| Revision as of 19:48, 20 April 2012 edit완젬스 (talk | contribs)1,075 edits →The Jew problem on facebook← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:10, 22 April 2012 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 15d) to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject OWS/Archive 25.Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| ⚫ | == Anarchism and Occupy == | ||
| ==Project Image== | |||
| We have our first discussion. Should we use this logo (A)] or this logo (B)] as the artist that desigened the logo itself I take great offense to the CC license being used incorrectly. Attribution belongs to me as the designer and original author and all other works are deriveratives, but when this is explained politely I got a weird tug of war. It isn't that great a logo, but creative commons does not mean you can claim a work as "your own" an hour after it was uploaded. I do NOT give up my attribution rights and as for the use on this project that shall be decided by local project consensus.--] (]) 10:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :See how they look on the page: | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| :When I first came across this page I saw some aliasing problems with the SVG logo. I re-created the logo as a PNG, which I think has better anti-aliasing especially against background colors. I was reverted when I replaced the image, by the author of the original (Amadscientist), who cited licensing problems, and then again after those problems were fixed, for unknown reasons. Anyway, I'm presenting the two options here, so please weigh in on which you like better. Thanks. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 10:27, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)</font> | |||
| :In response to the licensing issue, I attempted to clear this up with Amadscientist, but he hasn't been too forthcoming. I don't have any interest in taking credit away from him, I just wanted to make the logo look better. He came to my talk page to express his concerns, and I told him he could alter the summary and licensing info however he saw fit, but he tagged it for speedy deletion instead. The speedy was rejected, following my apparently successful attempt to fix the licensing info myself. Long story short, the image attribution appears to be cleared up now, so all that's left is to decide which looks better. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 10:34, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)</font> | |||
| What you don't seem interested in is exactly what you did. Sorry, but even if it's not a speedy delete it would have been deleted had you not made even the small changes you did make. You see, Creative Commons does not mean you can simply take the art of another author and use it and attribute it to yourself. And Wiki does have some rules about it. Check it out. One can find the policies if one looks, but right now please bare in mind this isn't an article...it's a newly formed Wikiproject and local consensus rules all decisions, including use of images and files on the project page.--] (]) 10:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I had noted the original work that the image was based on, which I thought was enough at the time. Apparently it wasn't, but I didn't know what needed to be done to fix that, and I expressed that to you. I'm very much interested in proper attribution, though you're absolutely correct that I don't understand the ins and outs of image licensing, which is why I told you that you could alter the licensing as you saw fit. You could've fixed it, but you tagged it for speedy deletion instead. Anyway this is all in the past, let's let people decide which to use now. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 10:45, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)</font> | |||
| ::The program you used altered the work to much and misplaces the shadow ontop of the the image at the base. It is not an improvement. Thank you for your good faith effort.--] (]) 10:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't alter your work in an image editor, for the record, in case that's your understanding. I created an entirely new image, though copying your design (with the exception of the brown signpost, whose bitmap I did actually copy over from yours). '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 10:56, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)</font> | |||
| ::That doesn't matter. You took a creative commons license and used it as if it were public domain. The original concept will always belong to the original artist/author and you should NEVER attribute work that is not your own on Misplaced Pages under any circumstance. Thanks.--] (]) 11:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, and I understand that this action hurt you too much to even amicably rectify the situation as I offered, instead tagging the image for speedy deletion. I apologize for hurting you thusly and I'm just glad we could eventually work this out. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 11:09, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)</font> | |||
| I don't accept any apology you have. You know what you are up to. You tried to claim the work as your own. I have been kind....others would call that theft.--] (]) 11:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| === Options === | |||
| Anyway, to move past the squabbling above, here are the choices again, as they stand currently. Note that Amadscientist has since removed the sign from his SVG version of the logo, whereas I didn't do so for my PNG. I don't have any strong feelings regarding its presence, but there's still the question of which presents the better-looking text: | |||
| :* | |||
| :* | |||
| Please voice your opinions. Thanks. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">] <small>]</small>''' 11:15, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)</font> | |||
| This isn't a Misplaced Pages Article. If you are not a member of the project you can't participate in gaining consensus for what image we use. I included your image as a courtesy as I can easily alter the original file. If you don't wish to be a member here I would rather you didn't bother the project in this manner. Thanks.--] (]) 11:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ==Anarchism and Occupy== | ||
| Hello WikiProject OWS. I'm looking for another set of eyes to take a look at ], which is currently ]. I've raised some concerns on the talk page about the balance of the article and would appreciate another perspective, especially from an editor familiar with the origins of the movement and its connection with anarchism. Thanks, ] ] ] 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | Hello WikiProject OWS. I'm looking for another set of eyes to take a look at ], which is currently ]. I've raised some concerns on the talk page about the balance of the article and would appreciate another perspective, especially from an editor familiar with the origins of the movement and its connection with anarchism. Thanks, ] ] ] 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 28: | ||
| ::: That works for me. ] (]) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | ::: That works for me. ] (]) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==99% redirect== | == 99% redirect == | ||
| Would it be better as "WP:The99%" or just not use it at all. I will look at guidelines for project redirects but don't see a problem with it's use so far. Are there objections for any other reason?--] (]) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | Would it be better as "WP:The99%" or just not use it at all. I will look at guidelines for project redirects but don't see a problem with it's use so far. Are there objections for any other reason?--] (]) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :It looks good without the "the". I don't think anyone who knows how to look for projects will have difficulty finding this one. ] ] ] 01:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC) | :It looks good without the "the". I don't think anyone who knows how to look for projects will have difficulty finding this one. ] ] ] 01:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:10, 22 April 2012
| Skip to table of contents |
 | OWS (defunct) | |||
| ||||
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject OWS and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Anarchism and Occupy
Hello WikiProject OWS. I'm looking for another set of eyes to take a look at Anarchism and the Occupy movement, which is currently a pending DYK. I've raised some concerns on the talk page about the balance of the article and would appreciate another perspective, especially from an editor familiar with the origins of the movement and its connection with anarchism. Thanks, Gobōnobo 18:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Begin guideline debate
What should be included? We need to set out some project rules and guidelines. These need to adhere to all Misplaced Pages policies as well, but we should at least have a set way of aproaching certain aspects. Do we like the basic set up of the main article or do we want to use it as a guide as we build the project?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- I will begin researching through the guidelines and start writing up basic guidelines and perhap style as well. If other members see something that absolutely stands out as "What the heck" or they just want to make some copy edits to the section, feel free to change anything I write and if there is any dispute I will discussit it here before I attempt any changes id at all. This seemed to work well on another project recently so lets try that slowly.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- That works for me. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
99% redirect
Would it be better as "WP:The99%" or just not use it at all. I will look at guidelines for project redirects but don't see a problem with it's use so far. Are there objections for any other reason?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- It looks good without the "the". I don't think anyone who knows how to look for projects will have difficulty finding this one. Gobōnobo 01:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Project banner and infobox are enabled
I have created the needed pages and links for the new project banner and infobox. Coming up I will create an alternative banner for unrated articles.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the project banner to articles listed under Category:Occupy Wall Street. I've also done assessments. Feel free to reassess where needed. Several of the C-class articles are fairly close to B-class and I may have misjudged some. Gobōnobo 01:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Name
This project should be consistent as to whether it is called WikiProject Occupy vs. WikiProject OWS (I prefer the former, since I see Occupy Wall Street as a single event within the greater Occupy movement). I think this is a great idea for a WikiProject. Members will certainly have much work to do as there is a lot of inconsistency between Occupy-related articles, numerous merge discussions, other debates, etc. I hope this project can generate a quality set of articles for the betterment of Misplaced Pages. I will be watching this group closely! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would support using WikiProject Occupy as well. Virtually all of the individual groups use "Occupy" in their names, even though Occupy Wall Street was the original. Gobōnobo 01:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey...don't look at me. It was just the proposal page and then the page was moved before discussion. Moving the page at this point however...would entail work due to the amount of links now set up and a redirect may cause some confusion and errors but is not impossible. I have done it before....I could do it here. We should let this be fully discussed to gain full consensus before we act.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- My preference and the original idea was to name the actual project WikiProject Occupy Wall Street. The project is not movement associated and is geared towards the subject itself. OWS is the starting point and the basis for the scope. Naming OWS is a pretty good compromise if you think about it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Template:WikiProject OWS
I don't think this template should place articles within the Occupy Wall Street category. This category should be reserved for Occupy-relatead Misplaced Pages articles, not project-related articles. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, just use it on actual Misplaced Pages articles and not on project space talk pages? Gobōnobo 03:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Most projects add templates to talk pages of project pages. I am just not sure how to add project pages to Category:WikiProject OWS rather than Category:Occupy Wall Street. Again, Misplaced Pages articles belong in the latter category; project pages belong in the project category. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Correction. The Template does not place the articles into the Occupy Wall Street Category. That is being done manually for top importance articles within the scope of OWS as a subject, not just because it is within the scope of the project. Occupy-relatead Misplaced Pages articles do not all have the word "Occupy" in them.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean the template does not place pages into the Occupy Wall Street category? Just click on the Occupy Wall Street category at the bottom of this page, look under the "W" section and you will see many project pages there. Perhaps I am misunderstanding something. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I think I was misunderstanding what you were referring to. Let me look at the template and the guidelines and other project templates to double check, but i take it your major issue is the project banner itself placing the talk page itself into the category and you feel that is not appropriate. If this is correct we can deal with that.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looking into this and will see if this is being done properly, but I can say the the category in question, has talk pages that have been added that do not have the project banner. From guidelines, I am unclear that using the topic "Occupy Wall Street" in the Banner Project "Category" was innappropriate.
I am not sure if adding a project template to a talkpage and having that template categorize the talk page into that sorting, for assessment and other automated tasks etc., is wrong.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looking into this and will see if this is being done properly, but I can say the the category in question, has talk pages that have been added that do not have the project banner. From guidelines, I am unclear that using the topic "Occupy Wall Street" in the Banner Project "Category" was innappropriate.
Nope...I think I see what needs to be done. Correcting now.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Got it. The "MAIN CATEGORY" is "WikiProject OWS" for the banner to categorize the "talk page" to our category. Done!
Done--Amadscientist (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Got it. The "MAIN CATEGORY" is "WikiProject OWS" for the banner to categorize the "talk page" to our category. Done!
Thanks. --Amadscientist (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The Jew problem on facebook
Guys, I'm sick and tired of it. Every time someone associated with OWS engages in antisemitic activity, it blows up. At first our Achilles heel had been crime/violence/rape but that seems to have blown over: http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/64226/occupiers-alliance-with-bds-could-be-a-deal-breaker-for-jewish-support
Apparently, too many people think OWS is the American continuation of the Arab Spring which makes it somehow acceptable for people to joke on facebook about Jews/Wall Street/Israel and most people chime in with comments which slowly degrade into outright antisemitism.
I feel like this section of the Occupy Oakland article should prompt us to adopt a mission for the Wikiproject to hold an open dialogue (apart from any one particular talk page, since this spans all the OWS articles) about how to handle bits & pieces of information which strengthen the narrative which Right-Wingers have baited us into. Now everything which OWS exhibits which plays into that pre-defined, antisemitic narrative is bleeding our fundraising efforts.
I hope Misplaced Pages can rise above politics and that we can discuss all the various Jew-related/antisemitism-related issues and how we present/disseminate that information to our readers ethically and fairly. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I should be AGF'ing more, but with your history of bringing your activism here... this seems more like a discussion about how OWS should be handling things, ie. one that doesn't belong on Misplaced Pages, but that you're trying to unnaturally twist into a Misplaced Pages issue. Misplaced Pages policy pretty much gives us what we need regarding how to disseminate information. There's no special way it needs to be handled for OWS. Equazcion 18:57, 20 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, thanks for AGF. I volunteer every day on facebook and the discussion on "reactions to OWS" page really rubbed me the wrong way. Normally I take the route traveled by Gandydancer--I just read the discussions but do not edit from this account anymore. I had to step out of character today and be real with my fellow editors. This is a make-or-break issue and it's tearing me apart. It brought me to tears earlier but I'm fine now. The OWS message was not supposed to be usurped by violence/rape/antisemitism/rat-infestations/etc. The cooptation of the occupy movement was supposed to transition smoothly before May 1st, but due to our weaknesses (the baggages, the stigmas of rape/rat-infestations/murder/antisemitism) it has all resulted in a backlash. Leaders of the occupy movement and donors from the movement resource group have partnered with moveon.org and democratic strategists for Obama's reelection to create our brainchild--the 99% spring--which has fallen way short of 100,000 enthusiasts.
- The orchestrated momentum phase from mid March until last week has been struggling to outweigh the Trayvon Martin bandwagon as the #1 social issue leading into May 1st. Our May 1st general strike will accomplish nothing. George Zimmerman's bond amount is more highly disseminated by our mainstream media platform than updates from our movement. Associated Press, NYTimes, and Reuters all essentially ignore our press releases! George Zimmerman didn't just kill Trayvon Martin, he upended a crucial development in the painstakingly strategized evolution of the occupy movement into being coopted by moveon.org and Obama's grassroots campaign organizers via the 99% spring (an article I gave my word to Pete D. and Justin W. would NOT be red-linked!!!).
- Don't doubt me on this--the whole purpose of Occupy Wall Street was to give to the democrats in 2012 what the Tea Party gave to Republicans in 2010! Don't you wish we could gloat after November 6th just like this? I know by your edits you are center/center-left leaning as an editor, which is why I urge you to realize the politics. We're both probably young (in our 20's), intelligent (IQ in the 130's), college educated, and we both know the social norms/guidelines of optimal Misplaced Pages behavior. I had all that stuff in late 2011 when everything was going great, but now there is too much backlash for the necessary, successful cooptation of the occupy wall street movement.
- The Republicans did not *magically* turn an astroturf social movement (i.e. the tea party) into historic electoral gains during the 2010 midterm elections. I have insanely high "Machiavellian Intelligence" (which I can tell you do too, by this edit) so please forgive my panic that we're approaching an uneventful, anticlimactic, and lackluster M1GS (May 1st General Strike) that is our only hope of generating a political outcome on November 6th which is favorable toward Obama.
- I agree with the rest of your post, but specifically I'm cautioning that we become extra cautious regarding how to disseminate information about antisemitism. If you believe that the status quo (and no dialogue needs to take place here) then I'll wait for one more person to chime in. If they agree with you (that no extra care needs to be applied regarding how we handle dissemination of antisemitism) then I'll respect the consensus. I just hope you realize how the Republicans have a narrative painting the OWS movement as antisemitic. Any published reports of antisemitism will fulfill the narrative designed by fox news & right wing talk radio. We need to make sure our neutrality isn't trumped by politics, at least until after Nov 6th. Hopefully I'm right, but I want to see what Amadscientist or BeCritical chimes in with. 완젬스 (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)