh concerning individual images each having specific "fair-use rationales" is located? Thank you, Wikidemo. ... Kenosis 03:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be so slow on the draw. The link is now on the WP:NONFREE talk page.  Wikidemo 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL -- especially given the amount of time the whole process takes! It took you all of 54 minutes to respond! Wikidemo, thanks for the info. ... Kenosis 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter
WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007

--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your WP:RFPP Request for Ratatouille (film)
I moved your request to the correct section (WP:RFPP); you had accidentally placed it in the already-actioned section. For future reference, requests for page protection are placed at the top of the "Current requests for protection" section. Regards, - Jéské  ( v^_^v Kacheek! ) 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks so much for helping a protection request newbie.  It was my first request!Wikidemo 05:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert of copy/paste move at Iso
Hello. For more information on how pages should be moved, please refer to Help:Moving a page. Ewlyahoocom 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus
Your recent comment summarized my concerns perfectly. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on ANI
You said, "The very need for written use rationales, and the form in which they appear, has been seriously questioned,...". I made a strong attempt to resolve this issue on WT:NONFREE, in a thread you participated in. I saw no clear resolution at all from that thread; the CSD criteria still require written rationales. The lack of resolution isn't your fault, and I agree with the sentiment that certain uses may be amenable to canned rationales. But until the CSD criteria are changed, if they ever are, I find it hard to fault editors for following them when deleting images. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not faulting anyone, just cautioning not to be too zealous in enforcing a controversial and possibly unnecesary policy. I think we have an undeclared truce right now.  If widespread tagging and deletion of legacy images begin again that will force the issue and we'll probably have a lot of bad blood.  Wikidemo 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I was planning to return to those deletion categories soon. I took a break from deletion to attempt to resolve the policy, but I believe I have failed at my attempt to do that. It seems to me that the users who favor that written rationales not be required in all cases (and I am not trying to include you in that group, as I don't know your position) stand to lose the most from a lack of progress on the policy talk page. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I favor that something be included on each image page for each use, and I'm not sure what that something should be. It depends on the situation I guess.  But until we figure it out I don't think anybody should be adding images without rationales, nor should people be deleting old whose rationales are missing or don't fit today's requirements.  The go slow, constructive approach is to first decide what we want, second decide on an orderly way to get there, and only then, figure out and implement the means.  Wikidemo 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments over at WP:V

 * If person A says X about person B, you cannot use person A's statement to source the proposition that there is a controversy between person A and person B. You need a secondary source to cover the matter.

I found this interesting, is this your interpretation or does this have some precedent with an arbitration case or some policy or guideline? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny you should ask. This very question, in broader form, seems to be the subject of an edit war on the WP:OR policy page.  Nevertheless, I think my comment stands to reason.  A page on which A says X is a "primary source" with respect to the fact that A actually said X.  If you want to know whether or not A said B you have to go to the place where it supposedly happened, and decide for yourself... like if an archeology dig inside an old town.  Did they store wheat in the town?  We don't know so we'll go dig and find out for ourselves!  The material on the page could be a primary source if A is just transcribing what he saw, or is some scholarly or historical figure....if A is an ancient bard who wrote a poem saying B (Oh, lo, in the town of C there is grain), then it is a primary source for reporting that there was grain in the town.  Or else it could be a secondary source (a newspaper account, book, treatise, guide, etc).  Or a tertiary source (an encyclopedia).  We try to avoid primary sources because they don't have editorial control, consistency, fact checking, etc., or they are subject to interpretation, or specialized knowledge is needed to interpret them.  We avoid tertiary sources, I think because of the "telephone game" problem.  If we simply quote another encyclopedia that in turn summarizes information available in published resources, we inherit all of the shortcomings of the encyclopedia we quote.
 * Quoting a source's disputable statement to stand for the proposition that there is a controversy raises WP:SYNTH problems as well. Simply quoting two sources and saying they disagree is already a bit of an issue, because whether or not they disagree requires further analytic reasoning, and Wikipedia is supposed to quote other people's reasoning, not engage in reasoning of its own.  But even if you know that two sources disagree, to imply that there is an active controversy requires introducing some other facts, like that there is an active dispute, the two sides know about each other, etc.  If a politician says in a speech that town B has no grain silo, and an ancient bard wrote a poem indicating otherwise, you can see that it is a stretch for a Wikipedia editor to take these two disparate sources to show that there is a controversy on the subject.  On the other hand, if a reputable paper reports that the politican has been fighting with academics on the issue, that is a secondary source saying there is a controversy.  I hope that's not too convoluted.  Wikidemo 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats an interesting take on WP:OR, and one that makes alot of sense. It seems to me that Wikipedia is too full of he said she said sections and material in articles, it would be nice if there existed a policy that could deal with that. Has anyone ever thought of protecting policy related articles once they are agreed upon by the community? It would make sense to do so, so as to avoid edit warring. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PubMed
You seem to have accidentally made a immense deletion of links and references at PubMed in the course of fixing an internal link--I've restored it. DGG (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not sure what happened.  It's as if whatever I was saving cut off halfway through the article.  Good thing you caught that.  Wikidemo 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminisce (artist) – notability?
I noticed that you just created an article on graffiti artist Reminice/Ruby Neri. I'm not entirely sure she has the notability to merit an article. I did mention her in articles I wrote on the Mission School and on her father Manuel Neri, because she was definitely worth mentioning in that context. I was reluctant, however, to create a separate article about her because I had doubts about her overall notability.

Whether she's somebody who's artistic career is notable in her own right, I'm not so sure. As a gallery artist, she's definitely no more notable than many hundreds of other artists exhibiting around Los Angeles galleries. On the other hand, 10-15 years ago, she was considered one of the top graffiti artists in San Francisco when she was active there in the early 1990s, and did play a role in genesis of the so-called "Mission School" (though she was long gone from the San Francisco art scene by the time the "Mission School" was named and described).

Anyway, I just wanted to get your opinion on this, because I'm going back and forth on AfDing the article. Peter G Werner 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think she is notable for her participation in the Mission School as "one of the top graffiti artists in San Francsico." There was a substantial, notable movement afoot, and she was one of its most important practitioners.  I would compare that to, say, the San Francisco Renaissance, where every poet who was widely published or listened to, or figured into the movement, is considered notable for their own article...several dozen.  Unfortunately, Neri has not achieved the same recognition for her studio work that she did for her street art.  That apparent downturn (popularity-wise, at least) in her career does not make her less notable than before, it just means she did not get any more notable.  Case in point, Las Ketchup sold 12 million copies of their first album, so I guess that makes them notable.  Their second album, four years later, sold 10,000 units.  Does that erase their notability?  No, not really.
 * At bottom, notability goes to the question, is this something people should know about? Is this something that people want to know about?  Does it add to the encyclopedic scope of Wikipedia.  I think the answer is an emphatic yes.  She is widely famous around here; most anyone who lived in town and anyone in the Mission during the period knows who she is, by her works at least.  Fairly often I hear people talking about the horses that used to be all over town.  She is not an island; what she did is thoroughly integrated into the culture and history of the city, and the evolution of art.  It expands people's understanding of that art.  Although it is a form of "low art", which is often derided, removing it would eliminate something that I think a lot of people would want to know about in a valid, encyclopedic way.
 * AFD would be a real problem and points out the limitations of the notability rules. Some professions don't get press as much as other professions.  Whereas pop musicians, celebrutants, performance artists, etc., get all the press, graffiti artists are by nature secretive, elusive, anonymous.  So we don't get the biographical profiles in major newspapers.  To a large extent we know them by their tags, street names, etc.  That's what I was getting at when I named the article Reminisce instead of Ruby Neri.  It would be nice to find more biographical info or criticism, and if you have some links they would be great.  Alas, the bio stuff is all from her recent gallery showings and doesn't even mention what she's really famous for.  Wikidemo 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You make a good case about this, and I won't AfD the article. As I said, I was reluctant to create such an article when I wrote the Mission School and Manuel Neri articles, because I wasn't sure if she met the notability criteria and also conflict of interest issues (she's somebody who I used to know a long time ago).


 * I'll add some stuff from the books Graffiti Women and Graffito to the article so that there's a little more in the way of concrete references about her.


 * BTW, in terms of "Mission School" artists, there's a real need for an article on Chris Johanson, who's probably among the three best-known exponents of that school. Also, the article on Barry McGee is in serious need of cleanup. All of these are on my "to do" list, but if you're interested in the subject, have at it. Peter G Werner 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work updating the Reminisce article. It looks really good now.  All new articles should be that good.  I just did the stubbiest of stubs for Chris Johanson.  I'll see if I can come back to it, and hopefully it will encourage others to help out.  Wikidemo 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks – I'll try and do some expansion on the Chris Johanson article some time in the next week. There's an entire half-hour documentary on him up on the KQED website, so there should be a lot that could be added based on that. Peter G Werner 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about NFC material on the wiki
The number 170,000 has been batted about, and I just spent a good deal of time trying to locate a visible class of images representing anywhere near this number. This all is just terribly organized at present. How many NFC files are there all told, or where can I determine how many such files there are, independently of what we're being told on talk pages? How many NFC files are presently untagged, or where can I determine how many such files there are at present? Of the NFC files, where are the counts of files without explicit fair-use rationales, and the files without any boilerplate rationales such as those that are just generically tagged as "copyright-fair use". This is a complete mess at the moment, with a lot of discussion about "our NFCC" and little discussion of how its to be sensibly organized so people know what they're actually referring to, IMO. Thanks, by the way, for all your attention to these issues in the past two months. ... Kenosis 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * currently there are ~325,000 NFC images, +- 5,000. the most up-to date counts can be found at the bottom line of this. for a complete listing of all NFC images please see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand and the links labeled FU image list followed by a number. each file there contains 5k images. βcommand 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo adaptec.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo adaptec.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal status of copyrights in the US after 1922
I just noticed your edits to WP:NFC. A couple of observations that are, IMO, among the more important issues. "A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%. See Barbara Ringer, "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright" (1960) ... A good guide to investigating the copyright and renewal status of published work is Samuel Demas and Jennie L. Brogdon, "Determining Copyright Status for Preservation and Access: Defining Reasonable Effort," Library Resources and Technical Services 41:4 (October, 1997): 323-334." Peter Hirtle's chart, footnote 7. Of the total US material published between 1923 and 1963, the percentage of renewed copyrights is far lower (because most publised material was never registered to begin with), perhaps only 1%, though no one has the figures at hand yet. Also, anything published between 1963 and 1978 that did not have an explicit claim of copyright appended to the work (e.g. "© 1975 Jimmy Photographer" or "Copyright 1982 by Danny the Drawing Artist"), is in the public domain. In addition, anything published in the US from 1978 up to March 1, 1989 that did not have an explicit claim of copyright appended to the work, and which was not registered in the US Copyright office within five years of its publication is in the public domain. In other words, only a tiny minority of the total material published in the US between 1923 and 1963 retains any copyrights today. And, some of the material published between 1963 and February 28, 1989 was never under copyright. If the work was published overseas, though, most material from 1923 to 1937 in a European Union nation has a potential copyright claimant, except where the author was never disclosed, as is often the case with published photographs. Anything published after 1937 in EU nations should be considered to be under copyright protection. Worldwide, anything that is still under copyright in its home country is, through the URAA, under copyright in the US. ... Kenosis 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, some additional specifics about the 1978-1989 images:
 * According to 17 U.S.C. §405. If a work was published without notice between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 (the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act), then the copyright is invalid, unless:
 * (1) the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or
 * (2) registration for the work was made before, or within five years after the publication without notice, and a reasonable effort was made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered; or
 * (3) the notice was omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner's authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the prescribed notice.

... Kenosis 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm wondering if we should give any guidance to people on the policy page, or simply state that there are a number of different categories and simply point people in the right direction (I linked to the Cornell law compendium of these rules).  There's now way we can give people a succinct list of what is copyrighted and what is not in a brief legal background, only hint at some of the issues.  It's most common to just mention the 1923 date but that is such a simplification I'm concerned that people may get the wrong idea.  Wikidemo 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I recognize it will take time. For now, I made a couple adjustments to the edits you just posted on the NFC project page. In due course, I imagine it will get sorted out much better. At the present, I'm more concerned about the lack of coordination among templates and such. Far more importantly than hand-typed rationales or even rational templates such as the "Fair-use rationale" that some are using lately, is to get the templates catalogued so that a bot can in turn catalog the images on which each of the templates is placed. This has to do with the "machine readable" requirement of the Board's resolution. IMO, all this arguing about particular images in particular articles is taking away from getting that task accomplished. ... Kenosis 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I read your changes after my last message above and they look very good and helpful.  I think that by simply having the copyright tags we may satisfy the letter of the Board's requirement that the copyright status be machine readable....but if the information is low quality, what's the point?  It would be very useful if the use rationale/use templates are machine readable too, not just the copyright tags.  Alas, because any copyright tag now in existence probably has many thousands of transclusions, so reworking them involves deprecating the old one in favor of a new one...unless and until someone wants to go through and fix each image where it appears and fix it.  When the subject comes up I think it's important to note that each image could have two or more separate copyrights with separate copyright and source information, e.g. photograph is GDFL and comes from xxxxx / sculpture appearing in photograph is modern artwork reproduced under claim of fair use and comes from yyyy museum of art.  Wikidemo 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, as we've seen, a great deal of this information is low quality no matter how it's approached. Not only that, as I said, the template situation is a mess at the moment too. If there's virtually no backlog of untagged images, then the next sensible step would appear to be to catalog the templates so we'all can keep track of what templates are being used in how many images and what kinds of images. Without that information in a place that can be readily examined, we're spinning our wheels on a lot of this. ... Kenosis 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Betacommand might be the one to ask. The 170,000 figure for images without use rationales comes from him, and I know he's broken figures down before by what copyright tag was used, and was developing some capability for filtering according to whether images were used in articles within the scope of a given wikiproject (by looking for that project's templates on the article's talk page).  So he may have the means and interest to gather that information. I suspect he and some of the other editors interested in image policy are looking for something good to do that actually gets them praise from the general public and not just a bunch of flak.  Images could be tagged with templates or categories, not for purpose of deletion per se but for purposes of organization and analysis.  One thing I may propose is that the deficient legacy images get tagged all at once with a firm but realistic deadline for organized mop-up efforts instead of a rolling 7 day deletion process.  We know we're going to have to fix or delete +/- 170,000 legacly non-free images, so why not look at the other +/- 170,000 while we're at it?  I'm not sure what we can do to verify that the images tagged as free are truly not copyrighted.  This could all fit into a large-scale cleanup effort.  Wikidemo 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll call this exchange to Betacommand's attention then. As to the notion that it's necessary to fix or delete about 170,000 images, I thought we just went over this. An explicit hand-typed rationale (the rationale for the rationale) is not required under the Board resolution, as recently clarified by Kat Walsh. In automated terms, the rationale is the template, each of which makes a statement about what class of justification is asserted for the use of the image. Seems to me, first we all need access to that information, and then it's more feasible to determine if any classes (templates) are completely wrong, what classes are partially correct partially in need of correction, what classes appear to be correct except for some images where it's wrongly applied, etc., etc. ... Kenosis 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The foundation resolution doesn't require explicit written rationales, but WP:NFCC does require them, and images here have to be complaint with our local policies. Betacommand, several other editors, and I have all stated we support the use templated rationales for certain uses, but the policy has yet to change. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we, or do we not deserve to have this information readily in hand? As to the NFCC, it's now clear that there was some leaping-before-looking going on when they were brought into their present form a number of months ago. It was just made clear by Kat Walsh that NFC files do not require an explicit custom-written rationale for each and every image use, as presently written under #10(c). (See, e.g., .) This is a major part of what is holding up the works right now. Let's get this into some knowledgeable perspective first by having the information about those claimed 170,000 images in front of us please. ... Kenosis 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, for sure images have to comply with policy. No dispute there.  I'm just saying that our enforcement program should be geared to fixing all these old images rather than deleting them.  Now that we know the Foundation hasn't imposed a deadline on us, we have the time to plan out and execute a more thorough approach.  That discussion will likely involve discussing possible changes to NFCC, FURG, and CSD, designing new use rationales and copyright tags, and setting up a system for approving new categories of rationales, all to best serve Wikipedia's goals and those of the Foundation. A few people have said that rationales should not be required at all in obvious cases, but not me.  I say we should hold off on deleting the old images with obvious but unwritten rationales and try in an organized way to go back and clean them up before deleting them.  The final date for having all the images either fixed or deleted may well be the same as planned, March of next year.  Only we can make all sides of this more systematic, tagging, adding rationales where we can, and deleting Wikidemo 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Adder Technology
Next time please go to deletion review - your repost of the cached version violates GFDL. I have re-added the AfD notice, since you reversed the AfD close. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How would it violate GDFL? I don't think so, and it's not worth the time to go through that much procedure on an improper speedy. Wikidemo 06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Message about mass deletion nominations posted at AN/I
Hi,

I see you've commented on top of the Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans deletion discussion about the overall issue of these mass deletion nominations. Obviously that isn't a great place for us to discuss this. Having all of these come up at once is problematic, I think, so I left a message at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of [Ethnic Group X] Americans". You may want to follow that or comment there. Noroton 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I left a comment there, all about the process.  I don't have an opinion on whether these should all be deleted, just that dozens of individual nominations is unworkable.  Wikidemo 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL
Hi Wikidemo—Thanks for your input into this 19th-century discussion that we're having in the 21 century. Many people find it unbelievable that this imbroglio is occurring, and that two or three antagonists can hold us all to ransom with their loud shouting. Now I see that PMAnderson has slapped his usual dispute tag on it (he appears to thrive on disputation). I do hope that people will band together to ensure that this tactic does not remain a fixture on the policy page for long. It appears to be an unreasonable, almost petulant refusal to acknowledge the weight of opinion for some kind of GNL. I'm also tiring of this endles bellowing about the supposed use of this oh-so-weak GNL addition as some kind of weapon by FA reviewers. It's a diversionary tactic, pure and simple, to muddy the waters and claim lack of consensus. I do hope we all stand fast against it. Tony 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever thought about standing for adminship?
I mean, if you don't feel you work hard enough around here, I think you'd be an excellent candidate. I'd nominate you if you're interested. Cheers, Wily D 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but for now I need a little more experience. I'm still not familiar with all the policies.  Also, I've been in some edit wars and a few incivility accusations with some administrators and other editors.  I'd want to shoot for a 2-3 month period of no edit wars and no incivilities before I'm ready for admin.  But maybe then.  Wikidemo 21:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hey, I was very worried about a lot of the same stuff when I stood for adminship and my fears weren't really realised. You're probably more popular and trusted than you believe.  Cheers, Wily D  21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of patent trolls
List of patent trolls, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of patent trolls satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of patent trolls and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of List of patent trolls during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Legacy images
I saw your comment on WT:NONFREE that you are planning to propose something for legacy images. How close are you to making that proposal? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BC's partly finished breakdown of current NFC template usage
BC has put together a partial breakdown off current NFC using existing templates, including most of the widely used NFC licensing templates at []. ... Kenosis 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mzoli's, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. CobaltBlueTony 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasoning regarding why this article receives such negative attention. I went after it bcause the sourcing is wretched.  Find better sourcing.  Why isn't there an article about it in the Afrikaner edition?  That's also suspicious.  We can't make it famous just because famous people go there.  Otherwise the corner of Sansom St. and 7th St. in Philadelphia should be famous because lots of colonials peed all over the steps there.  More attention, better preparation, should be seen especially from an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself.  Write for the enemy! - CobaltBlueTony 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * International radio program + local paper + multiple blogs is not sourcing? Plenty of context.  It is described by many sources as famous.  It looks like overzealous deletion attempts.Wikidemo 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion
Can you please archive your talkpage, users on dailup have problems loading this page. βcommand 19:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I spotted two proposals in your userspace. You should probably tell other people about them, e.g. at the village pump in order to get feedback. Cheers,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll have to look around there to take stock.  I've let some stuff accumulate...

Proposal
I put a proposal at User:CBM/NFCC Proposal‎. Please feel free to edit it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anetode has asked a good question about other rationales at the talk page; I would like to know other people's thought about it. If I didn't undestand the proposal correctly when I wrote it up, please do let me know any way it can be improved. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I saw a comment you wrote at WT:NONFREE about incivility. I didn't think those comments in particular were over the line; just disgruntled. I can't imagine that polemics like that are convincing to most people. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a little unpleasant dealing with people accusing me of pulling stuff out of my ass (his words), not knowing anything about copyright law, not bothering to read things, etc.  I should just stay out of the way of disgruntled people railing against image policy.  I'll take a look at the proposal now.  Wikidemo 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If everyone is mostly satisfied with User:CBM/NFCC Proposal‎, I think we should make it live while it's still relevant. Would you be willing to support the wording as it is right now? It's been sitting untouched for a few days. I also made a mockup of an image description page at User:CBM/Sandbox. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just left my last thoughts on this. Wikidemo 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to policy and guideline pages
Wikidemo, although appreciate editor's interest in policy and guideline pages, I woulkd argue that your recent interventions there changing well-established material and text without prior discussion is not useful, is disruptive, and it is outside of process. Please discuss your ideas in talk, be patient, and allow editors to make their arguments for and against changes to these pages. In policy and guideline pages, if a change is made and is immediately reverted, the expected approach is not to revert back to your change as you are de facto disrupting established consensus. If, on the other hand, your edit sticks, pat yourself on the back for making an improvement that was within the established consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. You're just being contrarian.  I've seen you do this before.  Copy edits and organization are not a consensus issue.  What do you have against improving the wording and organization of a very messy talk page?  Wikidemo 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. Calling me a "contrarian" is also not helpful. What you did here] is not copyedit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You said I'm being disruptive for editing a page. I'm not.  There is nothing bad faith about being contrarian, it's just a form of stubbornness.  Call it gradualism, if you wish.  I made my edits in little pieces so everyone can see each step of what I'm doing, and see if they approve or not.  I stopped at a very early point rather than get the page to where it should be, to give people time to consider. The end point is not supposed to be any different than before, just better organized and better worded, so that it's clear exactly what policies and guidelines are being quoted and where.  From there the page actually becomes useful: much clearer for the average editor to use as a guide to sourcing, and in a form where people interested in policy can make decisions on the content. Anyway, I'll take these even slower, one step at a time and you can tell me what's good and what isn't.  Wikidemo 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict (with below)] Follow up - yay! (re. some more edits we both made) You and I agree halfway on something here, very small.  Can we take this to the talk page for actual changes to the page?  Thx,  Wikidemo 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First you call me a contrarian, then you call me stubborn. Oh well. You simply cannot make major changes, be reverted and revert again in policy pages. If you want to give people time to consider, use the talk page, that is there specifically for that reason! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ...okay, back. Sorry if my words are inappropriate and you take any offense, I'm trying to tease you gently.  We run into each other a lot lately and I have nothing but respect for your work.  What I'm trying to say is exactly what you're trying to say.  You describe as a major change things I would describe as minor incremental style improvements...hence you're a gradualist at times where I'm less of one.  The way I'm going about things is sometimes the best and fastest way to overhaul a disorganized policy/guideline page.  You know the deadlock that happens on policy pages.  Anyway, my objection wasn't to your watching over the wording, but rather what looked to be a blanket opposition to making any changes.   I'll work at a slower speed through a few proposed edits (which you're free to revert of course) and talk page suggestions, and as a courtesy I'll do anything in bite size pieces.  Wikidemo 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemo. I applaud your attempts to clean up this guideline and have a couple comments, and a suggestion that may work, though it would primarily be up to you and Jossi. No since getting into an edit war and generating bad blood when it could be avoided. How about creating a page in your Sandbox for RS, and making all of your edits there, then asking Jossi for feedback. I think that maybe your "one piece at a time" approach may be misconstrued, and Jossi may be seeing something they deem "important" as being deleted, when in fact you haven't gotten around around reinstating it yet where you feel it is more appropriate. Maybe if you could "do it all at once" (even if it takes a week or two), and then ask Jossi for comments or other suggestions, seeing all of your edits in context would be easier to see.

On a side note that both of you may care to comment on, I have already copied RS into my Sandbox at User:Wbfergus/Sandbox/Reliable Sources. However, I have also copied over the pertinent "Sources" sections from the 4 content policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as well. Presently they are include after the RS data. My idea is to see how (or even if), that 'data' could be consolidated into one place in a coherent fashion. Both of you are more than welcome to take a look and play around with it if you want. Some (much?) of what I copied from the policies may ultimately not be pertinent or relevant there, I just wanted to copy it all so it was easy to see.

You both seem to be good editors interested in improving Wikipedia as a whole, regardless of various disagreements at different points in time. Working in a Sandbox environment doesn't effect anything currently in place, and may ultimately be more 'time-effective", as some reverts get done so current interpretations aren't lost are diluted. After a (more or less) total rewrite, there may easily not be any disagreement if it can be shown nothing pertinent was lost or otherwise diluted in importance. Others could also comment on the 'final' product with additional tweaking before making the change to the main page.

Just an idea. wbfergus undefinedTalk 13:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's a good suggestion.  The point is to improve page organization and quality while leaving meaning alone (other than strengthening it by making it better).  I don't have any agenda to change sourcing requirements on Wikipedia.  When new issues come up I might have an opinion on them, but I'm definitely not trying to sway the guideline one way or another.  My "one step at a time" approach worked in a few unruly places to bring people with diverse concerns together to accept a thorough page reorganization.  When you go from A to D and skip the steps in between the changes can seem big, but if you show why A->B->C->D people are more accepting.  But I've never done this while someone as attentive as jossi was watching over the page too.  So maybe it's best just need to talk to him about my vision for how this page can be better, and see what he thinks.Wikidemo 13:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, one of my thoughts/hopes is to consolidate discussion WP:RS for WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP into more clearly defined sections for each. One effect of that would be moving, transcluding, copying, or offloading any verbiage to or from these three policy pages would be easier to discuss and implement (or not implement, as the case may be).  Wikidemo 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears that in a roundabout way, you are working similarly to what we are proposing over on the NOR page. Good luck, the ore people invloved in trying different approaches, the more likely someone comes up with something acceptable to the majority. wbfergus undefinedTalk 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion over at WP:NOR has been so long and hard to follow that I'm mostly sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what you guys all work out. But if you do end up deciding to move content from NOR to RS, it should find as hospitable a home at RS as possible.Wikidemo 14:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, this, was a good call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm becoming you. At least I'm learning to understand the value of stability over well=meaning improvements.  Ha!  Wikidemo 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Different license tags
You said that we need to have different license tags for different types of images. I don't remember seeing that written anywhere, so I was surprised. Certainly the license has to be machine readable, but I didn't realize this implied that we had to include in this machine readable information whether image is a logo, cover, etc. All that the foundation resolution says is "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." As long as the license template says the image is nonfree, I think this is satisfied.

Also, our current proposal wouldn't deprecate the old tags on old images, just on images after Jan 1 2008. Presumably the old ones would eventually get converted, but for now I think NFCC#10 would be split into two parts, one for "legacy" images and one for images uploaded after 2008-1-1. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right that the Foundation only requires that we say it's non-free. We're going beyond the Foundation's requirements here, so any way we do it is going to be compatible with the resolution.  However, one thing about the rationales we're proposing is that they only apply if it's the right kind of image.  So the logo rationale applies only to logos (and maybe some images tagged as "symbols"), the album cover rationale applies to album covers, etc.  Like the statement of where it's source is, or the size of the image, the notation that an image is a logo is a once-per-image piece of data, not once-per-use.  How we indicate that really is a down-the-road detail.  If we make that implicit, we leave things hanging for images that don't fit our rationale templates or in cases where people add a additional uses to an existing image that can't be templated.  I can see advantages either way.  Having a field for "type of image" in the copyright tag would be a nice double-check to make sure the right rationale template is used; however, it would be an extra step at the time of upload.  In terms of the legacy images, if an image is obviously compliant we can leave it alone indefinitely, until or unless someone has the patience to convert it to the new format for the sake of consistency.  If a legacy image is noncompliant, or gets tagged because a bot can't find the info and someone has to review it by hand, then might as well upgrade it to the new format, which will be easier than the old one anyway.Wikidemo 01:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, that answers my confusion. It's easy enough to add a parameter to the license template to say that the image is a logo, album cover, etc. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stossel
I have a problem with some of your edits to John Stossel. In this edit you claim a BLP violation, even though the accusations appeared on CNN and it is a matter of record that the clips of the children were cut from the broadcast. On what grounds do you consider that a BLP violation? In this edit you say that Galbraith had "changed his mind." Exactly where do you see that in any source? I would submit that the reason the controversy section is lengthy is because there are very many serious controversies, and if you are concerned the article is becoming unbalanced then you ought to find well-sourced material to lengthen other sections with, as I have done. Acct4 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no way that a rush transcript of a pundit show where parents of some kids who were interviewed call a guy "unethical" is ever going to pass the BLP reliable sources test. It's not close.  It's a no-brainer.  You were parsing the Galbraith sentence in a way I did not intend; I've clarified the sentence - Stossel tried to claim Galbraith cahnged his mind.  Half the "controversies" are trivial mentions and don't add weight to the coverage of the issue.  It's getting out of line again.  The alternative isn't to write more extensively on his life, that's not my job or duty.  I'm here trying to help out with a BLP notice.  If a few editors insist on making the controversy section disproportionately long again even after most people have agreed to try to stay balanced and keep things in line, the next step is back to the BLP notice board.  Wikidemo 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. BLP does not apply when the material in question is a reliable source.  Are you saying that the fact that he was accused by the parents is in question?  Are you saying that the fact that they pulled the kids' video is in question?  I doubt it.  You and I also disagree about the seriousness of those accusations.  I am having a hard time understanding how you could have read the paragraph on the gender difference report, because you said it was a single person complaining.  There were two people specified in the paragraph, and a lot more in the source.  If you are going to insist on every detail and nuance to be included so that the article text could not possibly be construed to say anything more or less than the sources, then you have no standing to complain that the section is too lengthy. Acct4 04:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Where's the reliable source? The issue is over the accusation that he's "unethical", something that neither a letter from parents nor an argument among pundits on a pundit show resolves.  The sourcing that he called them "totalitarian" and "brainwashed" and that the children's interview was yanked from the show is just fine.  The segment is just okay if it merely points out that the parents objected, and that he responded by -- repeatedly, apparently -- calling them "brainwashed."  You'd have to put that in context, but that's the real story. Repeating someone's accusation that he is "unethical" is the problem.   Wikidemo 04:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you see any difference between saying Stossel is unethical, which is not supported by the sources, and saying that the parents said that the way he interviewed their own children was unethethical, which is supported by both a reliable secondary source and the primary source? If Kerry said Bush is unqualified, by your standard we would not be allowed to include that. Acct4 05:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a logical difference, but not a substantive difference for purposes of BLP. It's clear that the parents said he was unethical, but reprinting the accusation, in the guise of saying we're merely reporting what someone else said, is a problem.  Kerry/Bush gets into presidential politics, a different issue.  But if we reprinted accusations that aggrieved parents make about the people they feel (rightly or wrongly) mistreated their children we would have a whole lot of problematic statements.  Wikidemo 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP says specifically, "The views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". There is certainly nothing in there that says presidential politics is a "different issue" than criticism of news reporting.  Did you simply make that up? Acct4 05:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

--never mind, I see that you have re-included a version I am satisfied with. Acct4 06:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Ronz 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced negative biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you.--Gamaliel 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Genipage.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Genipage.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chris B •  talk  22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the rationale. -- Chris B  •  talk  14:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks. That's wikiservice!!  Wikidemo 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You broke the three-revert rule
These four edits were made over less than a 24-hour period:

That is a violation of the WP:3RR policy. If you do not self-revert, you can be reported on WP:3RRN and blocked. Rtp4 14:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, as per WP:BLP this material is not covered under 3RR, and I'll comment on that in the talk page. Second, I didn't do >3 edits on the same material in 3 days.  You are gaming the system in order to violate BLP.  Wikidemo 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Issue is now moot. Page is protected.  I had requested that.  I have no stake or agenda re. the subject of the article other than it not be a BLP violation.  I'm not being contentious; I'm trying my best to follow Wikipedia procedures as I understand them to uphold BLP. Wikidemo 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Asking for protection was a reasonable thing to do. It isn't completely safe to hope that your reverts fall under the BLP exception; it's better to ask others to help (for example, at WP:BLPN or WP:ANI). I see that John Stossell was already mentioned on BLPN in September. I'm not too familiar with that board, or with Stossel. But getting more people involved is always better than just reverting. The stuff you were removing wasn't so bad that it had to be reverted immediately. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback and guidance - I was attempting to stay within 3RR, not rely on the BLP exception, but I do understand that it's best to step back and let others help out. I don't think the actual Wikipedia content was so terrible, but if you look at the wording of the press release used as the only source, it accuses the guy of stuff BLP cautions us not to repeat even on talk pages.  The kind of accusations that, if we were outside of the realm of partisan political pundits who make a living bashing each other, would be fertile grounds for defamation lawsuits.  Perhaps a less confrontational step would be to merely remove the source and caution people they need a better one if they mean to keep the content.  Wikidemo 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The four diffs linked above are all within a 24 hour period (barely), which is why I left a note. Some admins are very process-centered and will block for 3RR without much investigation.
 * Removing the sources would be only a very temporary solution, since having unsourced negative information is even worse. In the end, I think the issue at this article is a content question - how many of these "controversies" need to be mentioned? - and that will take some discussion to figure out. My impulse would be to remove the bulleted list and just write a couple paragraphs that summarize the content that is currently there. The bullet points only serve to encourage people to add every possible "controversy" in an effort to be encyclopedic. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carl that these should be rewritten as paragraphs. I've been trying to make this arguement myself on the talk.   Morphh   (talk) 16:22, 02 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Darn! The bullet points were my idea to begin with.  It seemed better and more compact than what had been there before, a heading and separate paragraph for each "controversy."  Lesson learned.  To avoid creating a litany, controversy sections should use prose format, not markup.  Wikidemo 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You mentioned that you were going to bow out for the moment on the John Stossel article. I understand the wikistress and neutral stance, but I really wish you would hang around. We need more thoughts, not less - and I believe your opinion is right on target. Morphh  (talk) 16:22, 02 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I'm a confirmed 3RR-skirter, even if in the service of policy, I'm not sure people would accept me in a neutral role. I'll keep an eye on it, but probably hang back from the debate of which criticisms are fair.   Wikidemo 16:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

NFC rationale templates
Hi Wikidemo. If you look at the templates for Non-free 2D art and Non-free 3D art, you'll see that the rationales are the same (not withstanding a bit of extra boilerplate in the 3D art template referencing 17 U.S.C.). In my opinion we need only make a note that for 2D images, no copyright can be held by the photographer or person who scanned the artwork. Other than that, it's the same rationale for both. In the case of coyrighted 2D artwork, the maker of the artwork can hold a copyright, and it's still the same rationale. In the case of a copyrighted 3D artwork both the creator of the work and the photographer can hold copyright on their respective contributions, and it's still the same rationale. In the case of a public domain 2D artwork, neither the creator of the work nor the photographer or person scanning the work can hold copyright, so it's PD unless there's doubt about the PD status. And, in the case of a public domain 3D artwork, the photographer can hold copyright ... are you saying that it's replaceable with a free-licensed image in cases where the work still exists and is presently still on display? If that's the issue, then a separate rationale can be made for 3D art where the art is unavailable to be replaced by a free-licensed image. But it still ends up being the same rationale. If it's replaceable, then it can't be used whether it's 2D or 3D, right? So, it all still ends up in the same place in terms of rationale and permission to use the image. Or did I miss something? ... Kenosis 05:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of public domain 3D artwork we have only to be concerned with the photographer's copyright. Many times people use a public domain tag because the work is public domain, and ignore the photographer's copyright.  In the case of photos of copyrighted artwork, there are indeed two copyrights but the rationale is completely different.  Even where there is a valid fair use argument for reproducing the work for purposes of commentary, there is almost never such an argument for reproducing the photographer's work.  Running down the list, there is no commentary or any other use of the photograph - it's utterly non-transformative; it is not necessary to use it at all because a free work could be found; in most cases it competes with the original commercial purpose of the photograph, which is to depict a 3D artwork.  Studio photographers get paid for taking pictures of objects; to lift their work instead of doing it yourself puts them out of a job.  So we need two rationales, one of which is almost never applicable.  It's not even a matter of being on public display.  To analogize with the "living person" example, even if the person is not public we still say it's possible to make a free work.  The 3D artwork tag doesn't get this right, and in practice many if not most applications get it wrong.  We need a PD / free photograph of a non-free work.  Some people do get it, halfway, but they're confused by our requiring one use rationale where we should require two. They take a picture themselves, then they donate it to commons and tag it as a free work - ignoring that what they have is derivative of a copyrighted artwork.  3D art is a small case, but pictures of copyrighted 3D cover art are a larger issue.  Wikidemo 19:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newton_logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Newton_logo.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Seraphim Whipp 23:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a deep breath
Wikidemo, I think its clear that we both have diverging views on some areas particularly the notability of wineries. Looking over your contributions, I see that you are a hard working and diligent editor. I don't know if you will have the future interest but I see positive qualities in you that would make a good administrator some day. I do encourage you to consider composing an essay based on your views and as I will gladly support its link in WP:WINEGUIDE. We can post it on the WP:WINE talk page to see about linking it on the main wine page. Differences in opinion is healthy but continuing our little editing spat is not--for either of us and certainly not for the project as a whole. Can we work out a truce here? AgneCheese/Wine 07:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine, if you keep this within the wine project and the efforts of the project, or your own edits. However, you seem to be launching a program to shift the wine coverage on Wikipedia against documenting wineries, and this is at a point where only a very small fraction of the notable wineries are covered.  Wikidemo 07:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a benefit of the nature of Wikipedia that no one person can unilaterally inflect their own views and opinion on a significant area of Wikipedia's coverage. The AfDs I put forth are discussions built on consensus. I put forth my opinion on deletion but so far it looks like consensus is leaning towards merge and redirect. That is fine and I will live with consensus. If I put forth an AfD on a winery and consensus falls on keep, that is fine. On the counter end I have argued for many Keeps on wine related discussion though those haven't always gone my way either. I respect your contributions and I respect our disagreements. I do continue to urge you consider composing your own essay because there is merit to your view and I think as a comparison piece it would be a beneficial addition to WP:WINEGUIDE and a worthwhile topic for the wine project to consider. AgneCheese/Wine 08:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for talking. I'll keep this all in mind.  But please do consider that notability is a combination of many factors - size, fame, interest, influence, context, history, coverage, and that the basic question is do people want to know about it, and should people want to know about it?  Is it worth knowing?  When much is written about a subject, you can't dismiss it all as romanticism, but if it is that is notable too.  That means it is important to people.  At a time when even Beringer doesn't have an article, it's not a good time to turn off the spigot.  Wikidemo 08:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. Once I get finished working on the American wine, I'd like to work on the California wine article. Considering the breadth of the subject matter I see treating it like the main California article in that you have the main article which serves as summary and links to the relevant sub topics like History of California wine, Wine regions of California, etc. Right now the article is really just several paragraphs of history. I would greatly appreciate your input. AgneCheese/Wine 08:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. The sub-pieces, such as wineries during Prohibition, the attitude towards wine before it was seen as a luxury good, the science of wine and UC Davis, grap egrowing techniques, the expansion in the 80s and 90s, consolidation and mergers, the relation to American wine culture, etc., are all fascinating aspects of this.  A big puzzle to put together.  Telling the stories of the individual wineries and estates, fields, and personalities across time is a little like telling the story of a country while following its leaders and monarchs. Wikidemo 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 16:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Blocked
This isn't any kind of content dispute - those edits were reverted because they went against WP:V, and reverting them using a rollback tool intended for vandalism is deliberately disruptive. Blocked for one hour to prevent you continuing. Neil  ム  19:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please unblock immediately. Bad faith block by disruptive admin advancing non-consensus minority position and trying to silence opponents in edit war he's engaaged in - should be de-sysopped ??? for that. Wikidemo 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-consensus minority position? I think you mean "enforcing policy".  E LIMINATOR JR  19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A) To request unblock, use unblock. B) I suggest you retract the insults. C) WP:V is not a "non-consensus minority position". D) This is not an edit war - this is enforcing a policy you are deliberately ignoring to the point of using an automated tool suitable only to undo vandalism to revert edits. Neil   ム  19:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've retracted the accusation of bad faith, though it was an improper use of admin privilege to enforce a minority position on a guideline in which you were personally involved. I'm not going to argue that here - if anything it's a subject for the larger discussion on these pop culture sections.  Wikidemo 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikidemo, I think the point has been made, and I have unblocked you - not because of your charming threats, but because I don't believe you'll use the undo button in such a manner again, and for the most part your editing and conduct has been excellent. Neil   ム  19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will at all times do my best to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, whether that means restoring material or not restoring material.  Will you agree to stop your disruptive editing?  It's not a threat. I considered the block highly inappropriate.Wikidemo 19:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While I do apologise if you saw my editing as disruptive, and for the block having to take place in the first place no matter how short, I don't think many would agree with you that applying WP:V could ever be seen as disruptive. A far more productive use of your time might be to try and find sources for the removed trivia.  Neil   ム  19:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll hazard a guess that a substantial majority of people would agree with me. They do, if you look at the discussions.  I do not see this as a WP:V issue, and would think that engaging in contentious editing (much less blocking users) based on a premise that the WP:TRIVIA guideline is invalid is going out on a limb, to say the least.  Wikidemo 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You were blocked for using your undo button for non-vandalism reverting, just after being blocked for doing so. Rather than the removals being based on WP:TRIV being invalid, they were based on WP:V being valid, which it sort of is, being a policy. Neil   ム  19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? I was blocked once, not twice.  Without warning.  By an admin who was on the opposite side of an edit war.  The WP:V argument is specious.  I was not violating any policy, but rather acting in a way that did not comport with your minority interpretation of policy to hold that an established guideline is wrong.  If that point is too subtle you might need to reflect some more on the role of an admin.  Admin tools are for dealing with clear behavior violations.  When you see that reasonable people are disagreeing on an important subject, you should not use your priviliges to get the upper leg on your particular views on things.   Wikidemo 20:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I got confused with User:Equazcion. As you seem clear, however, on what tools are and are not for, do not use the undo tool to revert good faith edits again, no matter how you much disagree with the edit. You may also like to consider that you had passed beyond being reasonable when you started mass-reverting to include unsourced material after being told not to, which is a textbook violation of WP:V. 21:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. First, I did not violate WP:V, and my edits are not only allowed, they were the right thing to do.  I was not restoring material deleted as unsourced, I was restoring improperly deleted popular culture sections.  You are advancing a novel theory by which restoring a trivia section is a WP:V violation.  Although you're entitled to your own opinion, claiming that my edits are a behavior problem and that your opinion entitles you to block me is unacceptable.  Second, nobody "told" me to do anything.  I was debating this with you, like many other people, in WP:TRIVIA, WP:AN/I, and elsewhere.  The block was totally out of the blue.  There is no "telling" on this point anyway because it is a disputed interpretation of policy.  Finally, I don't know what you mean by "tools".  I'm using a web browser in connection with the "history" tab on articles.  One of the options is "undo."  I undid three deletions and then you blocked me.  I'm not aware of any policy that the undo feature is only to be used for vandalism.  Feel free to correct me if you can find such a policy but as far as I know it can be used for all sorts of purposes.  That's different than an admin blocking users to enforce his content decisions under his peculiar reading of things.Wikidemo 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Wikidemo 19:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really can't believe this crap. Equazcion • argue/improves • 01:35, 10/10/2007

Alkivar's arbitration
Alkivar's admin status is up for arbitration. You're not an official involved party but there have been quite a few statements from uninvolved people so far, so you're welcome to make one if you want. See the discussion here. Equazcion • argue/improves • 02:58, 10/10/2007
 * Thanks. Yes, I had noticed. I was wondering if I should wait until the arbitrators decide to accept the case.  Wikidemo 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You sure knew when to step in. Just wanted to compliment you on that statement, it was very well-written and summed things up nicely and accurately. Equazcion • argue/improves • 17:34, 10/10/2007

Minor point
Oh dear. Sorry to see that the IPC stuff got out of control. I'm not 100% sure of the history, but I think the "undo" feature is fairly recent (last year or so). Before that it was only available as a tool or script. I tend not to use it anyway, as I find the version I want to revert back to, click edit and type revert (plus reason) in the edit summary. Carcharoth 13:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Support of your stand on trivia sections
I just wanted to support your stand in this issue, and cite a case in point. One of the pop culture sections deleted by the Burntsauce rampage was from the article on Grosse Fuge, to which I had contributed substantially. I had read this section, and noted that (a) it was mislabeled - most of the items listed were not popular culture at all, and (b) it was unorganized, badly written, and generally offensive - even if some of the information was valuable. I made myself a mental note to take it in hand and rework it some day.

Imagine my surprise and chagrin to find it had been swept away in a raid worthy of the Navy SEALs. But, not to worry, the next day, it reappeared, only to be swept away a second time by User:Antandrus. I could see that no time was to be wasted if the information in the section was to be redeemed, so I immediately took it upon myself to rewrite the section.

The point being that, before deleting anything like this, you have to read it carefully and think about it.

I am writing this to your talk page because I see that the discussions on the public forums are being overwhelmed and getting heated, so I thought to keep a low profile. But if you feel my experience as a lowly contributor is relevant to the rarified atmosphere of admin discussions, feel free to use it. --Ravpapa 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to thread on Trivia talk
I'm not going to clutter up that page with further discussions of editor behavior, so I'm replying here instead (and if you don't want to discuss this further feel absolutely free to nuke this section from your page). While I'm in no way defending the way that some of the individuals deleting the material went about this (mostly in regards to the misleading usage of edit summaries), I will point out that the responsive restores were every bit as "disruptive" from the aspect of being completely mislabled in the edit summaries and contributed just as much to the unnecessary drama as the initial deletion. As a "discussion only" party who didn't get involved in the actual editing I see enough blame to go around from an editor behavior standpoint that I don't think I'd point fingers at just one side of this situation. Beyond that, I'd guess it is no secret I'm not a huge fan of filling articles with trivial information, particularly when it is unsourced, nor am I a fan of organizing any information as trivia. It's probably not realistic though to expect that people will stop deleting this information from articles (as you stated in your last commment at that talkpage). The "inclusionism vs deletionism" debate (if you want to call it that) has been a struggle since long before I even joined here and I suspect it will always be so. To me at least it would be ideal if more people followed the suggestions in Handling trivia, which I tend to agree with on many points, and just general common sense, but barring that I'd just say that any of this sort of editing should follow WP:BRD and make good use of the talkpage.--Isotope23 talk 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't like trivia either, but what I especially don't like is disruptive editing.  Too many times here and elsewhere I see people ignoring policy and consensus and simply taking things into their own hands, vigilante-style, saying that they are acting to enforce policy.  Sometimes they say that other people's opinions are unimportant and consensus is unimportant because they are on a mission from the five pillars.  I lay the blame squarely on the party that started it.  To let disruptive edits stand is to tolerate them, which only emboldens contentious editors.  We really should have a policy that mass edits that don't follow procedure should be reversed out of hand to the status quo, apart from any underlying policy or content concerns.  That is actually supported by WP:CONSENSUS.  If someone makes a change and you don't agree, you can simply revert and say you don't agree.  That should be more true, not less, when someone makes 300 changes at once.  You should be able to revert all 300 of them and say no, let's deal with this through consensus.  Wikidemo 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the problem is that there is obviously going to be a difference of opinion on whether or not removing unsourced information is disruptive or if it is furthering the quality of the encyclopedia, whether it be from 1 article or 300. The whole situation as it stands is unfortunate because from where I stand it looks like the most involved parties here were all acting in what they felt was the best interest of Wikipedia, but in pursuit of that it kind of ended up as a mess.  Beyond that I'm not so sure I'd like to see a codified policy on reverting as you've laid out.  There are already too many POV warriors gaming existing policies and guidelines without giving them an easy way to push their agenda here and then stymie other editors.  At this point though, once the dust settles, the content should be dealt with on an article by article basis.--Isotope23 talk 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a policy against mass edits that users know to be controversial. But we have that already, WP:POINT.  What's the penalty for violating WP:POINT? Wikidemo 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually... WP:POINT is a guideline, not policy.--Isotope23 talk 17:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)