Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 18 August 2007

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MGodwin, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

2005

It appears you are claiming to be Mike Godwin and editing Godwin's law. If you are Mike Godwin then it is inappropriate for you to be editing content related to yourself. If you are not, then please cease pretending to be Mr. Godwin. - Tεxτurε 16:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Texture, would you please cite the Misplaced Pages policy you are referring to which states that it is inappropriate for a user to edit content to which they are personally related? I was not aware of such a policy. Hall Monitor 15:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to write "Don't be a policy nazi" for the irony, but I don't want to offend anyone :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 13:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hall Monitor, you may be looking for WP:COI. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

--Hey, I'm pretty sure I didn't violate WP:COI! MikeGodwin 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Heya!

Heya Mike! Good to see you here, welcome, and all that stuff. The Wellites are taking over Misplaced Pages! Get the lawn chairs! --jpgordon 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! — xaosflux 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Welcome! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike and welcome! I actually saw Godwin's Law use correctly and it really worked to prove that the discussion was over. Have fun with you new job. -- Jreferee 08:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the nice welcome. MikeGodwin 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note

On JUL-07-2007, article Mike Godwin was linked from slashdot, a high-traffic website. All prior and subsequent edits in the article are noted in its revision history.

editing Mike Godwin

If you are in fact the subject of the biography in question, you should be aware that there is a clear conflict of interest in editing your own bio. You are not expressly forbidden from doing so, to my knowledge, and if you see something clearly a libelous violation of the WP:BLP policy it would be helpful (to put it mildly) for you to remove it. But other than that specific situation, any changes you wish to be made should generally be proposed on the talk page for other users to review and enact. VanTucky 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Changes such as simple formating, spelling, grammar, etc are also generally exempt from that guideline. — xaosflux 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can also revert clear-cut vandalism and spam from your own article. Jehochman 00:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think threatening Misplaced Pages's lawyer with our policies is such a good idea... -N 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, apologizing for inserting myself into this discussion (which probably need not to take place here), I would say that I don't think that to be quite right. Except to the extent that one acts in his official capacity or in furtherance of a directive of the Board of Trustees or an appropriate employee of the Foundation, he/she acts here qua editor only (albeit one, in certain situations, in whom the community reposes trust and whose opinion the community regards as valuable, e.g., Jimbo—who, notably , has stopped, IIRC, editing his article in view of the objections of many to his contravening COI and its predecessors) and consequently ought to comport his/her editing with our content and behavior policies. To be sure, I don't have a particular problem with a subject's editing his/her article where he/she does so neutrally, and I'm not sure that any of Mike's edits were disfavored by COI, etc. (some were, in any case, made, one surmises, when he was not at all acquainted with en.wiki), but I don't think it is appropriate for one, in the context of welcoming a new editor, to apprise the latter of relevant policies. Joe 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Joe that if I edit this article (or any other article) my edits should be considered only as those of any regular editor, and not as those of an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation (unless otherwise indicated). I'm not the author or originator of this article, and, while I have occasionally corrected factual errors/fact-related edits in it, I have done so in ways I believe to be consistent with COI and NPOV. As a lawyer who has had a lot of his career focus on the distinction between fact and opinion, and as a journalist with more than 20 years' experience at researching and presenting facts neutrally, you may be sure that I don't want to get into an NPOV-type thrash here. That said, I hope you will appreciate that I will try to eschew the common practice of having sockpuppets do my dirty work. Instead, I plan to stick to edits that are defensible under Misplaced Pages policy as I understand it. A note: I've actually been editing Misplaced Pages articles generally for many years now. Because I believe in the value of anonymous contributions, I've made a political point of not signing most of them. I may change my mind about this over time, but the MikeGodwin login is a relatively late addition. I should add, finally, that as of this morning it appears that every factual assertion in the article "Mike Godwin" seems to be correct. MikeGodwin 15:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You can sidestep any concerns on either end of this discussion by simply suggesting changes on the talk page. Allowing other editors to add or remove info providing it's conflict free by just nudging the talk page is perfectly fine. Misplaced Pages isn't a race; while this may be a day slow or whatever it'll be the most respective to conflict of interest guidelines and neutral point-of-view policy. JoeSmack 18:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Congrats on your new position at the WMF. JoeSmack 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats, JoeSmack. And, yes, I'm aware that it's possible to nudge editors into making changes (or undoing bad changes, etc.). Been a Wikipedian for years now, as I've said. MikeGodwin 12:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your law was proven

On Jimbo's talk page. Just thought you'd like to know. --Hemlock Martinis 04:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Hemlock. MikeGodwin 14:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for Adminship

Hi, now that you've become WMF's councel, I've noticed that you don't have admin status here at Misplaced Pages. Before you can be nominated, I'm supposed to first ask whether or not you'd accept my nomination. --w 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'd accept. MikeGodwin 01:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting, but for the nomination to be completed, there are a few questions that all nominees must answer related to how the admin tools will be used. Once that's finished, then the nom will appear on the main requests page --w 04:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your user page

...reads like a resume. :) It's impressive but maybe it would benefit from some links? in particular to the EFF, to Godwin's Law, to DRM and a bunch more. Ya, it's a wiki but I'm a bit loath to edit other people's user pages since mine is locked down to prevent randoms from editing it. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll update it when I have some spare time, which isn't just this minute, Lar. Not that I'm disagreeing with you. MikeGodwin 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I boldly spruced it up. I hope you like it. ←Ben 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

I also stated this on what I thought was your user talk page, but was your article talk page. Someday, when I get to be notable like you, I want my own article, too. :-) Best wishes, counsellor. Bearian 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Commerical Product Images

Could you please review this discussion on Commons, and if appropriate, clarify some of the questions being asked there? Commons has a large number of images of products which are primarily an image of just the product. I can supply an example image if you need one, many have been deleted but there is an open question about whether they should or should not be and if policy needs to be clarified. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please consider removing your RfA

Mike, please consider removing your RfA and having the foundation direct that you get the administrator bit if you need it for your work. We have already had a major problem where User:Danny requested adminship, there was huge opposition and the RfA did not reach consensus, but he was promoted anyway. If your RfA stands and similarly does not reach consensus, I will argue against promotion. Nothing personal, but RfAs like this can severely disrupt the process. -- Cecropia 15:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just adding my own opinion, which has to do with what you want to gain through the RfA (Welcome to Misplaced Pages BTW). Simply if you wish to have a sysop bit for you legal position with the foundation, just ask them, and you almost certainly will receive it. This seems to be your intention based on your answer to question 1, so I suggest you do as Cecropia says. However, if you wish to be a full sysop, and perform all the admin duties such as closing AfDs, speedy deleting pages, protecting pages, blocking vandals, ect, then you should request adminship through RfA. Hope this helps you out, Prodego 21:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no question in my mind that I could obtain admin privileges as an employee of Wikimedia Foundation, and indeed I've been assured of this already independently. But it seemed worthwhile to go through the experience of putting my name in the hopper for this in a public way, and I expect to learn from the process. MikeGodwin 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Florence has granted you the sysop permissions on meta. You're now an administrator here. :-) --Deskana (banana) 23:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know if he got oversight? Based on descriptions of WP:OFFICE work, he'll need that too. ←Ben 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I see I get to be the first to shake your mop wielding hand. Here is what KillerChihuahua told me when I got mine:

Since you're a lawyer, I better mention that he released it under the GFDL, so I think I'm covered. Best of luck to you, and may you have at least one day when you never hear anything about short men with small moustaches. --AnonEMouse 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like great advice to me! MikeGodwin 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Body of Authority

Since you are now giving us copyright law guidance in your official capacity, we need to keep track of it. So there's a new page here. Hopefully, this will save you from having to answer the same question 1000 times, and it will allow us to be more consistent in applying the "precedent" promulgated. Please edit or modify the contents of the page as necessary to keep us all on track. Thanks and thanks for your guidance! -- But|seriously|folks  00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've given this a little thought, and I think that for now at least I don't want to turn my User Talk page into a general advice page. There's a good reason for this -- an answer that may be appropriate for one case may *seem* appropriate for another but may be distinguishable. I'd rather not risk having my User Talk page be used to give seemingly good but actually inaccurate advice, even accidentally. MikeGodwin 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of coins

Today most auction houses seems to make coin pictures with flatbed scanners which are producing according German law and Bridgeman vs. Corel no copyrightable pictures. Could you please review your consilium concerning coins. Respectfully --Historiograf 03:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This might be of interest, saying unnamed "top copyright lawyers in the USA" disagree with your opinion. ←Ben 05:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images on the main page from today's featured article

I think Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content criteria exemptions#TFA.2FMain Page exemption.2C revisited sorely needs your input. ←Ben 06:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just popping by.

Hi Mike, I'm one of the handful of intellectual property lawyers who can be found roaming the metaphorical halls of the project (lately I've been spending most of my time in the relative calm of Wiktionary). In any event, I thought I'd introduce myself, as I'm one of those folks who occasionally gets sucked into the legal debates that tend to arise. Lucky me, I'm a Florida lawyer too, so people who assume liability lies with the servers tap me for opinions (in fact a large portion of my real-world practice is defamation and right of publicity). I had a cordial interaction with Brad Patrick, and hope to have the same with you. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Time for the WP's official copyright lawyer to weigh in

An administrator is deleting images he uploaded under the GFDL because he doesn't want them moved to commons. This is causing a bit of a hoohah on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BetacommandBot and commons

The admin states that he can revoke the license whenever he feels like, and makes a fairly involved legal argument here: User talk:Neil#Revocation of GFDL on images I have uploaded

This is a bit too much for mice without a law degree, but seems to fall squarely within your court. --AnonEMouse 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, not whenever I feel like, only if no substantive or transformative derivative works have been produced based on the original contribution. Neil ム 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would an article that used an image constitute a substantive derivative work even if the original image hadn't been altered? 66.92.70.157 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the image was the element being used to substantively amend the article, and not the other way around. The image itself remains unaltered. Neil ム 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have explained that waiving copyright with a release such as the GFDL does not have to be a contract to effectively prevent future enforcement of the copyright on Neil's talk page. ←Ben 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you read the entire statement, Ben. As GFDL is a licence, if no amendments or substantive changes have been carried out upon, or derivated content created from, the original submission, then by giving notice to the licencee, the original contributor can, technically, revoke the previously-applied licence from any unaltered contributions they wish. This argument becomes invalid as soon as any alterations take place, though, as the original contributor is then not the sole attributable owner of the content. Neil ム 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am no lawyer, but the phrase "world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration" seems to mean that the license lasts forever. I don't see a provision for revoking the license, and I think that a license is like a contract in that unless you make a provision for canceling it, it is binding. But, as I said, I am not a lawyer, I look forward to Mike's interpretation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done some research on this. Under British law, a license is revocable in any time upon serving notice in writing (I'm not sure what that would entail.) Misplaced Pages's servers are governed by US law, which allows for license revocation "during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant" 17 USC 203(a)(3). ←Ben 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)