Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 22 April 2012

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

The building picture I submitted will not be used after all

I already removed it from the KCPT page, realizing that taking a photo of the building myself would be better than using someone else's photos whether it is considered fair use or not. Plus, that photo was of the backside of the building and not the front (a view of the front would be better). Therefore, feel free to remove that photo from this site. It will not be used. --CastleBuff

File:Teletype Corporation advertisement for the Model 28 Line of Equipment.jpg

On 9 April, you wrote:

Claimed to be public domain with a reasoning based on the fact that the trademark representing the company is no longer trademark-protected. However, since copyright and trademark are entirely different things, this is hardly a valid argument for PD. Might conceivably be PD for some other reason (non-renewal etc.). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

As noted by me on 9 April, the document does carry a trademark but does not carry a corpright. As I've also noted, The US Patent and Trademark Office records state "This registration was not renewed and therefore expired." This status change happened on December 15, 2000. Serial Number: 73157988, Registration Number: 1119161. The last renewal was on May 29, 1979. The trademark was transferred to AT&T on July 12, 1985 and they never renewed it.

Yet, I do not see the discussion closed. How do I escalate this issue within Wikepedia to get resolution? Wa3frp (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no need to do anything else right now. The discussion on WP:PUF will be closed in due time by another admin. With your statement there about the lack of a copyright notice on the publication itself you've provided a serious argument that may well mean we can keep the file. I think it's a lot more compelling than what you previously said about the trademarks. I'll have to check again about the rules (these copyright renewal and registration rules for US publications are notoriously messy), but if I find it all adds up, I may well retract the deletion proposal – Give me a day or two, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

multiple days given, no action seen...00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2012 April 15#File:Pilot (The Cosby Show) monopoly lesson.png

You never commented at Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2012_April_15#File:Pilot_.28The_Cosby_Show.29_monopoly_lesson.png on whether you would consider evaluating images like all the other Image reviewers do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, you don't seem to have tagged the image correctly, as I noted there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

First, I do not have the time to engage in a sustained debate over several days for each, highly repetitive, case of a random non-free image that an uploader chooses to dig in his heels over. I made my point, and you made yours. Second, I simply do not accept that whatever people do at FA reviews has any bearing on the correct application of NFC policy. In my experience, people at FA are no more competent and only marginally more careful than the average user when it comes to judging NFC issues. NFC policy is shaped at WT:NFC and at FFD, and I know what the consensus is there. Your suggestion that we should submit to a "majority decision" of FA reviews of some kind makes no sense to me at all. If a majority of FAs have some non-free image, then every article can have some random one? That's absurd.

As for tagging, I use Twinkle for nominating images for deletion, as do most other people who do this job with some regularity, and Twinkle is supposed to do whatever tagging is necessary. Given the high volume of bad images that have to be nominated every day, and the tedious and mechanical nature of manual notifications, I personally refuse to do any tagging beyond what is automated. If you want more notifications in other places, please ask some bot programmer to help. What I do has been the common practice at FFD for years, and if there are still some normative texts anywhere around that suggest there is an obligation to do more, those texts have been out of touch with reality for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since your are deleting my stuff....

...here's a few of mine you can recommend to save you the trouble of looking:

• File:The Killing Numb Infobox.jpg
• File:The Killing Lucky Day Infobox.jpg
• File:The Killing Reflections Infobox.jpg

Glad I could save the trouble of looking for them! — WylieCoyote (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Who are you? "Old foe" !? If you think I'm systematically out to delete your uploads, aren't you overestimatint your own importance a bit? I don't know you from a hole in the ground. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Our previous hole in the ground. — WylieCoyote (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Lung Salad

Don't know the background here, but it looks like User:Gotthethrill is User:Lung salad:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tacitus_on_Christ&action=historysubmit&diff=487814312&oldid=481188053

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Annals_%28Tacitus%29&action=historysubmit&diff=487814442&oldid=481045941

Tom Harrison 11:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, seems pretty obvious. Blocked; thanks for the heads-up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SeikoEn again

Hi, looks like SeikoEn, whom you have topic-banned last year, is back using two other accounts. The checkuser has confirmed that these accounts are run by a same person, but couldn't confirm their identity with SeikoEn (and his previous sock Vitaly N.), because the accounts appear to be stale. I think their identity is pretty obvious and thus they both should be indeffed on grounds of the duck test. --glossologist (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tacitus on Christ

Hi, I think Tacitus on Christ needs to be semi protected for 3 months or so, given the persistent sockpuppet issues. Now we just had a new user whose first edit was a statement which did not correspond to the source. It may well be a new strategy for the indef-blocked user. He may come back with totally new accounts to just add items that have no source, but will claim sources for them, etc. as happened today. He seems to be very persistent and it will be just to hard to deal with unless there is semi-protection. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick favour please?

To save me opening half a dozen PUI's when we've already been there with Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 2#File:Owen Paterson Official.jpg. Latest sock from a serial copyright abuser has uploaded more images which have the same licensing problem. They have uploaded some others that are OK and some others which need to go to PUI for a new discussion, but these are the ones that can hopefully be deleted straight away.

• File:Lord Astor Minister.jpg
• File:Peter Luff Minister.jpg
• File:Andrew Robathan Minister.jpg
• File:Gerald Howarth Minister.jpg
• File:Nick Harvey Minister.jpg
• File:Philip Hammond Minister.jpg

Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it later this evening. Feel free to mark for deletion as "uploaded by banned user", if that's what it is (I wasn't familiar with the sock case). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware G5 applied to images, which is why I'm only going after the images with licencing problems. The sock case can be found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive#18 April 2012. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 16:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Starlight Spectacular at Canada's Wonderland 4.jpg

I have posted a response to the proposed deletion of the article here.--Dom497 (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Arsacid dynasty of Armenia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek New Testament (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FSA sniper in Homs school.jpg

I did say who the source was. I clearly put Rebel propaganda image. The image was made by opposition/rebel activists and uploaded for dissemination for propaganda purposes. I don't understand what the problem is. If you still think that's not enough than I'll just get an image grab from one of their low-resolution videos from youtube which I think will be more in line with Wiki policy, but again I think that all the bases have been covered here. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Samofi

Hello Future Perfect at Sunrise,

I do not want to badger you, but there is an ongoing problem with Samofi. As you might be aware of it, he does not adhere to his topic-ban you are placed under. If you do not want to enforce it, then it is an advice and not an ArbCom resolution that has no compulsory power. However, I do not think that Samofi is apt to be taken to WP:AE, I might report him for a topic-ban violation, but, it won't solve anything. Perhaps, he could get a block for a duration of one week, and then he will refrain from editing the moot articles, he is topic-banned from until 2-3 days at best. It is true that Sammofi has a POV, however, my main problem with this user is that the way in which he conducts himself permanently does not indicate any consistency or logic. I do not know how to call his behaviour so that lest it fall under WP:NPA, therefore; I would call it confused.

It is just a thing that this user does not want to adhere to his topic-ban, but that he made two attempts at block-shopping aimed at two Hungarian users including me, yesterday, it just goes beyond all reason that I should yet tolerate. Not to mention that his reports abundantly cover his topic-ban in any possible sense...

Given that once already Samofi was blocked for a duration of indefinite from which he got a second chance to return . Well, actually, indef seems reasonable again. I do not know what your opinion is about it. Please let me know:

1. you are willing to consider conducting an indef-block
2. you do not want to conduct it ,but have no objection to the motion being proposed at WP:AN
3. you oppose it.

--Nmate (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Greek primacy

I'm in two minds myself. But Talk page discussion is required before twice blanking an article. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Uhm,... ? I did give my reasons on talk. You didn't give yours. (My revert today was a different matter, this was simply a revert of a near-vandalism edit of some guy who went around mechanically reverting whatever edits of mine he found, evidently without giving it any thought at all.) I guess I'll reinstate the redirect tomorrow or so, unless I hear of a good content argument to the contrary. Do you disagree the whole discussion about it being a Misplaced Pages neologism is WP:OR? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, you were reverting my edits which led to myself reverting your reverts.I have noticed you have been editing pages with Greek topics, I built a concern of you to see what information you have been putting on/taking off.As I came across your edit of Greek primacy I was most intreaged. As I discoverd that you blanked the page I was most concerned.As there was still information of the dominance of Hellenism, you still blanked the page, which I will not allow. Do not make unnecessary changes to Greek topic pages. Especially changes that take out information or adds false information.

Not in all disputed territories

As I saw in the debate over including Arabic text to Abu Musa Island or not , your opinion is "We always include names in all relevant languages in articles about disputed territories" . My two cent is the extent of the territorial dispute is determining , and we shall not include names in all relevant languages in all occasions . As in comparison , we does not include the Persian language to the article about Bahrain , because the territorial dispute is not so serious . Overall I think because including or not including is a matter of debate , your tone of warning to that editor is not so appropriate ( but I agree that the Arabic text may remain in this particular article , because the territorial dispute is serious enough ). --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference between Bahrain and Tunbs is not that the dispute about Bahrain is "not so serious". The difference is that Bahrain isn't disputed at all. Iran has officially recognized Bahrain as a sovereign state, and has diplomatic relations with it, so it couldn't possibly now raise an official territorial claim over the entirety of its territory. And in fact, it doesn't. (Historical hints at such claims notwithstanding). Whereas with Tunbs and Abu Musa, the territorial dispute undoubtedly exists, and is in fact the only reason we have articles of this size about these islands in the first place – if it wasn't for their disputed status, we'd have no more than a three-line stub, probably.

The warning to De facto was valid and necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

With a glance to the List of territorial disputes, we can find out the subjects of these list does not always follow the role in many occasions . Anyway , I'm more concerned about tolerance in tone of the warning.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no tolerance for tendentious editing, and there shouldn't be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)