| Revision as of 16:09, 5 June 2007 view sourceHongQiGong (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,196 edits It would be nice← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:14, 5 June 2007 view source Alfred Legrand (talk | contribs)418 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 287: | Line 287: | ||
| It would be really nice if admins and editors currently involved in this ongoing dispute about ] and how to apply those policies, what to speedy delete, etc, would actually discuss policy first and agree to some better laid out rules, instead of deleting first and then getting into arguments about the deletions and policies ''after''. I have not paid much attention to this dispute and I am completely neutral about it. But I feel that good faith editing is being speedily deleted as careless casualties of this dispute, when AfDs may have been more appropriate, or at least a "]" tag. Some articles probably deseved speedy deletions, but I think we've reached a point in this dispute where admins are speedily deleting too hastily because they need to advance their side of the dispute. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | It would be really nice if admins and editors currently involved in this ongoing dispute about ] and how to apply those policies, what to speedy delete, etc, would actually discuss policy first and agree to some better laid out rules, instead of deleting first and then getting into arguments about the deletions and policies ''after''. I have not paid much attention to this dispute and I am completely neutral about it. But I feel that good faith editing is being speedily deleted as careless casualties of this dispute, when AfDs may have been more appropriate, or at least a "]" tag. Some articles probably deseved speedy deletions, but I think we've reached a point in this dispute where admins are speedily deleting too hastily because they need to advance their side of the dispute. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Misplaced Pages's intent confuses me == | |||
| I have had articles about quite noteable persons erased, and have been accused of vandalism when what I added was truth, backed by references. I have been blocked for unknown reasons. Misplaced Pages seems not to be what you, yourself, intended at this point. There does seem to be an in-crowd who exert control; perhaps, without your knowledge, they are hired and paid by corporations to oversee certain sites. Indeed, I have found Misplaced Pages to be an unfriendly, contentious place for us newcomers. This, I suspect, is not what you want it to be. ] 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:14, 5 June 2007
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
international symbols: fair use or copyright with permission?
This has once again been brought up by the International Symbol of Access debate. It's currently loaded as a fair use image, so it's used in one article, and every other article which wants to use it (plus userboxes) had been using a free alternative created by a Wikipedian: 
.
The discussion got restarted when the free alternative image was the template was changed to use unicode (the symbol is assigned codepoint U+267F) which now leaves most people seeing a ?.
The discussion got back to whether or not we could use the actual image when I quoted the NEW RESOLUTION ON USE OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESS and said some disparaging things about wikipedia's handling of the matter:
"The Symbol shall be displayed only to identify, mark or show the way to buildings and facilities that are accessible to and useable by all persons whose mobility is restricted, including wheelchair users."
I obviously both have strong views of why an alternative is not acceptable in the matter of the ISA, and I have strong views as on Misplaced Pages and the use of copyrighted images where permission exists. Which is at the moment, neither here nor there, as I'm primarily concerned that our policies reflect one thing, and that sometimes, our actions another.
For example: Euro images are uploaded under a special tag just for euros, that details both the copyright and the permission given. They aren't treated as fair use images, but used in multiple articles.
Apparantly the words, "regardless of their licensing status" in the EDP is what has kept any change from being made to policy--and if you agree that we should not make an exception for international images, I am fine to agree to disagree with you on that...as long as it applies equally to all international images. I am very bothered by the knowing and willing hypocrisy of Misplaced Pages editors.
Since editors on both sides of this debate seem frozen by the EDP, I would appreciate it if you could clarify your stance on the usage of copyrighted internation symbols that we have the legal permission to use--so that we could either make the necessary changes to policy and create new usage templates and hopefully stop debating the ISA, or so that we could go through and clean up the places we are using copyrighted international symbols under the permissions granted (like the over 200 euro images).
Thank you, Miss Mondegreen talk 19:23, May 22 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Masha Allen
Jimbo,
I have never written you before, but I am asking that you restore the Masha Allen article (as well as Matthew Mancuso). They were carefully and neutrally written about a difficult subject. Yet User:Phil Sandifer somehow felt they were an invasion of privacy (did she complain to us? He refuses to say) and deleted them without a vote.
I have never believed bad things people say about administrators, until now. Please help me keep my faith here. Wiki'dWitch 03:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've e-mailed you the pertinent details of this one. It is probably worth your attention. Phil Sandifer 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jimbo, I am a person who create russian article about Masha and I wonder why english verion was deleted. Russians are very sensitive on violence over russian childs in America and this deletion seems very dirty action. --Evgen2 22:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Support?
Do not waste your time writing a message to me.
I am no longer in support of Misplaced Pages and have joined the ranks of those who oppose it.
--ElectricEye (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooooh kaaay. Anyone know what this is about?--Jimbo Wales 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- This??? (Clutching at straws) Ryan Postlethwaite 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it's not that, the user has been away since Jan 15th and came back today to withdraw support from wikipedia.... weird. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then why would he write this on a banned sock users page because I remember this user said on IRC that he will send a letter of apology Jimbo Wales to unban him so that he could edit again a few days ago and then why is Electric Eye referring to that message unless he was one of the sock..Only god knows the answer to that question :)..--Cometstyles 18:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're a Jimbotheist? 58.178.38.162 03:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
News media photos
Jimbo, there are currently two deletion review discussions taking place pertaining to news media photos that were being used under a claim of fair use. The first, Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_30#Image:Cogny_Castries_Navarre.jpg, while inappropriate, but rather benign as far as legal liability, is a photo taken during the Vietnam war. The second, Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_29#Image:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg, is an AP photo from only a few years ago. In neither case is the photo iconic - they merely happen to depict an event relevant to the topic.
It is my view (IANAL) that, except for iconic photos like Iwa Jima, the Kent State shootings, etc, using news media photos without permission and without paying royalties constitutes a serious copyright violation that can get us into a lot of trouble and that no consensus can change this legal reality.
Would it be possible to have either a formal legal opinion from the Foundation or even an informal statement from you regarding the use of news media photos? If I am wrong, I would like to know that, and if I am right, it would be appreciated if someone in a position to say so could intervene in this issue. Thank you. --BigDT 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to know the answer too. FYI, photos as iconic as Iwo Flag Raising have been deleted for copyright. For example, Robert Jackson's photo of Ruby shooting Oswald, which won a Pulizter just like the Iwo photo, has been repeatedly deleted from Oswald and Ruby articles, and JFK articles. The irony of this is great, inasmuch as the print quality used to ADVERTISE it on the net (for example at Amazon: ) would be quite good enough to use, as is, in Misplaced Pages. So where is the loss of revenue to the photographer, when widely available public net advertising level of detail is used? Beats me. But somebody has a bug up their fanny about this photo, and until they die or Misplaced Pages changes their mediation policy, you won't see it here. SBHarris 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to consider that we have an article on the image Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but we don't have an article on the shooting photo. --Carnildo 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Presumably we would if we could USE the &%$# thing! There's a fair amount of interesting history on how the Jackson photo was taken, as there is with any Pulitzer work, but there's no point in presenting it without illustration. So you're not going to be reading it here. SBHarris 00:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I really wish we could have a "thou shalt not" from the foundation or at least any response here. Even an "I don't care, but thanks for asking" from Jimbo would be better than nothing. The DRVs right now basically consist of "if I close my eyes and hum real loudly, then copyright problems will go away". Nobody questions the use of famous photos (provided that they aren't being used merely for decorative purposes in an article only tangentally related). But if it's just an ordinary photo that nobody who didn't read the newspaper has seen, we can't use it. It doesn't matter how much we want to. It doesn't matter how irreplaceable it is. It would be nice if we could get a formal imprimatur from the foundation saying as much. --BigDT 16:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Good essay on BADSITES policy
Have you read this essay? I believe it addresses the issue very well and I think the community would be interested in your opinion on the essay and/or the policy that it discusses. Cla68 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Jerryseinfeld
May i know the reason why this user has been blocked. i didn't get the reason. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 13:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Usernames can't imply that the user is a real, specific person (except in the case where they actually are). WilyD 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sushant, it's because this is the name of an actor who happens to be famous in the United States. Cult of the Sacred Or_nge
Follow up
Greetings Mr. Wales,
I noticed that my request was recently archived, but I never received a reply. If a decision has yet to be made, please just let me know that the request has been received.
Thank you.
Eleos 14:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that's Jimbo's way of saying that he doesn't wish to comment on the matter, if you have a specific issue with usurpation, I suggest you take it to WT:CHU/U. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see... I was sorta blithely hoping it was more of a 'no news is good news' kind of a thing. :) Thanks for letting me know. Eleos 09:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Armenian Censorship at Misplaced Pages
I just went through a frightening experience. I ventured onto the Anti-Armenianism page, did not agree with the presented thesis, but feared my comments would not be allowed to remain; Armenians and their supporters have hijacked Misplaced Pages to present their propaganda exclusively. I thought I would have no problem in the Talk section, and my basic point was that if someone studies the actual history of these events and concludes the events did not amount to a racial extermination policy, that in no way could amount to "anti-Armenianism," or racism. Literally minutes after my two contributions, someone named Aivazovsky did away with my thoughts, citing "Removing flame bait." (Please note the May 31 entries in this page's history section.)
This has nothing to do with "flame bait removal," but out and out thought control. It goes against the very core of what Misplaced Pages should be representing, the search for and presentation of factual information. And the speed with which this censorship was practiced was simply astounding. As if these tenacious thought control agents are lying in wake, guarding against any questioning of their version of events. (I believe this person even fixed it so that I could no longer contribute to this page. Not that I would want to; I would never be able to match this person's obsession, because I have a "life" to attend to.)
Mr. Wales, the majority of people naively have accepted the validity of the "Armenian genocide," simply because of such tenacity, censorship and thought control practiced across-the-board in most Western societies, where Armenians have infiltrated positions of influence. (Aided by an age-old prejudice against the accused party, the Turks.) But as you would no doubt be the first to agree, majority opinion can never substitute for the truth. The truth comes only from digging underneath the easy surface.
In case you have also been duped, I would urge you to look at objective sources to see what truly transpired during these tragic years of WWI. Real historians, and not one-sided, agenda pursuing "genocide scholars," have been intimidated away, because dogmatic believers such as Aivazovsky use underhanded tactics. Even if you have been among the many who have been seduced to believe in the validity of this supposed genocide (please read, for example, "The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide," a 2005 book written by a genuine scholar who considers all information, not simply the readily available propaganda. The author is Prof. Guenter Lewy, who also happens to be a Holocaust survivor; he has not whitewashed anything), and do something about this pro-Armenian mafia that has attained such incredible control at Misplaced Pages.
Not only are they chipping away at the credibility of Misplaced Pages, but think of the morality. They are accusing a party (in this case, a nation) of mass murder. What if they are wrong? They are getting away with a perpetuation of tremendous racism and hatred, enabling Misplaced Pages to be an accomplice in their evil. You must look into this, and you must take the control away from these thought-monopolizing pro-Armenians. Scannie 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- There was no reason for the deletion of your comments. Refactoring of talk pages is done only in extreme cases. I have restored your comment in that talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jossi. Allow me to request of you to revert my second comment as well, under the heading "There is no anti-Armenianism." We will see whether such changes will be allowed to remain under the hands of those pharisees such as Aivazovsky, the policing of whom is a task in itself. However, the restoration of comments is nothing compared to the core problem. If Mr. Wales does not keep an eye on his discussion page, and if anyone is in the position of making him aware of the pro-Armenian abuse at Misplaced Pages, PLEASE bring it to his attention; it is that serious. Scannie 00:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can restore your other comment yourself. The user that deleted your comments has apologized. As for your other concerns, you will need to address these with the editors engaged in editing that article. This is Misplaced Pages, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have placed some pointers in your talk page so that you can become familiar with this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Scannie's objective seems to be to harass the Armenian editors on Misplaced Pages and his goal appears to be "cleansing" the Armenians from Misplaced Pages completely. -- Aivazovsky 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- There is no need to escalate this and start a flame war here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Scannie's objective seems to be to harass the Armenian editors on Misplaced Pages and his goal appears to be "cleansing" the Armenians from Misplaced Pages completely. -- Aivazovsky 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Some Advice...
Hi Jimbo,
Ich lerne Deutsch auch, und ich werde gehen an Deutschland auf Sonntag lernen mehr davon! I'm a huge fan of both you and Misplaced Pages, and was hoping for some advice. My primary work is reverting vandalism and I was wondering if you could answer a few questions for me:
- How do I delete images? I often see nonsensical and orphaned image on Misplaced Pages.
- Is there a "standard" template warning to add to a vandal's talk page?
- Is it bad faith to delete senseless discussions on articles' discussion pages?
Ich danke Ihnen sehr viel, --MosheA 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hello,
- You can't delete images directly, but you can add template and an admin will look into it. See Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion.
- Starndard user warnings: WP:UW and WP:UWT
- Deleting anything from the talk page is frowned upon, except vandalism and perhaps personal attacks. Offtopic discussion should probably just be ignored, or you could post "please stay ontopic" (or something).
- --h2g2bob (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Just one comment (if I may edit this page).
Be proud of how far your project has come, and what you have done for free information for every person in the world. SalaSkan 23:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just because you can edit his user page doesn't mean you should. If you want to address Jimmy, this is the page to do it.--cj | talk 03:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
About Misplaced Pages Reform
Sorry, I can't translate it.
Following is a Korean text about Misplaced Pages Reform:
- 제가 사실, 영어를 잘 못해서 그러는데, 위키피디아 창립자가나 재단이 저작권을 잘 모르는 거 같습니다. 원래 위키피디아에서 공정사용을 차단하는게 원칙이고 예외적으로 개별적으로 허용할 수 있다고 한 건, 매우 어처구니없는 일이었죠. 전세계에서 다 공정사용은 기본으로 인정되는데, "더 자유롭게"를 표방한 위키피디아가, 전세계가 다 인정하는 공정사용을, "공정사용은 금지가 원칙" 이라고 프로젝트를 추진하였는데, 넌센스입니다. 가장 자유롭게를 표방하면서, 전세계가 다 기본으로 인정하는 자유를 "금지" 시켜버린...넌센스죠. 어처구니없는 일입니다.
- 저작권옹호론과 반대되는 것은 카피레프트론이나 GFDL론이나 뭐가 아니고...원래 오래 전 부터...ko:저작권 사상과 반대되는 사상이 있었죠. 그걸 미국에서는 ko:공정 사용 사상이라고 하는데, 그건 미국인들 단어고, 전세계에 다 있습니다. 저작권과 반대되는 안티저작권...저작권자 허락에 상관없이 무단으로 저작물을 사용하는 자유...이 사상은 기본적으로 어느나라나 다 있는 거죠. 그걸, 가장 자유롭게 운운하면서 프로젝트를 출범시켜놓고, 다 막아놨죠.
- 내가 보기엔, 위키피디아가 직접민주주의 비슷하게 운영되어서, 아무래도 미국 저작권 보호협회 알바생틀의 집단 투표와 주장에 ko:지미 웨일즈가 넘어간 느낌이 큽니다.
- 아니면, 전세계 전부가 다 인정하는게 공정이용인데...이건? 미국꺼거든? 다른나라는 안되거든? 하면서 다 차단시켜놓은 거...쉽게 말해 미국만 공정이용이 되고 다른 나라는 안 된다는 소리를...좀 우회적으로 했는데...미국 저작권 협회쪽에서 작업을 건 느낌이 많이 듭니다.
- 공정사용은 전세계 어느나라나 다 인정합니다. 막펌질의 자유죠. 어느나라나 다 인정합니다. 어떻게 아냐구요? ko:공정 사용에 대표적인 것이 ko:인용이죠. 인용이 금지되는 언론사가 세계에 존재한다구요? 넌센스죠. 공정 사용은 "기본값"으로, 전세계 어디서나 다 인정디는 "자유"인데...세상에서 가장 "자유"로운 프로젝트를 만들자고 위키피디아 프로젝트를 출범시켜놓고, 희한한 논리에 빠져서, "공정 사용"을 금지가 원칙이고 예외적으로 개별적으로 허용을 논의할 수 있다는 식으로...전세계에서 가장 비자유스런 정책을 만들었죠. 누가 들으면, 웃을 일인데...한마디로 어이없습니다. 제가 영어를 못해서 이런 일이 일어났는지도 모르겠군요. ㅎㅎ
- 혹시 어떤 언어판 위키피디아에서는 논문이나 신문이나 저서의 인용이 금지되는 곳이 있다구요? 신기한 나라군요. 그리고 인용은 텍스트 인용만 인용이 아니라 사진 인용 동영상 인용 사운드 인용도 다 인용입니다. 그런데...텍스트 인용은 전세계 언어판 위키피디아가 다 되는데...그 외의 인용은 다 금지된다? 넌센스죠...이거 저작권에 완전 무지하거나, 아니면 저작권 옹호론자들의 궤변에 넘어갔거나 기타등등의 어이없는 일이 발생한 것으로 보입니다.
- 원래, 텍스트 인용하는 거 금지되는 나라가 없듯, 사진이건 동영상이건 사운드건 뭐건...모든 저작물은 무단 인용이 됩니다. 그거 금지하는 나라는 없습니다. ko:북한까지도 가입한, 왠만한 나라 다 가입한 ko:베른 협약에서 명문 조항으로 ko:인용을 규정하고 있지만, 그거 가입 안한 나라도 인용은 다 허락됩니다. 미국인들의 공정사용이라는게, 쉽게말해 인용을 말하죠. 저작권자 동의없이 통지도 없이 무단으로 펌질하는 거...전세계가 다 인정합니다. 어느정도 제한을 두기는 하죠. 무제한이면 저작권이 존재할 수 없으니까요.
-- WonYong (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) 09:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Try http://babelfish.altavista.com, http://translate.google.com. --h2g2bob (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Babelfish gives me:
- o I cannot a fact and English well and that le place, up height blood D Oh establishment own house or the foundation does not know a copyright well and well! it is same. That height blood D above original Oh from it intercepts a process use to principle and it will be able to permit exceptionally individually, one case and very U wife it acts the day when it is not Uss cyo. From the whole world multi process use the place where it is recognized in basic, it professes "place height blood D baby whom more freely", the whole world multi the process use which it recognizes, "process use the prohibition propelled" as this project of principle, is the sense which spreads out. It professed most freely, the whole world recognizes in multi basic the freedom which and "prohibition" it made it threw away... the sense which spreads out cyo. U wife it acts it is one which is not. The o copyright support Ron and being opposed copy ley phu thu Ron or GFDL Ron or is not what... original long from before...ko: Copyright thought and the thought which is opposed Iss Uss cyo. That from the United States which it will hang the ko: As process use thought the place where it does, the case American wild word, all it is in the whole world. Copyright and inside being opposed, mote copyright... the higher officer without the freedom which uses the literary work with no permission... basically which country B all there is this thought to copyright sleeping permission, well! cyo. That it hangs, most freely the fortune canal it leaves it puts,, it closes all, a project and nwass cyo. The o I will see to, up height blood D baby direct democracy to be similarly operated, in group poll and assertion of the lifestyle frame which American copyright protection association will know anyway the ko: The impression which supremely beautiful Wales goes over is big. The o when is not, the whole world whole recognizes multi to the place where it is a process use... this case? The United States it put out and it helped? If the different country does not become? It does and multi it intercepts and it puts and and well!... it talks easily and only the United States becomes the process use and the different country does not become sound but... petty bypass... work case impression holds plentifully from the American copyright association piece. The o process use the whole world which country B multi it recognizes. Just phem question freedom cyo. Which country B multi it recognizes. It is how Oh nya nine bedspreads? ko: In process use representative thing ko: Reference cyo. Nine bedspreads where the press where the reference is forbidden exists in the world? The sense which spreads out cyo. Process use "the whole world where it stands but the multi human nature D" freedom "the place where is... from the world make a fortune project in head of a family" freedom ", up height blood D Oh leaves a project with basic price and", it puts, to the logic which it limits huy it falls in, "process use" the prohibition principle and exceptionally individually it will be able to discuss a permission with... Uss who a most non-freedom will make be policy from the whole world cyo. Cumulation it will listen to, the first person place where it will laugh... there is not U in single word. I could not English and like this day should have happened, it will not know. The o place height blood D which what kind of language it sells maybe Oh from nine bedspreads which are the place where the reference of dissertation or the newspaper or the book is forbidden? Energy one country army bedspread. And reference only text reference the reference knows photograph reference eastern image reference sound reference is multi reference. But... the text reference the whole world language is place height blood D baby whom it sells and the place... the reference of that outside is forbidden multi? The sense which spreads out cyo... well! is complete and ignorant in copyright, or it is not, with the fact that the day when U of the other etc. which it goes over in deceptive talk of the copyright support Ron sleeping field, or there is not occurs. The o original and text refers well! the country which is forbidden is not, the photograph the case eastern image case sound case what case... all literary works no permission reference becomes. That well! is not a country which it forbids. ko: Even until North Korea it joined, wayn the country enough multi joins the ko: which From Bern agreement with distinguished family provision ko: It provides a reference, inside the well! joining one country the reference is allowed multi. It is a process use of Americans to, easily to talk, reference under end cyo. Copyright sleeping motion also the notice phem quality does without without with no permission and well!... the whole world recognizes multi. It puts which degree limit under cyo. The copyright which when is limitless will be able to exist the bedspread.
- Automated translation still has its problems. *Dan T.* 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Limitless copyright lets bedspreads exist? Cool. I love automated translators. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- "...all literary works no permission reference becomes." Yoda discussing the Jedi Handbook after he's had too much to drink? 6SJ7 00:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Limitless copyright lets bedspreads exist? Cool. I love automated translators. --Deskana (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Automated translation still has its problems. *Dan T.* 11:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets
I know using abusive sockpuppets are bad but is having more then 1 account? I play many games like runescape and its allowed i was just curious if its allowed here im sorta new and if I could get a link to the rules I've been looking but I must be blink ^.- heh
Sorry i didin't sign... 666god666 12:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Our sockpuppet policy is outlined at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppets. Hut 8.5 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
RfC opened on a dispute that you were involved with
Hi Jimbo! I've just opened an RfC about my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with late last year. Here's a link to the discussion to refresh your memory: . The RfC is here if you'd like to comment or ask me any questions. CLA 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like Misplaced Pages join to this campaign
Hello, Mr. Wales:
Maybe I'm making a mistake but I think that Misplaced Pages must join to the campaign to free Emmanuel.
Emmanuel is the son of Clara Rojas, partner of Íngrid Betancourt, who were kidnapped by FARC in 2002. In captivity Mrs. Rojas got pregnant and gave birth a baby named Emmanuel. Since that day Mrs. Rojas and her baby are in somewhere in Colombia's jungle suffering a lot of pain.
¡This baby was born without freedom and must be freed together with his mom!
I propose Misplaced Pages to join to the worldwide campaign for the unconditioned releasing of Mrs. Rojas and her son, Emmanuel who, as I said above, are kidnapped by FARC in inhuman conditions in the jungle.
The world must know now who really are the FARC. They are not freedom fighters, they're only lawless, Godless and heartless criminals.
Sincerely:
--S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to be misconstruing the nature and purpose of Misplaced Pages if you think it's proper for it, as a site and organization, to "join" causes of any sort, no matter how noble and right they are. *Dan T.* 12:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Español
Misplaced Pages debe unirse a la campaña por la liberación del pequeño Emmanuel quien nació en cautiverio. Su madre, Clara Rojas, fue secuestrada junto a Íngrid Betancourt. Rojas tuvo un niño en cautiverio llamado Emmanuel estando secuestrada por las FARC y, por ende, ese nené nació sin libertad.
Propongo que Misplaced Pages se una a la campaña por la liberación unilateral y sin condiciones de Emmanuel y de Clara Rojas, su mamá, quienes están como rehenes de las FARC.
¡Libertad para Emmanuel y Clara Rojas! Que la humanidad sepa quiénes son, de una vez por todas, realmente las FARC.
Gracias.
--S.V.B.E.E.V. 16:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Can articles really go unsourced since 05/2004?
I posted this with a help tag. where has help gone? and reposted to wp:assist
I stumbled across, House of Windsor and found a complete re-write of UK history. Other editors have seen the same problem. I cursed a lil left the offending sections on talk and deleted them. The only references were on a heraldry site and i think he had taken the info from wikipedia. The nonsense had been on site since May 2004 See Edit log and was posted by User:Garryq. Do I report it him? Can I ask that all editors on that site get a 24hour ban for unsourced articles? help plz Mike33 08:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I am just amazed! This is complete fantasy and nobody has bothered to notice? The Queen of England summoning parliament that she would style herself how she wanted? It has sat on that page with admins in and out restyling! NOT BOTS, ADMINS. Not a single sentence was queried.
I'd just wikiban every single editor who fell for it (including me) (24 hours enough) but articles like this suck and poor guys have quoted us on web pages. Mike33 08:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Blocking is generally done to protect the encyclopedia rather than as a punitive measure - see WP:BLOCK. Articles go unsourced if nobody takes any action about it, so thanks for doing so. --h2g2bob (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
*__*
♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 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. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We need a new line@foundation
I have a better idea to replace "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." at the foundation wiki... try this line, or something like it:
"All my project; my thirty thousand men with their wives and children, are devoting themselves to the preparation of an "Encyclopedia Galactica." They will not complete it in their lifetimes. I will not even live to see it fairly begun."
-Foundation, chapter 1 section 6
I find the fact that Wikimedia has a heck of a lot more then 30000 people very funny. Copyright may be a problem though. W1k13rh3nry 18:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Administrator Abuse
Can you look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#FCYTravis to see whether his administratorship should be revoked?--JEF 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- No it shouldn't, he hasn't misused any tools, and for that matter, AGF should mean that you assume fCYTravis has done nothing wrong. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The talk page message could certainly be seen as trolling, but there's no logical reason for a desysopping or any other action beyond JEF simply removing it if he feels so inclined. --BigDT 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that he acted outside official channels and he was caught in a lie (he said that he saw the anoynomous IP do it and then he made fun of it when the history shows he edited first.). How can such an adminstrator be trusted with blocking users? What if he is blocking users he doesn't personally agree with?--JEF 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- WTF are you talking about? FCYTravis, according to his userpage is in California, and the IP was in Pennsylvania, is that not proof enough that he didn't do it? Minor technological flaws such as that are not reasons to desysop an admin, you're disruption is borderline trolling now. — Moe ε 21:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- He said he saw your userbox and decided to comment on it. Not that he saw an IP vandalise your userbox and decided to comment on it. --pgk 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can look at his admin logs with these links - FCYTravis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If he is abusing the admin tools by blocking users without cause, I would be the first to call for his removal. Simply having a point of view is not sufficient cause for removal. I am a born again Christian, but I respect even those editors with whom I strongly disagree. --BigDT 21:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that is all I needed to see. You cannot expect me not to suspect such when the timing is so strangely coincidential. I misunderstood his story but he should not handled the userbox with the talk page post and accusations of bigotry; he could have just put it up for templates for deletion.--JEF 21:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The point is that he acted outside official channels and he was caught in a lie (he said that he saw the anoynomous IP do it and then he made fun of it when the history shows he edited first.). How can such an adminstrator be trusted with blocking users? What if he is blocking users he doesn't personally agree with?--JEF 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The talk page message could certainly be seen as trolling, but there's no logical reason for a desysopping or any other action beyond JEF simply removing it if he feels so inclined. --BigDT 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Special indulgence sought
Last year, in an effort to get an article to better conform to reality, I (editing as User:WordBomb) violated policy by attaching an editor's real name to his Misplaced Pages username(s) and consequently was blocked forever and ever. Fair enough. Had I known the outcome would be so severe, I likely would have taken a more traditional approach. But I was new to the project and I didn't understand the consequences, and that's fine because there are worse things than being prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages.
What greatly bothers me is to now watch User:Cla68 one of the more exemplary editors I've ever seen on this project (and who currently finds himself in the midst of an RfC relating to the events leading up to his recent failed RfA), endure punishment as an accused "associate" of mine, when he is no such thing. In making her case to the contrary, User:SlimVirgin has dramatically mischaracterized several facts unopposed, because I alone can offer the "other side."
Problem is, I'm not allowed to do so.
I'm asking for a special indulgence to contribute to Cla68's RfC, in order to counter what I perceive as inaccurate (and easily proven as such) claims relating to me and any relationship I supposedly have with Cla68. I don't care about anything else and will not address any other topic and will go away once I've made my points. I come to you because I feel several members of the ArbCom are conflicted on this topic and cannot be counted on to act objectively.
If Cla68 would rather I not contribute to his RfC, I will honor his request.
Mr. Wales, I have nothing to gain or lose by requesting this, other than to satisfy my innate need to see people treated fairly. --Tabula Plena 23:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
About WP:NOT
Hi, Mr, Wales I am one of the proud user here on wikipedia. And I am writing to you because I don't know who to turn to.
I am recently warned by another user about violation of WP:NOT#PUBLISHER and he threaten to have me blocked for that violation. What I did is just to update sport score a few minute before a game actually end. Now, is that violate the rule he point out. Since I feel I didn't violate the rule, and I am trying to maintain wikipedia, I try to reason with him about this. But he insist that I break the rule and threaten admin intervention. Now, as far as I know, WP:IAR states that rules should be ignore, if it is for the improvement of wikipedia. So according to this rule, what I did is not wrong. I await your opinion in this matter. and thanks for your time. Chris 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it is me again. I just want to tell you one more thing. User:Ksy92003 talks to an admin named User:Wizardman. I don't know if he is going block me for what I did because it seems to me he pretty much agree with him. All I want to say is that I know u are busy. When you see this message, please look into this matter because I am innocent and his action against me is wrong. I have been making some good edits here and I don't want to lose that because of a small problem. Thanks again. I want to talk to you especially because I feel like all the other dispute resolving methods won't work if he got an admin working his way. Chris 22:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to brother you. This issue is now temporarily resolved. Chris 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Autograph
Can I have your Autograph?
—Remember, the Edit will be with you, always. (Sethdoe92) 23:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
nice grey beard patch ya got there jimmy --AnYoNe! 10:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice
It would be really nice if admins and editors currently involved in this ongoing dispute about WP:BLP and how to apply those policies, what to speedy delete, etc, would actually discuss policy first and agree to some better laid out rules, instead of deleting first and then getting into arguments about the deletions and policies after. I have not paid much attention to this dispute and I am completely neutral about it. But I feel that good faith editing is being speedily deleted as careless casualties of this dispute, when AfDs may have been more appropriate, or at least a "prod" tag. Some articles probably deseved speedy deletions, but I think we've reached a point in this dispute where admins are speedily deleting too hastily because they need to advance their side of the dispute. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages's intent confuses me
I have had articles about quite noteable persons erased, and have been accused of vandalism when what I added was truth, backed by references. I have been blocked for unknown reasons. Misplaced Pages seems not to be what you, yourself, intended at this point. There does seem to be an in-crowd who exert control; perhaps, without your knowledge, they are hired and paid by corporations to oversee certain sites. Indeed, I have found Misplaced Pages to be an unfriendly, contentious place for us newcomers. This, I suspect, is not what you want it to be. Alfred Legrand 22:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)