Misplaced Pages

User talk:Cryptic/archive-3: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Cryptic Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:34, 17 November 2005 editCalton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users78,494 edits My sig← Previous edit Revision as of 06:39, 17 November 2005 edit undoPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers286,208 edits My sigNext edit →
Line 73: Line 73:


Thank you. No, it wasn't deliberate: I was trying to fix it in the wake of the Tidy HTML disaster, and looks like I mangled it in new and interesting ways. I didn't even realize there WAS a ] page. It's (hopefully) fixed now, but I guess it means I have to track down and correct the Bad Sigs. --] | ] 03:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC) Thank you. No, it wasn't deliberate: I was trying to fix it in the wake of the Tidy HTML disaster, and looks like I mangled it in new and interesting ways. I didn't even realize there WAS a ] page. It's (hopefully) fixed now, but I guess it means I have to track down and correct the Bad Sigs. --] | ] 03:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


== Re:]==
Should we hold one error against two years of good contributions? I don't ask you to change your vote, but do you think that Halibutt is not fit for adminship *ever*? What if it he would be renominated in half a year, for example, and no other objection surfaced? --] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 06:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:39, 17 November 2005

If you email me because I have blocked you, please include your user name (or IP address, if you haven't registered).
I will respond on your user talk page, not by email.
Archives1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Text from www.wga.hu

I asked permission to www.wga.hu to use their text, so no copyright violations. I'm new here so sometimes I forgot to specify it. Thanks. Attilios

Despite this fact, Attilios has changed the page despite the copyright statement you placed on there stating that changes should not be made. HowardBerry 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Congratulations

You're an admin! Take a look at the free advice, if you're so moved, and keep up the good work. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Canderson7 04:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes! And a very nice vote it was. :-) --hydnjo talk 15:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Nice one - Keep up the good work. Budgiekiller 16:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Recreation of previously-deleted article...

I noticed that you deleted Cherryrain earlier today after I speedy tagged it. Just a quick note to let you know that User:Cherryrain has re-created this page again, this time at CherryRain. This user has also made a personal attack against me on my talk page. As an admin, I wondered if you were aware of any specific policies for dealing with users who constantly recreate articles that have been deleted per AFD? By my reckoning, this is the third time that 'Cherryrain' or possible sockpuppets thereof have recreated this page - the original CrystalCherry article is now protected from recreation because of this. Thanks very much for your help. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 17:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a couple schools of thought. Protecting the article with a {{deletedpage}} template usually works best when there are multiple people (actual people, not just different addresses or user names) re-creating it. If it's just one person, as seems to be the case here, I think it's better to let her re-create at the same article title, then tag and speedy it. This minimizes the chance that she'll log on from a different IP or username, re-create the article elsewhere, and not get noticed. She'll get bored eventually. —Cryptic (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the advice and backup. It's much appreciated. I'll continue to keep an eye on things, just in case it all kicks off again. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm being harrassed

can you please end this. I do not want to be contacted by Kurt anymore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherryrain (talkcontribs) 19:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop re-creating the article, and he won't have any reason to. I assure you that neither he nor I have any interest in it, other than to enforce the very clear consensus in favor of deleting it. —Cryptic (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The Kinks

Sorry, but I will do it. I comletely realise that there is a copyvio in it, but I assure you that this is completely different article and the amount of copyvio is largely dismissive. The article passed through a period of change and I think that to delete the whole bunch of fan and people information is rash and utterly stipud. Nevertheless, I offer you to change the article back and start removing the problematic parts of it, where you consider that the copyvio is obvious. I mean - the article in Allmusic is much smaller than this and less detailed than this one. If you still consider it unappropriate, I will take my and other's guys work, will rewrite the reminiscent and problematic parts and will put it back. Actually, I will put it back either this or other way. It's better for me to work on it, while it's here. I mean I can put back the same article, but otherwise there will be no problematic or copyvio parts in it. But, it will be easy if you do not bitch about it and let me work more on it.

Thank you for attention: Painbearer 22:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio resolutions

Hi Cryptic, in regards to the The Kinks copyvio;

  • Is this amount of infringement worth worrying about?
    yes, for example the first paragraph under Bouncing back to the charts (1977-1984) (in Painbearer's version) is still mostly a copy. I didn't look very hard, and didn't even start to look for derivative work.
  • if so, how would you suggest dealing with this user? I don't care if he ends up hating me, but I'd rather not have to deal with this every day for weeks on end.
    The first thing to do is make sure that he understands that copyrights extend to derivative work. I usually quote from copyright; authors are automatically entitled to all exclusive rights to the work and any derivative works unless and until the author explicitly disclaims them, or until the copyright expires. Explain to him that if the present text started out copied, and even if every sentence has since been re-written, it's still a derivative work and therefore a copyright violation. This is why we revert to the pre-copyvio version (per WP:CP) or delete the copied text entirely (per Misplaced Pages:Copyrights). Since the copied text has been in the article since January it's impossible to determine what is derivative work and what is not, so the article needs to be reverted. Reassure him that he can present the same facts, in his own words, but the writing can't start out as copied text.

If he needs to be blocked and you're skittish (worried about conflict of interest or whatever) ask me or or ask at WP:AN--Duk 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

PS - I left him a note. --Duk 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok

I'm continuing with redaction of any material you stripped down. The problematic parts as I speak are being rewritten. You are stubborn bastard and a nosey parker, and I hate you very much, because of that.

Fuck off: Painbearer 14:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries


1) I misunderstood the speedy deletion policy I cited earlier...
2) I had backed up the external links for easy viewing on my utility site, Jeffersonbanana.com
3) Just as easy to go ahead and write the damn article... even if it does make me late for work.

Ieopo 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

{{Unsigned2Tz}}

You wrote (on the template's talk page): This can be merged into {{Unsigned2}} without breaking its current functionality using the shiny new template default parameter feature - just replace the {{{3}}} with {{{3|}}}. —Cryptic (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I was not aware of this default feature, and do not knwo how it works -- where is it documented, plesae? I will merge the two if I can see how to do so. DES 16:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It was announced here, and is documented at m:Help:Template#Parameters. Short version: add a |defaultvalue inside the {{{parameter}}}, and if no parameter is supplied, it inserts the supplied default when the template is invoked. —Cryptic (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

yyrt

Thanks, I've restored it. It was just since it was blank, and it's title was yyrt, it looked like someone had just created an article with random letters and then left it blank. Thanks for brigning that to my attention. -- PRueda29 01:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

anon comments left on userpage

i know you can see this, on the dick and skibba page, please delete it, i will fix it later. that's all i ask, i was the original author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.110.187 (talkcontribs) 03:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

My sig

Thank you. No, it wasn't deliberate: I was trying to fix it in the wake of the Tidy HTML disaster, and looks like I mangled it in new and interesting ways. I didn't even realize there WAS a Calton page. It's (hopefully) fixed now, but I guess it means I have to track down and correct the Bad Sigs. --Calton | Talk 03:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Re:Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Halibutt

Should we hold one error against two years of good contributions? I don't ask you to change your vote, but do you think that Halibutt is not fit for adminship *ever*? What if it he would be renominated in half a year, for example, and no other objection surfaced? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)