| Revision as of 22:22, 26 May 2006 editRenamed user ixgysjijel (talk | contribs)27,236 edits reworking header← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:33, 13 April 2018 edit undoCéréales Killer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,230 editsm Céréales Killer moved page User talk:BanyanTree/history archive to User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/history archive without leaving a redirect: Automatically moved page while renaming the user "BanyanTree" to "Renamed user ixgysjijel" | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {| align="center" style="background: #D9F4FF; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: .2em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 90%; width: 75%;" | |||
| | style="text-align: center;" |'''Archives: ], ], ], ], ], ], ] • ]''' | |||
| |} | |||
| {| align="center" style="background: #D9F4FF; border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: .2em; margin-bottom: 3px; font-size: 95%; width: 75%;" | |||
| | style="text-align: center;" |If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here. I regularly clean out my watchlist, so if there has been a lull in a conversation on your page, please restart it here. | |||
| |} | |||
| == Image copyrights == | |||
| Following up your comment from the Main Page ]: "nobody can claim copyright over reproductions of two-dimensional images unless they claim that they are creating an entirely new work of art" - I know from personal experience that there are some plausible exceptions to this rule. One is where people take old books and scan the photographs. The photographs and books themselves are public domain, but they are very poor quality and the pages may have started to turn brown and degrade. What often happens is that the scanner retouches the scan and (to the best of their ability) repairs and restores the picture to its original condition. This does take time and effort, and, unlike in ], the resulting image can be significantly different to the current degraded condition of the object being "copied". This is more restoration than copying. This might sometimes justify a copyright tag. | |||
| The other thing is simple courtesy. In most cases, simply crediting the institution (museum or historical picture library) from where the picture was sourced, would help. Often they are just trying to prevent commercial reuse. Having the credit line with the image (rather than a click away - if that) would probably help. ] 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, I was probably guilty of overemphasis there in response to the argument made by the museum itself, repeated many other places on the net, that "we scanned it so we own the image", which is false prima facie. I grant that there are exceptions and caveats, but in cases where the creator of a two-dimensional image has been dead for over 90 years, the assumption has to be that it is public domain, or the utility of public domain breaks down. As far as I remember, neither the museum nor the anonymous contributor on ] were stating that the image had been altered from the original and thus substantially "new" or that it would be nice if there was a credit line, but simply that Misplaced Pages was somehow legally wrong in using the image. | |||
| :On your second point, Misplaced Pages is mirrored by commercial sites and, even if somebody wanted to take the image in question and use it in a McDonald's ad, I'm pretty sure that the museum has no legal recourse. (with all the caveats of the paragraph above of course) I believe that all images on Misplaced Pages without attribution (public domain or not) need to be attributed and sourced, and I am happy if the caption states the source as well, especially if the institution in questions asks us to and it is relevant. It is also worth doing due diligence so that we don't get sued for being careless or unresponsive, even in the Foundation wins in the end. However there is a line between being nice and jumping through non-existent hoops. I do think that Wikipedians need to think through the implications of copyright but am firmly on the side of ]. Cheers and thanks for the note, ]] 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rolling back support on an RfA== | |||
| Hi, BanyanTree, how are you? I was just curious why you a support from ]. I realize that all this user is doing is supporting RfAs, but every registered user is allowed to have their voice heard on RfAs. Just like users who oppose every single candidate, burecrats can easily ignore users who support every single candidate just as easily. However, I didn't want to revert your edit without talking to you first. Let me know what you think. ]] | ] 16:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi EWS23, I noticed that user . I see no point in keeping the vote of someone who will be disregarded by the closing 'crat and who is obviously someone familiar with Misplaced Pages who is just popping in to have some fun at the RFA, but I don't really care. (Are there really accounts that do nothing but vote oppose whose edits aren't reverted?) If you wish to revert and make a note for the closing crat that the user does nothing but make RFA votes, then I wouldn't be fussed. I personally am closer to viewing the behavior as disruption but I'll just leave page maintenance to someone else. Cheers, ]] 16:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the reply. I won't revert it in that case, then. However, I think I'll start a general discussion on ] about the whole phenomenon, and when/how we should revert comments. To answer your other question, no, I don't know of any accounts that are currently being used solely to oppose nominations, just regular editors who feel the need to oppose nearly every RfA. However, those are certainly two completely different things. Thanks again. ]] | ] 17:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Warning == | |||
| I did not see your warning, as I am not totally familiar with your site. However, I can assure you that my book is relevant to all titles where I have posted it. Unlike other books written about the Lost Boys, my book gives a thorough account of the Sudanese government and history of Sudan. It deals not only with Sudan, but topics such as refugees, the Lost Boys of Sudan, the conflict in Ethiopia, Uganda, the country of Kenya where the Lost Boys continue to reside, etc.. Even Darfur is relevent to my book, as the muslims of Darfur were enlisted by the Sudanese Government to raid villages in the south where Lost Boys and their families lived. Not listing my book in these areas is a dis-service to viewers who may want to learn more about the inner workings of the Sudanese government and the genocide that has ocurred both in Darfur and the South of Sudan. Thank you for your consideration and sorry for not responding sooner to your warning. | |||
| Best, | |||
| Joan {{unsigned|Joan Hecht}} | |||
| ::Hi Joan, Thanks for your note. I was getting concerned when there was no response. | |||
| ::I would like to ask you to think of the situation from the perspective of Misplaced Pages. If every book written about a topic received a paragraph, then articles would quickly become a series of synopses of other sources, rather than a description of the actual subject of the article. In cases where sources are both highly relevant and rare, brief synopses are arguably useful for the reader, which is why I did not touch your contribution to the ] article. | |||
| ::Again from the perspective of the Misplaced Pages reader, it is much more useful for contributors to integrate their knowledge into the existing text, rather than creating add-ons sections or paragraphs. You are pasted identical paragraphs into large numbers of articles, notably some very high level ones. The Uganda article covers the entire history, culture, climate, etc of the country, and frankly any single event such as a large war would at most get a brief sentence linking to a subarticle. | |||
| ::Anyone looking for information about the Lost Boys will see your information. There may be other articles that are relevant. A rule of thumb to determine if your contribution about your book will survive is to see if the article has substantial information about the Lost Boys. In that case, further information with reference to your book may be acceptable. If the Lost Boys are only mentioned in passing, or not at all, such as at ], then it is certainly inappropriate to discuss a book about a topic that is obviously not central to that article. Let me know if any of this is unclear, ]] 15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Did you get my post?? I feel really bad!! Please contact me by regular email so that I'm sure to get your response and please do not display or previous posts for public viewing. Thank you! Joan Hecht {{unsigned|Joan Hecht}} | |||
| :My goodness, a lot happened on this page as I was writing my response. I have removed your email address as there are so many mirrors of Misplaced Pages that addresses become VERY public and the target of lots of email spam. I'm afraid I don't understand the "public viewing" message that you left. Thanks, ]] 15:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar awarded! == | |||
| :<small>''Barnstar from ] moved to ] - ]] 15:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) ''</small> | |||
| Wow, thanks Kukini! I had to chuckle at receiving the barnstar named after RickK as one of my first experiences after being admined was RickK storming onto this page to ream me out for what he felt was an out-of-process undeletion. (I still disagree by the way.) Hopefully, he would approve. I very much appreciate the thought. Happy editing, ]] 15:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi BanyanTree, I became aware of the potential issue at ] over IRC today and appreciate your notice on the article's talk page very much. IMO, from what I've seen in my (albeit short) time so far on Misplaced Pages, it certainly has the potential to become pretty bad come when that "new and improved (possibly replaced)" version is posted; I'm wondering, however, if a talk page note will be noticed that much. Do you think it would be appropriate to be responding to the news article by writing to the Lima News itself? (They have a letters-to-the-editor email address.) ] 02:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi theProject (I'm sure there's a story behind the username). Thanks for your note. I have a similar concern that an entirely new entry will be identified as either NPOV, annoy other users who have already contributed, or just require some work because nobody put it in wiki markup. Worse case is that they'll paste over the existing text, be reverted, and then the local press will slam us for ruining their town's collaboration. Of course, they might already have some experienced editors, taken everything into account and it'll all be perfect. The fact that they have students involved gives me some hope that there will be some users with editing experience. | |||
| :Addressing your question, I've written letters to media outlets before, identifying myself as a volunteer editor, when they've got something wrong. The Lima News seems to be an appropriate choice, otherwise the mayor's office as the organizer. (I see that you have a different definition of "short time" than I since your first edit is month before mine.) If you're up for it, a message that directs them to the talk page should suffice. I'm willing to field any questions, though am thinking of asking the folks over at ] for a hand if necessary, and can always bump it upstairs if there's anything complicated. Cheers, ]] 03:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Evidently we share the same concerns: that's good to hear. Obviously I'm hoping they already have editors with experience on WP, but it would still be wise to prepare for the worst. What worries me most primarily is that most editors with major contributions to the Lima article so far don't appear to have much experience elsewhere on WP. I'm perfectly up to writing a letter (and there's nothing saying we can't both): letters to the Lima News editor are directed to letters at limanews dot com, and the Mayor's email is mayor at cityhall dot lima dot oh dot us. The reporter's email alias (although I think it would be more appropriate to contact the editor rather than the reporter directly) is hrutz. Let me know what you do. | |||
| ::As for the other stuff you've pointed out: yes, the nickname has a bit of a history behind it, although I won't go into that now. :-) Also, the time of my first edit means virtually nothing, as over 80% of my edits have been in the last month alone. I have managed to observe WP in the last year or so, though, and it appears to me that something as minor as a simple misunderstanding or lack of awareness of WP policy could turn this into a very bad situation, especially something akin to what you've described. I completely agree with you: best to ensure that everybody knows and understands the appropriate WP policies and guidelines ahead of time, long before the city uploads its finished product in August. And I guess that includes us "seasoned veterans" (though that label applies much more to you than it does to me) to remember ], too. Trying hard not to bite the newcomers, ] 06:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, I've just sent off an email to the article author (didn't read your message through the first time apparently) pointing her to the relevant discussion pages. If you send off one to someone else, hopefully it'll filter to the right people. They are on an August deadline, so I'm willing to wait a bit for a response. Regards, ]] 13:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Move request == | |||
| Hi BanyanTree - I made a move last week of the article ] to ] as I considered the former title to be ambiguous, and hence not suitable for being a primary topic page. However, it seems the move has been met with general disapprobation so please could you move it back, i.e. ] -> ] (assuming someone has not already done so by the time you read this). Cheers — ] 13:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi SteveRwanda, Done. There's a spare dab at ] that I'll let someone who actually knows something about the topic figure out. Cheers, ]] 13:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Cheers. As far as I know there are only two potential claimants to this title so I've added a simple disambiguation link to ] at the top of the Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom article. Incidentally I've added two new Africa related articles recently - ] and ]. I was half wondering if the latter might have potential to become featured if I put some work in, since it has a very interesting history and lots of potential for extra detail to be added to its various different roles over time. — ] 13:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually both of those look quite interesting and have potential. Be sure to start adding footnotes in the cite format now, as it'll be a pain to figure out what sources were used for what later on. A couple comments on MV Liemba: some info on design and build (e.g. was this the standard design or was it unusual) would be helpful and clarifying the various force strengths during WWI (I count three(?) German armed ships). But they're both better than the 90% of the articles already. - ]] 19:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks for the complements! I'll try and improve the things you mention when I have time - I have a book on the Graf von Götzen ship on order from Amazon, plus a DVD of the ''African Queen'' so can hopefully do more with those. Re citations, I asked a question on the Help Desk yesterday about what to do if multiple bits of the article come from the same source (as is the case at ]). If you could answer it (at ]) that would be quite helpful for me. Cheers! — ] 17:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Africa Award & Barnstar of National Merit == | |||
| I liked your "ooohh.... must... be ... civil" edit summary. I actually wrote something uncivilish in reply, but caught myself before I hit the "Save" button :) --] 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Ha! That was my second try at a response. Thank goodness for "Preview" so I had to chance to reword. - ]] 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Masindi District == | |||
| Please explain? ] 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oops, that's what I get for reverting before explaining on the talk. Sorry. Please see ]. - ]] 20:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * Great, let's talk there. Feel free to delete this from your talk page. ] 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Chernobyl displaced == | |||
| Hi! I've noticed you remove an anon' inclusion of ] displaced persons to the ] article. This move of yours highlight the problem of the definition of IDP and refugees. If Chernobyl's refugees do not qualify as IDP, they surely do qualify as refugees! So their case should be listed somewhere... You can't just remove it, you should move it somewhere else. If it's not IDP, then it's either ] or ]. Again, the problem of the "displaced persons" article is that it is both a fork, a stub, a technical term, and may even be seen as a ] (or, if you prefer, one more bureaucratic euphemism). Thus, this Chernobyl example should probably be included in the "refugee" article, which doesn't seems to have real reason for taking the "international juridical" definition as basis of it (Misplaced Pages is a general public encyclopedia, not a judicial treaty for lawyers). ] 15:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I completely disagree. You are now arguing for the collapse of all definitions into ], which is an argument for no structure at all. The Chernobyl displaced can be categorized to the top level of the hierarchy at ], though the fall under the "displaced due to natural or man-made disasters" sentence. I probably should have moved them, rather than removed them from the article into which they were misplaced. When you read a news article about "UNHCR says number of refugees decreases by 5%" or "Australia tightens refugee policy", they are referring to the legal definition. This is not some definition used only by ivory castle academics - it is the definition by which international aid, asylum policies and UN agencies are set up. - ]] 16:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC) | |||