| Revision as of 20:34, 12 October 2007 editShirahadasha (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,554 editsm →Bible: Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:11, 12 October 2007 edit undoVanished user (talk | contribs)15,602 edits →Profg: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| I have no particular preference for the current method of organizing the articles involved and I may well prefer the user's approach. I was simply enforcing ] given that there had been a conscious prior community decision on how these articles should be organized. A discussion on whether to make this change is proceeding and there are certainly good arguments that the approach should be changed. I would encourage the user to participate in the discussion. I don't consider myself a party to the content dispute. The page had been subjected to multiple back-and-forths. Blocking the user would prevent his participation in discussion, so I thought briefly protecting the page the course of least intervention. Best, --] 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | I have no particular preference for the current method of organizing the articles involved and I may well prefer the user's approach. I was simply enforcing ] given that there had been a conscious prior community decision on how these articles should be organized. A discussion on whether to make this change is proceeding and there are certainly good arguments that the approach should be changed. I would encourage the user to participate in the discussion. I don't consider myself a party to the content dispute. The page had been subjected to multiple back-and-forths. Blocking the user would prevent his participation in discussion, so I thought briefly protecting the page the course of least intervention. Best, --] 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Profg == | |||
| I think that's a very bad idea. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, provided one single positive contribution to wikipedia. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:11, 12 October 2007
|
Please read if you are here to discuss an image: |
|
My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Misplaced Pages. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Misplaced Pages. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption.
Speaking specifically of blocks, if I block someone and they ask nicely to be unblocked and promise not to repeat whatever transgression led to the block, you have my full permission to unblock and/or reduce the time of the block. Blocks are preventative and if there is nothing to prevent, there's no reason not to unblock.
|
| Archives: Jan 07 a • Jan 07 b • Feb 07 • Mar 07 • Apr 07 • May 07 • June 07 • Jul 07 • Aug 07 • Sep 07 • Oct 07 • Nov 07 • Dec 07 |
Interred Scouts photos
Check out this article we're working on in someone's workshop and this section on the talk: User_talk:Phips/workshop/DP-Scouts#photos. I'm sure some of these are government photos and PD, but most of them have no license info. What can we do about this and where could we find some free ones on this topic of DP Scouts? Rlevse 17:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- No idea ... one of them says the photo is at the UC Berkeley library ... maybe the library could be contacted to ask what the source is. As for some of the others that are just on random websites, the only think to do is contact the site owners and ask. --B 00:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
This one says "cite as", would that be GFDL or CC of some type? see: girl scouts Rlevse 02:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- No. That's just saying, "if you use it, here's how to give credit to the author", but that isn't actually a license of any kind. When someone licenses an image under the GFDL or a CC license, they have to actually use those words. It's probably public domain (I doubt that the copyright was ever registered) but it can't be proven from that information. I would just tag it with {{Non-free historic image}}, state that it is a historically significant event and obviously irreplaceable, and credit the author as indicated there. --B 02:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Input requested
As a contributor to a related subject, I'd like your input at Talk:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football#Discussion on All-time Lists. —Disavian (/contribs) 19:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong
What pray tell is wrong
- Nothing. He probably considers the use to be purely decorative. See WP:FAIR#Policy #8. I think it's an image of historic value and worth having in there. --B 11:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good, I'll rv it.Rlevse 12:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
To be free or not
Can we tell if this is free (Colorado state site) Rlevse 23:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Probably not. Only works of the US federal government (not state governments) are public domain. It is distinctly possible that this image might have been published before 1978 without a copyright notice in which case it would be public domain, however, no information is given on that website that would allow us to make a determination one way or the other. We don't even know that the state of Colorado is actually the author - for all we know, it could be a news media photo. I've seen several online state libraries (Florida comes to mind off hand) that include news media photos as a part of their collections. --B 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
WRA staff
If a photo is id'd as War Relocation Authority staff, and as the WRA was a US gov agency, wouldn't that make it free? see (this is california site) Rlevse 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Almost certainly yes ... in general, works of agencies of the US Federal government are public domain. Just upload them and mark them as {{PD-USGov}}. --B 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The ones on the internment (none Scout images), all use {{PD-USGov-Interior}} and a NARA tag for the ARC number. Thanks. WRA was under the DeptOfInterior. Rlevse 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
End Times Page
Your statement: "Good grief, you don't need to list every capitalization variant)" Please don't assume that I did this. I just came upon the page a few weeks ago and am doing considerable edits on it.--MurderWatcher1 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that was my edit summary when I made an edit, not anything addressed to anyone in particular. --B 00:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
NFCC
FYI: I noticed that Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria policy seems to have been changed at some point. It used to explicitly state "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable," but this was removed. But, this is now stated in the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content guideline. Policies and guidelines are confusing enough . . . --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom
You hit the nail on the head. Outstanding job and very well said! I'm amazed that after 24 hours, only one arbiter has thought it worth accepting the case. --B 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! What we really need is an efficient community based deadminning and the process of recalling the arbitrators who don't do any work this making the ArbCom so ineffective. But any proposal of that or of a reform of the RfA process that I have seen led nowhere. --Irpen 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that everyone agrees there needs to be something. I've thought about it and I'm not sure what the right way to do it is. The problem with RFA, AFD, and any potential de-adminning process is that they are all susceptible to the tyranny of the heckler. I don't know what the right way is, but there needs to be something. --B 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also thought about it and I think I know of a way that would have worked but there is no chance that it would be accepted. I can go into details if you have time and interest. --Irpen 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure go ahead ... I'll give it a listen. --B 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also thought about it and I think I know of a way that would have worked but there is no chance that it would be accepted. I can go into details if you have time and interest. --Irpen 02:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Some thoughts I wrote earlier: User talk:Geogre/RFA-Derby#Suffrage and User:Geogre/Talk archive 18#Another improvement idea. Trouble is, very little chance they have to be adopted. --Irpen 02:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- The idea of forced admin breaks is interesting, but it won't work because either we'd rely on people not doing it on their own=unenforceable, or someone would have to turn all those admin bits on and off=managerial nightmare. I do agree you were dead on with the Alkivar Arbcom case, the arbs should be all over it and rocket docket it.Rlevse 11:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah ... forced admin breaks would cause a real problem as it stands now. Take a look at User:Dragons flight/Log analysis. 10% of all edits are reverted right now. I'm frequently finding more and more libel in my watchlist that isn't caught on RC patrol because there just aren't enough people doing the work. Obviously, you don't have to have the admin tools to do RC work, but you're much more efficient with the server rollback and the ability to block the vandal. As for deadminning, I think arbcom or an arbcom-like function is the right idea. It just needs to be more efficient and not take a month to open the case and another month to deliberate it. Maybe there could be lower arbcoms and the supreme arbcom, just like our court system? Temporary adminship, IMO, won't solve anything because frankly, there the people who shouldn't be admins never should have been to start with and there were warning signs beforehand. --B 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, forced admin breaks would effectively reduce the number of admins by about 15% thus cotnributing to a baclkog. I thought of that too. But note that if the effective workable community deadminning is introduced, people would get less hesitant to support on RfA making the latter less torturous and the total number of admins would grow much faster. Adminship would cease being a big deal once it becomes easily removable if the community see that it made a mistake. An onerous suffrage requirement in any admin-related discussion would completely eliminate trolls and socks while restricting the suffrage requirement to mainspace edits would put the decision into the right hands, the hands of content writers, the very users whose comfortable editing environment should be the primary concern of our janitors. --Irpen 16:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Bible
I have no particular preference for the current method of organizing the articles involved and I may well prefer the user's approach. I was simply enforcing WP:CONSENSUS given that there had been a conscious prior community decision on how these articles should be organized. A discussion on whether to make this change is proceeding and there are certainly good arguments that the approach should be changed. I would encourage the user to participate in the discussion. I don't consider myself a party to the content dispute. The page had been subjected to multiple back-and-forths. Blocking the user would prevent his participation in discussion, so I thought briefly protecting the page the course of least intervention. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Profg
I think that's a very bad idea. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, provided one single positive contribution to wikipedia. Adam Cuerden 23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)