Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:25, 25 June 2007

When I find that the conversations or issues discussed here have either ended or resolved, they will be inserted into my archives at my own discretion.—Ryūlóng

Re: Stern warning

Why would I be disrupting? That was the only page I wanted to do anything to, and now that it's all going to get deleted, I have no point in editting anything else. I haven't even editted anything in several days. - Cwmoneybags

There are plenty of other pages that could use your enthusiasm. Just write about wrestling that doesn't involve the PCW.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 07:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, I would reconsider the words you use in your warning. you said, 'if you solely edit concerning PCW' - we have lots of users who only edit on one subject, and its not disruptive. The words you used didn't match what I thought was your intent, which I expect was the editor's PCW walled garden and creation of dozens of close to content-free PCW pages. The editor doesn't seem to understand what you mean, because of the phrasing. --Thespian 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Drop it

NO! Not until the foundation actually DOES SOMETHING! Misplaced Pages has a duty of care to protect its editors from criminality. While this is not really dangerous with children like GNAA, as i said many people edit about terrorist organisations and thier corrupt government. "Outing" in those cases could result in death. PS I care what happened on a non-wikipedia irc chat site. Hypnosadist 09:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I strongly urge you to email or call the foundation about this, a mob scene on a noticeboard won't register on their radar, contacting them about their handling of this actually might. --MichaelLinnear 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And there's nothing that complaining about it at the administrators noticeboards is going to solve. And what "non-Misplaced Pages IRC chat sites"? There's nothing that I can do, and there's nothing that you can do concerning this situation. It's best to let that discussion go away while it's being worked on by the office. There's nothing that we can accomplish at this moment with that thread, and that's why it's archived. ColScott is still indefinitely blocked, and there are several administrators trying to deal with this bullshit.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 09:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're underestimating the power of community sentiment. See User:Essjay, where the foundation had it wrong, the community had it right and the foundation ultimately recognized this. Of course sometimes the foundation is right and the community is wrong, while most often there is no difference. Here I see another case where the community was and is right. The deeper you dig into the rank and file, the more people are pissed off about this, as was plain as day on the prematurely-closed WP:AN ban discussion. We have policies here which prohibit harassment. That is part of the trust under which volunteers commit our expertise and labor. For those policies to be deliberately unenforced - literally un-enforced - is a breach of that trust.Proabivouac 10:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"while it's being worked on by the office" well why has no-one has metioned this in the topic. Several editors asked repeatedly for official input into this but there was silence, silence is equated with inaction on wikipedia. Heres a hint inform editors whats going on! 10:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that a bunch of us were looking at the photograph to figure out anything. I closed the thread because it was attracting trolling. There were mentions in #wikipedia about it, and it was by obvious members of the 4-lettered organization. And that carried over onto the site. Cary was not online today (I had something unrelated to talk to him about), so he may have been working on it, or he may not have. The only person from the office who I saw any discussion from was an OTRS deletion that she was unable to perform. There is nothing else that can be done on the site, and nothing I know that's going on personally.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 10:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So if i understand what you say, after 48 hours of this the office has done nothing publicly and is probably not doing anything in private, thats just not good enough. This defeatist attitude is not helping either, GNAA have stepped up from trolls to a terrorist orgaisation (under my IANAL understanting of terrorist threats charge in USA law). Death threats to editors CAN NOT BE TOLERATED, especially when they are off-wiki and hence have much more force and likelyhood of being real. As i understand it Colscott can still edit his talk page so he can out someone on-wiki any time he likes, as well as opperating an off-wiki site to threaten editors (which again the foundation should take legal action against). 10:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us, though, draw a clear line between what is done and allowed off-site and what is done and allowed here. Cutting deals to reduce off-site harassment in exchange for enabling harassment here is, for a number of obvious reasons, deeply ill-advised.Proabivouac 10:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but indeed, I am pretty confident that if anyone wishes to email H and tell him to call or email the Foundation, I am very confident they will do what they can. Jimbo Wales takes these situations very seriously and I believe he will do what he can to help.--MONGO 11:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The foundation has H's email they could always email him to offer help, how about that! 11:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas, but, the point is that Foundation very deliberately and consciously took the step of unblocking ColScott, and unprotecting his userpage, which any reasonable person could have known and did know would virtually guarantee the resumption of attacks against several of our editors, as it did. This is completely unacceptable, and must never happen again.Proabivouac 11:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, Ryulong thanks for trying to deal with the mess at ANI about this situation. --MichaelLinnear 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY

WP:DENY is an essay not a policy or guideline - even so it's very very clearly about vandalism and those seeking attention, not intended as a mechanism to remove the comments of editors operating in good faith. Please do not use it in future when dealing with good faith contributors. --Fredrick day 10:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Republicofwiki

Hi, this user just came onto IRC enquiring about his blocking. I've had a look over his edits, and while I agree that it could be seen as suspicious that a relativly new user participates in RfA (possible sockpuppet?), I think indef-blocking in this way is a violation of Assume Good Faith. Unless there's any evidence I'm missing that confirms this user as a sock puppet, I'm going to state my opposition to this block.

I hope you don't mind me making these comments, I'm attempting to be bold and help out both this user and Misplaced Pages. If there is something else I'm missing in this case (deleted edits, etc), could you please let me know? Thanks, Darksun 11:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree he's a sockpuppet/new account of an other user (he know the procedures much more than most users), I don't really see the harassment. In my views his behavior is not really against WP:SOCK, since he did not disrupt a process or seem to have /voted somewhere. Am I missing something? For now I'd assume good faith, personally, but it's your call. -- lucasbfr 12:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be aware there is a discussion about this user on AN/I, and that I have added a comment regarding the situation. Be well! Vassyana 12:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

I'm sure someone else raised this before, so please pardon me, but is there a reason you do not have email enabled? Vassyana 12:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Some asshole's bothering me. I'm pretty sure I reactivated it here.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cockroaches

Hello Ryulong. I have restored Category:Wikipedians who own cockroaches that you speedy deleted earlier today. This category had been through a couple CFDs back in March and the result was "keep" (here). Therefore, can't be speedied. Regards, Húsönd 12:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a category that serves Misplaced Pages no purpose. I know that you were in this category, but it's something like "Category:Wikipedians who like to lick their elbows" and it was really lowly populated. The only CFD I found there was a consensus to delete.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It serves a clear purpose, as to inform that I am able to respond to queries regarding this species as a pet. It's depopulated alright, but that doesn't prove its uselessness. Two discussions took place, one resulted in delete and the other one in keep. The link I provided directs to the latter. Regards, Húsönd 00:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger, July episodes

Lession 19: Gokin-Gokin! Showdown with Rio : Rio sets out to eliminate the Gekijuuken's fighters other than the Gekirangers, who battled Rinjuu Toad-Fist Master Eruka. Though they defeated the Beastman, they had to deal with Rio and his two Beastmen Butoka and Wagataku as they captures Master Shafu.

Lession 20: Title- VS Lion Ken Part 2 (Temporary): To rescue Master Shafu, the Gekirangers must seek and gain the power of the Ultimate Gekijuuken in 3 days' time, obtaining the "Extreme Nature". In front of Retsu, Ran and Jan, appear the Fist Saints of the Geikjuuken Penguin-Fist, the Geikjuuken Gorilla-Fist, and the Geikjuuken Gazelle-Fist.

Fractyl 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Rumors

As the SuperGekiranger appear in July, The Kenma of the Earth appears: Maku, Grand-Master of the Rinjuu Bear-Fist. Shortly after, GekiViolet will appear. There will be a mystery warrior, named Ron, who appears in the Akugata. Another Gekiranger appears, the rhino-based GekiChopper.

Fractyl 22:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I have an image that supports all of this?—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the info on the episodes is accurate enough, give me time with the "rumours". Fractyl 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The next Lesson's...19.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My bad. Fractyl 03:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gekiranger Movie

If you saw the pic I showed you, GekiRinTohja is to be involved in the Gekiranger movie. Fractyl 03:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I know, I know. Let's just limit that information right now.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 03:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user

Republicofwiki (talk · contribs) has not been connected with any known blocked account, abusive sock or banned user. I cannot find a reason to justify an indefinite block. Discussion also seems to indicate that we should unblock, assuming good faith. Given all that, I am willing to unblock, though I am suspicious. If you have any serious objections, please let me know. I will not unblock for 24 hours, to allow time for your response and any further evidence. Be well! Vassyana 07:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Non-replaceability of images on articles supervised by WP:H!P

Unfortunately, the images we wish to use at WP:H!P are impossible to replace with free images for reasons that I have stated time and time again (although I will state them briefly below for your benefit) to the more anal-retentive idiots (at least one of which should have been banned already, judging from his RFC that he so proudly links to on his user page) who seek to block images that would otherwise be acceptable under fair use terms.

We do not wish to have our articles go pictureless, but access to the ladies is next to impossible because their management does not allow audience members to bring cameras to the shows. Funnily enough, the photos that we have been using are publicity photos that their company gives away to members of their fan club.

I don't know when this policy took effect or what kind of (bad) legal advice the Wikimedia Foundation got, but this policy is doing more harm than good to Misplaced Pages. I was originally under the impression that the policy allowed for properly attributed and rationalized pictures of a certain resolution.

Any suggestions for how we can keep this pictures, properly rationalize them, etc.? I thought we were doing fine until now. Cjmarsicano 00:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless you e-mail their management companies and request that they release the promotional photographs under a free license, then the articles will be pictureless. There are no exceptions to the fair use policy. Articles on living individuals must use free images to depict them. Using a promotional image under fair use is unacceptable, as you are simply using that image to identify the living individual. That is unacceptable under fair use law and unacceptable under Wikimedia Foundation policies. We are trying to build a 💕, and that means non-free content should be limited. If there's no image on that person's Japanese Misplaced Pages article, then there are no free images that can be found, yet one can still be produced.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no exceptions to the fair use policy.

Oh, really? --CJ Marsicano 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There are extremely rare exceptions. Images of Osama bin Laden depict events that are construed as historical and are allowable under the fair use policy. J.D. Salinger does not come out in public. The people covered by WP:H!P do, but you say photographs of them are forbidden. A good measure of whether or not an image should be used is to check if there is one at another project where fair use is expressly forbidden. I assume that there are plenty of articles on these individuals at the Japanese Misplaced Pages, and they, too, are without images.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What is forbidden is taking the kind of pictures English Misplaced Pages wants us to take. Just because they are public individuals doesn't mean the public has access to them (unless the Wikimedia Foundation is willing to make that happen, but I'm not holding my breath.)

I wish to find a common ground that will allow Misplaced Pages's fair use policies and WP:H!P's desire to illustrate the articles. So far you seem to be refusing to help beyond the usual blow-offs. Prove otherwise. --CJ Marsicano 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not impossible to find images of a pop band. Here is a fan photo of Morning Musume that's unfortunately under a noncommercial license, but hopefully the author will adjust the license if we ask him nicely.--Pharos 01:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not only not the entire band, that photo has two former members of the band (now just solo artists) and two individuals who have nothing whatsoever do with the band. Not to mention, it's not that great of a photo to begin with. Way unacceptable for WP:H!P's purposes, and for the record, so is having no photo at all. --CJ Marsicano 01:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)