Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:48, 18 April 2007

Archives
User talk:Zscout370/Archive 1 User talk:Zscout370/Archive 2 User talk:Zscout370/Archive 3 User talk:Zscout370/Archive 4 User talk:Zscout370/Archive 5 User talk:Zscout370/Archive 6

Belarus Wikiproject, old stuff

Brother Zachary! What would you think of the idea of a separate Belarus Wikiproject, and do you think there would be much support?

Also, have you had any success with the Scout graphics from Christmastime? Thanks, yours in Scouting, Chris 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, due to the new image licensing scheme by the Foundation. As for the Belarusian Wikiproject, I tried that before but failed. We do have a portal Portal:Belarus and just focus on whatever you like to do. User:Zscout370 23:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

What sort of new licensing scheme?

What made the project fail? Just too polarized because of politics, or what? I proposed a Ukraine Project and it was up and is running within three days, if I tested the water to see if there would be support, would you be involved?

Finally, I got this from a brother there, I don't understand the reason for the removal, but I figure you would be empathetic with the problem. Chris 05:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you might know the Army slogan "The Army of One." Well, the BY Wikiproject is the "Wikiproject of One." As for the Belarusian Misplaced Pages, I got those emails a lot because of my work with the Wikimedia OTRS. I am in talks with some folks right now to see if we can get the content restored at a different location. User:Zscout370 05:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam whitelist - what do you think?

At User:Eagle 101's request, I have gone to various editors seeking a consensus on this discussion, as I personally know the artist whose site it is - therefore, there is a small issue of WP:COI. Please take a look and leave your thoughts there.--Vox Humana 8' 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-India-Gov

Per this discussion. Should the same be done to this template? Since it's obviously not free enough either for wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue I had with the PH Government template is that it didn't allow for their works to be used commercial. I am not seeing that language in this one, but the no modifications might hurt us with this one. I'll ask around and get back to you. User:Zscout370 18:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I'm not that sorry, I thought the same but wanted confirmation to be sure. Do the same as with the philippines tag, redirect to Template:No license? Garion96 (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. User:Zscout370 19:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Orbicle's request for unblocking

Hello, Zscout. I hope you don't mind if I ask you to take another look at the case of User:Orbicle, whom you blocked indefinitely for copyright violations. I'm hoping that some administrator will agree to unblock him, but I feel it's courteous to ask you, as you were the one who placed the initial block. Please don't think I don't take copyright seriously. I do, and was in fact involved in cleaning up part of the mess, at Jkelly's request. I just don't think that Orbicle was fully aware of how important our copyright policy is. There are people who imagine that if something is published on the internet, it's "up for grabs", so to speak. At the very least, I think we could say that he was surely motivated by a desire to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia, and not by a desire to get the Foundation involved in some messy lawsuit! This case was discussed at the Admin noticeboard, but was then archived, and I feel that Orbicle may have been simply forgotten. It was also discussed here at the WikiProject Opera talk page, as I was modifying some of Orbicle's edits, and someone wanted to know why. People felt there that he had done good work, apart from this serious violation, and that it would be a pity to leave him blocked permanently. An administrator turned down his request for an unblock, and then there was silence. I don't know if admins are watching his page.

I left a message for him, suggesting that linking to the page at Meta about avoiding copyright paranoia was not the best way to ask for an unblock. Next time he logged on, which was quite recently, he removed it. He didn't attempt to replace the unblock request template after his request was denied, but I'd like you to consider unblocking him now that the mess has been cleaned up. I really don't think there's any danger that he'll copy sources into Misplaced Pages again, and a lot of the work that he did was untainted. There were stubs and disambiguation pages that I think could only have been original. I'm sure he'd be prepared to promise to follow our copyright policy in future, but I hate to see people forced to grovel, and I think if he made that promise, it should be enough. I suppose it's not actually necessary for him to agree with all the policies in order to be a productive Wikipedian. It should be enough simply to follow them. Thanks for your consideration. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi block

You just blocked the user indefinitely per the WP:CSN board's decision, but from reading (and participating) in the discussion regarding possible sanctions that it would be a promise not to recreate the material (did he do that again?), and up to a week's block for violations of WP:CIVIL, with escalating blocks after the 2nd. Just looking for clarification for the block (he's not helping himself by immediately editing under the IP address), but just looking for clarification. Thanks! SirFozzie 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yall wanted to try a civility parole, but since he seems to wanting to break it hours after it was suggested, I deemed him persona non grata based on his prior behavior and the way he pretty much will disregard the project, thus, issuing the indef block. User:Zscout370 01:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No Problem :) Just a bit confusing to see the CSN discussion referenced in the block log, when that was not what consensus was at the time. Sorry for bothering you! SirFozzie 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Zscout... I'd have let this run a bit longer. But I won't overturn unless consensus at Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:Tobias_Conradi seems very clear. ++Lar: t/c 11:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware that there is further discussion on AN and on CN about this, you really ought to turn up and speak to what the circumstances were. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I spoke to the CN. User:Zscout370 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Salting of File:Virginia massacre.jpg

This image was inappropriately uploaded before without a proper fair-use rationale, and was rightly deleted. However, I feel that it can fall under fair use guidelines as an irreplaceable picture illustrating this event firsthand, as per Image:West entrance.jpg and Image:VictimLibraryWindowColumbine.jpg, similar fair-use pictures used to illustrate Columbine High School massacre. Would you be willing to unsalt the page given the following fair-use rationale?

Thank you for your time. Krimpet (talk/review) 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No; it violated the US law on fair use. There is a set of tests that the image must pass. Currently, the image fails the 4th test, since news organizations are using the photo for commercial purposes. If we use it now, one day after the event, the commercial use of the image will be undercut, thus not fair use. User:Zscout370 05:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning though, wouldn't Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg violate the fair use test too? It's being distributed by news organizations for commercial purposes in the same exact manner. Krimpet (talk/review) 07:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. As for the Columbine photos, the event occured long ago, so the commercial use of the photos will not be affected buy us using them. User:Zscout370 07:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Zach! I noticed that you deleted Image:Cho Seung-hui 3.jpg (per the above). I'm hoping that you could explain in greater detail why the fair use rationale was invalid. (I'm not a copyright expert, so please bear with me.)

You seem to imply above that we have a legal obligation to not compete with commercial entities, but I've only seen that concept applied to photographs that belong to the commercial entities themselves. In other words, press agencies own the copyrights and sell publication rights to affiliated news organizations (or the actual news organizations own the photographs outright).

Why would this concept apply to a photograph supplied by a police department (for which no member of the press owns the copyright)? Why do profit-making entities have a special legal entitlement to make a fair use claim that we can't? It's been suggested that the rationale ordinarily applied to mugshots applies here.

Thanks for your time! —David Levy 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mugshots are copyrighted unless otherwise stated. In Virginia, unless there is something I have not found yet, the mugshots are copyrighted. If we got the photo ourselves from the Police Department, then it would be fine, since it is coming from the source. But if we take it from the AP, then it would not be good. Plus, as I told the user above, since the event just happened two days ago, we cannot automatically claim fair use on something. Give it a few months, and once the clamor subsides, we could claim fair use. User:Zscout370 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi

Hi, as you've been involved in blocking or unblocking Tobias Conradi during the past six months or so, I'm making this courtesy edit on your talk page to notify you that there has recently been an inconclusive community sanction discussion, and I have taken this to arbitration. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)