Misplaced Pages

User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): 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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:12, 7 February 2013 edit108.28.162.125 (talk) →Comments on the above?: Comment to Fram← Previous edit Revision as of 02:14, 7 February 2013 edit undo108.28.162.125 (talk) →Comments on the above?: AlsoNext edit →
Line 445: Line 445:
::::Any comments on the actual case instead? ] (]) 21:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC) ::::Any comments on the actual case instead? ] (]) 21:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
<br /> <br />
:::::Whats your rush? Why not give the man time to comment? We should be trying to avoid taking this case to Arbcom instead of your insistence it must go there. I also don't agree that this doesn't have "teeth". Regardless of the venue the discussion and end result can be just as binding regardless of where it occurs. ] (]) 02:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC) :::::Whats your rush? Why not give the man time to comment? We should be trying to avoid taking this case to Arbcom instead of your insistence it must go there. I also don't agree that this doesn't have "teeth". Regardless of the venue the discussion and end result can be just as binding regardless of where it occurs. I also don't thinking maintaining a smear blog at ] is necessary or appropriate! ] (]) 02:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:I actually like this remedy for the most part. The only part I'm not sold on is the mentoring, does it does seem a bit out of place. Certainly, image copyright is a lot tougher to tackle than text copyright, so I don't think the punishment has to have all three parts on that front. ] 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC) :I actually like this remedy for the most part. The only part I'm not sold on is the mentoring, does it does seem a bit out of place. Certainly, image copyright is a lot tougher to tackle than text copyright, so I don't think the punishment has to have all three parts on that front. ] 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
----- -----

Revision as of 02:14, 7 February 2013

Articles I haven't created

  1. "Alonzo C. Bell, 68, an industrialist. Electrical Engineer and Head of Firms in Garwood Dies. Assisted Government". New York Times. April 13, 1945. Retrieved 2012-12-27. Alonzo Chandler Bell of 515 Parkview Avenue, an electrical engineer and prominent industrial developer in Garwood, N.J., died Tuesday of a heart attack at his winter home in Miami, Fla. His age was 68. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  2. "CBS Records to Buy Tree, Ending an Era in Nashville". New York Times. January 4, 1989. Retrieved 2012-08-29. CBS Songs, the record company's publishing arm, was sold in 1986 for $125 million to Stephen Swid, Martin Bandier and Charles Koppelman, who renamed it SBK Entertainment. It is now the second-largest music publishing company. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  3. "Charles Augustus Rosenheimer Campbell". Retrieved 2012-12-14.

CHARLES E. CHAPIN DIES IN SING SING; Once Widely Known New York Newspaper Man Succumbs to Pneumonia at 72. A PRISONER SINCE 1918 Slew His Wife in Their Home Here --Told Friends Not to Seek Pardon for Him. Was Legendary December 14, 1930 OSSINING, N.Y., Dec. 13, 1930. Charles E. Chapin, former city editor of The Morning World and The Evening World, who was brought to Sing Sing prison twelve years ago for the murder of his wife, died at 11:35 o'clock tonight of pneumonia after as illness of about six weeks.

Von Armin

Sweden

Speedy deletion nomination of FinancialAccess@Birth

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on FinancialAccess@Birth, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

restored. I apologize for deleting it, but I must admit that I failed to see your earlier version. The article had been totally transformed since you edited it, into a version that was both promotional and probably copyvio. I restored your version--and the whole history behind it, in case there's anything there you can use. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Gartler 01.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gartler 01.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Vivienne Sonia Segal.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Vivienne Sonia Segal.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


References

Typically we prefer the use of secondary sources such as review articles or major textbooks per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We think the New York Times is a secondary source and that the science writers there are as capable as anyone else. This isn't a thesis, it is an encyclopedia to be written in clear English. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eleanor Robson Belmont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Collins (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) 11:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Leake and Watts Children's Home P1280012.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Leake and Watts Children's Home P1280012.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I also nominated a Bela Lugosi image of yours for deletion at commons, see here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Rockingham.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rockingham.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

File:Annieleemoss.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Annieleemoss.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Med

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Kohlman-Lynn.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Kohlman-Lynn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Captain WiIlliam Finch.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Captain WiIlliam Finch.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ford National Reliability Air Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Smart (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) 11:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ford National Reliability Air Tour, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nancy Hopkins (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) 11:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23

Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.

You are invited to celebrate Misplaced Pages Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Misplaced Pages Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Misplaced Pages Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Restoring images with ffd tag

Hi! Could you please also remove the {{ffd}} tag from images you restore? Otherwise it miscategorizes them into Category:Misplaced Pages files for deletion and confuses bot(s), an example being here. Thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The tag says that I am not allowed to remove them. I am the creator not the restorer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this counts as a valid exception. Those discussions (from Nov 2011) are long closed now. Your reason to restore them is to transfer to Commons, not to circumvent the FFD consensus. Anyway, I already removed them; not being the author or involved, that should be more than fine in this case. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stanford White

I noticed that a file you added, File:Stanford White 33.jpg, was tagged by some Bot as a potential copyright violation because of some kind of investigation about your uploads. I removed the tag because I believe you were accurate in categorizing it as part of the public domain. I am interested in seeing this copied to the Misplaced Pages Commons database, would you be okay with this?

Out of curiosity, I notice from this talk page history that conversation has been occurring since 2005. I don't see any talk archives though, have any ever been kept? I imagine if you are in the habit of pruning old/concluded talk page topics that the idea of building one would be an intimidating endeavour. It's a hobby I enjoy though, so I was wondering if it might be permissible for me to go back and create some annual talk-page archivals to organize at the top for these last seven years? I could put up monthly headings on each so that their timing is apparent. I think it would be easy enough based on when there are red (subtraction) notations in the page history. Ranze (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Sheiner 001.png

Thanks for uploading File:Sheiner 001.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Dalarö Fortress 2010 by Yvonne Öhrbom.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dalarö Fortress 2010 by Yvonne Öhrbom.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Dalarö Fortress 2010 by Yvonne Öhrbom.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dalarö Fortress 2010 by Yvonne Öhrbom.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion

Proposed deletion of Doyle Doss‎

The article Doyle Doss‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see you removed the tag, but left no discussion. The page is currently nominated for deletion, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Doyle Doss. Removing the tags doesn't stop the process, only discussion does. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

William Ulbrich

Hi Richard,

The article William Ulbrich I believe you had right on your first edit, as a redirect to the main article American Nurse. Mr Ulbrich deosn't seem to meet notability WP:N criteria himself but rather than propose deletion it seems better just to ask you here if you're happy to do that, and add the reference material you've listed to the "The crew" section of that article using Template:Cite book. You can link the redirect to the relevant section of the other article (instead of the top) using the code: 

#REDIRECTThe_American_Nurse_(aircraft)#The_crew

adding the square brackets each side of the page title. You can also add a new subheading under the crew if you want to by using an extra = sign each end of the heading: 

===Pilot===

I've added your talkpage to my watch so please reply here, I'll see it, many thanks. —Baldy Bill (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of The New Jersey Churchscape for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The New Jersey Churchscape is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The New Jersey Churchscape until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Franke Previte.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Franke Previte.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SS James Iredell.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:SS James Iredell.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Richard, what were you thinking? Creating new articles is a clear violation of your topic ban, and one of these days you'll get yourself indef-blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Richard, even if you think Administrators are a pack of intolerable fucks, please do stop by and check in. Feel free to contact me by email if you wanna share thoughts without prying eyes: MutantPop@aol.com Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Right on. I hope you'll take the offer or otherwise communicate some goodwill. Carrite, I have it on good authority, is a very tolerable fuck. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Mechanics Arts High School

Mechanics Arts High School, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Mechanics Arts High School and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Mechanics Arts High School during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fram (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The same applies to File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png as well. Fram (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Both files are now listed at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review. Fram (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Wilbur Shaw 1939.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Wilbur Shaw 1939.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposals concerning your editing restriction

Two new proposals to expand your editing restriction are being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal to include file uploads in the topic ban and

  • For the record, I've suggested to User:BOZ that he might be a good mentor/guide for you. I think the two of you would get along quite well though you edit in quite different areas. He'd like to hear your thoughts before deciding if it's something he's interested in doing. Best of luck to you, Hobit (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png

Thanks for uploading File:Freudenberg-Louis Kohlman-Ralph MatavanBeach 1915 circa.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Winblad Cuba 04b hires.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Winblad Cuba 04b hires.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Amy Sherwin.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Amy Sherwin.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Paul Thayer Iaccaci.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Paul Thayer Iaccaci.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Harold Albert Kullberg.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Harold Albert Kullberg.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Elliott White Springs 1918.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Elliott White Springs 1918.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Colonel William Thaw.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Colonel William Thaw.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom case started

I am starting an ArbCom case about this mess at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Fram (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Amy Sherwin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Amy Sherwin.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Colonel William Thaw.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Colonel William Thaw.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/I, ArbCom, and the two alternatives

Richard, there comes a time when you've got to make a choice. You're at a pivotal fork in the road here. You turn one way and you wallow through a mud hole but get back on the path to your destination. You keep going straight forward in the direction you are going and you keep your shoes clean but go straight off a cliff and become Richard Arthur Norton (Wikipedian, 2004-2013). You need to turn towards the mud hole and you need to do that right about now. Do you fucking care if you get banned out? That is what's going to happen if you don't get serious about what you are facing at AN/I and ArbCom. Why haven't you written a little essay called "This is where I screwed up with copyright and this is why it's never going to happen again" for the former? Why haven't you made a statement of any sort to the latter? You have made enormous contributions to the project but you have made major errors in the process. You must face up to that and work actively for a real solution. Averting your eyes and saying to yourself "fuck those assholes" ain't gonna cut it. Seriously. Now. Or never... Carrite (talk) 06:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making a statement at ArbCom, Richard. Hopefully they'll defer to give ANI one more shot, the result of which will ultimately turn on your willingness to get a little muck on your shoes. Fram has been largely involved in the cleanup of your earlier articles, which are a mess. That's the secret of his intensity. I've spent the better part of my afternoon dissecting the two CCI investigations to provide a basis for a proposed remedy. The file situation is a bit of a muddle. With respect to the text investigation it seems clear that the low numbered (old) contributions are a huge issue (120/258 problematic = 46.5%) but the high numbered (newest) contributions came through clean — 1/319 problematic (0.33%). Which is great news, of course, unmistakable demonstration that you do "get it" with respect to copyright (which I knew all along but previously lacked a means to demonstrate). That would seem to be pivotal, whether the issue is resolved at ANI or ArbCom.
I expect that the way out will involve the following, so start contemplating the concept: (1) A short punitive block for creating the stub around the topic ban; (2) Some sort of formal mentor/advisor on copyright issues, me not included among the candidates — so please do find someone in preparation for that; (3) Understanding by you that there will be invisible people staring at your edits for copyright violations for the foreseeable future — so you must be very, very careful not to stumble even once there; (4) Some sort of formal affirmation that you've screwed up in the past with copyright issues, that you understand the issues involved and won't have any such problems again; (5) Some sort of pretty harsh restriction on the files you are able to upload to En-WP — you'll need someone to carry the ball for many of the actual uploads you'll need, presumably your copyright "advisor," so choose that person carefully. No more "Fair Use" uploads, at a bare minimum; (6) Some sort of very definite instructions about linking to copyrighted material posted externally, since policy is pretty clear about this and you are going to have to be Jesus O'Gandhi with your stringent adherence to the straight and narrow with respect to copyright policy.
On the plus side, there needs to be a path back in terms of article creation, which is what its all about in terms of having any fun or fulfilling any function as a content-creator, as you already understand. I'm thinking of a hard restriction of 5 starts/mo. with the question to be revisited in 6 months time for further relaxation if no problems arise. This would mean you will need to pick your topics very carefully, since you're capable of churning out 5 pieces in a day... You may rest assured that trying to slip through a 6th start in a month will be met with real nastiness by one of your detractors at ANI or the block button. That is probably something that a consensus can be built around, however, given the results of the CCI and the fact that they are, by my estimate, between 12 and 20 years away from completion of your case — assuming that the current pace of work continues, which it won't. They should frankly call it good and move along with life since hitting the Random Article button 100 times and investigating for copyright irregularities would probably return a similar result of problems as those plaguing your early work.
Anyway, that's where my thinking is at. The lynch mob atmosphere seems to have calmed down at ANI; hopefully that is the venue where this can be settled. You're gonna have to grit your teeth a little. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

quote equal parameter

As someone who's been tackling copyright for the better part of a year now, I'm going to suggest you no longer add the quote= part in your references. I have no idea what current policy is on that and am trying to figure that out myself, but adding a sentence or more from a source and burying it in the refs leans on the wall between copyright issue and original content very strongly. I can understand it for a book perhaps, but for a website there's no reason to use them, a user can just click the link. I'll see if I can find time to look through the CCIs soon, to try and figure out whether or not this problem is resolved or recurring. Alas there are so few that tackle copyright because it's a minefield, especially in images, so it's a long trek. Wizardman 01:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It really is an issue that should be decided globally at Misplaced Pages. Perhaps limiting the number of words to a fixed number of them, say 10, or not allowing the fair use of copyrighted text for non-commercial purposes at all, and deleting every instance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree on that front; if my efforts to find a policy on that turn up empty I'll be doing precisely that. A short quote noting something is perhaps ok, but once we get beyond 10 words/1 sentence it's not necessary. Wizardman 01:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the Google snippet guideline and what the New York Times chooses to release as the abstract to search engines. Both are a few sentences. What the NYT releases as the abstract in the HTML header certainly is what they consider fair-use since it is what exactly what they are releasing for search engines to copy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Wizardman above. "Excessively long quotes" in the footnotes is probably the #1 most frequent mentioned summary attached to the problematic pages at CCI. I personally wish those Cite Templates would be altogether scrapped, but I have a hunch that won't be happening anytime soon. But this has proven a real thorn in the keister for a couple of the 5 or so people who have done the bulk of the work at CCI, including editors whose usernames start with F, it would seem. It's a simple change that should be made if you adopt Jesus O'Gandhi behavior regarding copyright — a grey area rather than the Path of Unquestionable Copyrightness. Carrite (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more that it's desirable for Richard to be free to continue adding his excellent content. But equally it would be good for RAN to receive less hostile attention, and to take up less of the copyright crew's time. As Carrite says it's a simple change. Richard, I hope you'll stop using Quotes for web sources or at least limit yourself to quoting no more than a sentence. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yikes - It has just been pointed out to me that CCI's massive list of articles is arranged by order of contributions, ranging from the largest (most problematic) to the smallest (least problematic). So back to the drawing board trying to demonstrate A vs. B copyright adherence. I guess that makes sense as a sorting mechanism for them but it also makes it impossible to do serious sampling based on time in large cases — which is what seems to have broken CCI. Carrite (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmm - Then there is the good news: CCI has done what appears to be extremely sloppy work on your case, with over half the copyvios attributed to you either phantom violations or violations that had nothing to do with your edits. It's actually impossible to count how many of your alleged violations are actual violations at this point, although I do see two reasonably serious ones and a couple that were the result of sloppy hiding of text in the edit panel behind < ! -- tags... I've started annotations at Misplaced Pages:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20111108 CASE. No worries. I'm going to bed... Carrite (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Note regarding the above: Actually I was misinterpreting articles pulled and restarted, a process which scrubbed the edit history and made forensics impossible. There were a couple errors made by CCI, but "extremely sloppy" is not accurate. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Carrite, thanks so much for stepping up to help Richard. You've helped restor my faith in the community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Quoting from sources is perfectly acceptable as fair use and suggestions to the contrary should be firmly resisted. For example, see yesterday's featured article, which contains a substantial quotation of over 60 words from the historian Derek Brewer. Warden (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a difference, I think, between making use of fair use quotes in the body of an article and including even-longer direct "glosses" of the source quote in the footnotes. Frankly, if this case does nothing else, I would hope an RFC results to eliminate the "quote=" field from the citation template. At least 3 of the 5 or so volunteers who worked most on the RAN CCI Text Investigation raised objections to the length of glosses as copyright violations. I think a remedy that will gain their support — which is absolutely what should be sought here — needs to expressly prohibit RAN using the "quote=" part of the citation template at least until the community affirms that this is acceptable practice. Richard — unsolicited advice: you NEED to stay away from "quote=" content. That's going to be the most dangerous thing moving forward because people have differing views on what is okay and not okay in this regard and you have to be purer than snow on copyright matters, your personal views on the state of the law and the wisdom of the practice be damned.
I also think that a quota of 5 starts/mo. is not enough, given your preferred pace of work and the generally 2004-2009 2004-2007 (see below) vintage of the major problems. Ten is more like it, which is still a burr in your saddle, I am certain. Nevertheless, as I look more and more at the actual nature of the problems CCI has uncovered, I don't think the copyright danger is in the starts so much as it is in your writing technique. Which brings up the question of pasting in copyright material behind < ! -- tags and then paraphrasing it. That's a huge and recurring problem with some of those older vintage pages. I don't know if you are still doing that or if you stopped in 2009, but you absolutely, positively should never, ever do that again. That's another thing that could easily prove a signal fire for a lynch mob. If you write like that — having the source physically in front of you on screen — do it off-Wiki and port in the copyright clear material when it is ready. One can write Wiki syntax in any word processor program, as you are no doubt aware. Back to work, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Fixed: Carrite (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That BBB dude

Richard, I don't understand why you wish to go against convention wiki-wide. You've created so many articles, create the one for your CEO and then simply list it at his high school. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

He's blocked from creating articles, which has had unintended consequences. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I realized that after he screwed up the current CBS Records (now CBS Records (2006)) article so I made CBS Records into a DAB page as a result. He did not like that so the Talk:CBS Records page is a mile long as a result. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ 03:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI deconstruction

I'm finished analyzing one of the 10 pages of the CCI investigation. Summary is HERE. It is frustrating not being able to see everything, one of those rare times when I wish I had the Admin tool kit. So it goes. Looks like your trouble years were 2004 to early 2007, which was sort of a different world of Misplaced Pages than the 2013 world... Still, copyvio is copyvio and if ya live long enough the sins stack up. Still, it's downright craziness to claim you present a copyright threat to the project in this decade... Best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the CCI started because he had created two copyright violating articles in late 2011 August Howard and Job Male, which lead to closer scrutiny of all his creations. Claiming that it ended in 2007 is not really correct. It just became less frequent. And of course, you ignore (again) the many copyright violations he inserted or linked to in 2013 (files, and links to references and external links). Fram (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop referring to the fair-use of an image as a "copyright violation". You cannot apply Misplaced Pages's interpretation of fair-use to other venues. "Fair-use of a copyrighted image" is not synonymous with "copyright violation". When you use the term "copyright violation" you are being inflammatory and tendentious. Misplaced Pages allows one fair-use image of a dead person and Findagrave has slots for five images, that does not make Findagrave a copyright violator. Misplaced Pages hosts and displays hundreds of thousands of copyrighted images of dead people which is not a "copyright violation" just Misplaced Pages's interpretation of fair-use. Google hosts and displays millions of copyrighted images, and hosts full text, and displays snippets from tens of millions of copyrighted books under fair-use, which has not been ruled a copyright violation by any United States court, yet it is fair-use on a massive scale. Both Time magazine and the New York Times allow subscribers to use their material for non-commercial purposes. Calling these "copyright violations" is purposefully inflammatory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I am referring to files you uploaded as "public domain" which weren't public domain. I am referring to 2 megapixel "fair use" files which you claim have minimal size. I am referring to a link to a complete 2012 Wall Street Journal article, not on the SWJ site but copied (by you) on Familypedia. Need I go on? Your commons upload of a scan of a 1949 article from a Swedish newspaper, claiming that it is PD because it is a photograph, and because it was published in the US without copyright renewal? Having two PD reasons, and getting them both wrong, is quite an achievement. When you then link to that file on Misplaced Pages, then you are linking to a copyright violation. And so on and so on... I am not being "purposefully inflammatory", you still don't see a problem with your actions and your approach. And since some people still try to defend you and ANI can't reach a conclusion for that reason, this is now at ArbCom, and seeing your response here, I hope they take it on. Please, stop editing any related to files, stop linking to non-RS, and get someone who will check your edits and explain what is acceptable, what is dubious, and what is clearly unacceptable. The only other solution is that you will get at least topic banned and at most completely banned. Fram (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

@Fram. I'm not "ignoring" anything, I am concentrating on other things in preparation for the federal case you are making of this... If you could just Assume Good Faith for once, this could be remedied in a way that will make all of our lives easier. I have a very good suggestion for how to resolve the file problem, but you really don't want to listen because you're overworked and pissed off and have already made up your mind. Here's the solution, which I'll either make at AN/I or at the other venue at which you opened simultaneous proceedings:

Restrictions on files

1. Richard Norton admits he has problems with the intricacies of photo copyright law (as do some file volunteers), and the WP template system for images.

2. Richard Norton obtains a copyright advisor ("mentor") who is not me. A crotchety administrator would be ideal, and feel free to make suggestions.

3. Richard Norton agrees to be prohibited from uploading any files except those falling under the following very specific criteria:

  • Material published in books, magazines, and newspapers in the United States of America prior to 1923.
  • Copyright clear material in the collection of the Library of Congress (Bain, etc.) or produced by employees of the United States Federal Government in the course of their jobs.
  • Photographs physically taken by Richard Norton himself.

NO EXCEPTIONS, enforced by block of one month per file not conforming to this list. All other files which Richard needs in the course of his work must be uploaded by his copyright advisor subject to Misplaced Pages's very explicit rules, with the burden resulting from error falling upon them, not Richard. This restriction to be indefinite, subject to review at AN/I in six months time.


Now please don't accuse me of "ignoring text" or "ignoring dubious site linking" because there are connected proposals there as well... Carrite (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard: You hate that, right? But you'd do it, right? Carrite (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The rest of it

Fuck it, with the AN/I thread hatted this is the logical place to vet this. Here are the connected parts of the remedy:

Proposed remedy

The initial violation

Richard Norton recognizes that the stub article which started the initial AN/I thread was a violation of his topic ban against new articles and that as a second offense there needs to be escalating punishment from his previous 60 hour block. Owing to the comparatively minor nature of the transgression — very small, copyright clear, and an isolated incident — this particular remedy should be minor. Richard therefore voluntarily accepts a one week block from Misplaced Pages.

File creation

1. Richard Norton admits he has problems with the intricacies of photo copyright law (as do some file volunteers), and the WP template system for images.

2. Richard Norton shall obtain a copyright advisor ("mentor"), User:Carrite excluded. (A crotchety administrator would be ideal, and feel free to make suggestions.)

3. Richard Norton agrees to be prohibited from uploading any files except those falling under the following very specific criteria:

  • Images published in books, magazines, and newspapers in the United States of America prior to 1923.
  • Copyright clear material in the collection of the Library of Congress (Bain, etc.) or produced by employees of the United States Federal Government in the course of their jobs.
  • Photographs physically taken by Richard Norton himself.

NO EXCEPTIONS, enforced by block of one month per file not conforming to this list. All other files which Richard needs in the course of his work must be uploaded by his copyright advisor subject to Misplaced Pages's very explicit rules, with the burden resulting from error falling upon them, not Richard. This restriction to be indefinite, subject to review at AN/I in six months time.

Article creation

Richard has already suffered a de facto ban of over a year from doing what he wants to do — research and create articles on Misplaced Pages. The nature of his text-related copyright transgressions relates not so much to creation, but to the editing process he has used in the past, particularly between the years 2004 and 2007. Richard is warned that he will henceforth, probably forever, be the subject of massive silent scrutiny on matters of copyright and he is instructed to adhere to the most conservative interpretation of copyright practice at Misplaced Pages at all times. In addition, Richard is to adhere to the following specific instructions with regard to editing:

1. Richard Norton is prohibited from pasting large chunks of copyrighted material into a Misplaced Pages edit layout, whether or not he intends further modification, whether or not this material is obscured from readers by < ! -- tags. Editing must be done by manual typing or by the insertion of copyright-clear text prepared off-wiki. Blockquotes are to be used sparingly and to be properly footnoted, in accordance with standard Misplaced Pages practice.

2. Richard Norton is prohibited from using the "quote=" section of the Misplaced Pages Citation template. Too often in the past Richard has used snippets of excessive length. These are of dubious value and the acceptability of the practice is a matter of some debate among the community. As a copyright grey area, the use of these extended quotations in footnotes is expressly prohibited.

3. Richard Norton is prohibited from merging Misplaced Pages pages, splitting Misplaced Pages pages to create new topics, copy-pasting from one Misplaced Pages page to another, or creating new pages from inter-Wiki translations. If he wishes to accomplish any of these things, he is to make use of his copyright advisor ("mentor") or any trusted administrator and to have them perform the operation in a manner which satisfies copyright concerns.

The violation of any of these specific provisions is to be regarded as a blockable offense.

In addition, Richard Norton is forcefully instructed to always be cognizant to avoid overly close paraphrase of copyright material, which is a form of copyright violation. He is also reminded that copy-pasting vast blocks of text from public domain sources (pre-1923 American books, etc.) with a single footnote appended is no longer regarded as an acceptable editing practice at Misplaced Pages and doing so in the future may have serious ramifications. His copyright adherence will be strictly scrutinized and violations dealt with harshly, as he already understands.

As a valued and valuable content writer, Richard Norton has been hamstrung for over 14 months by a topic ban on article creation. This places the focus on things that are not a problem — Richard's articles rarely are found non-notable at Articles for Deletion — instead of focusing on the things that are a problem, sundry issues related to copyright. Therefore Richard Norton's topic ban on article creation is hereby lifted.

External linking

Misplaced Pages policy expressly forbids the linking of its pages to sites which chronically violate copyright law, or to files which may be reasonably assumed to be copyright violations. Recent copyright concerns deal largely with these matters. Richard Norton is hereby officially made cognizant of these rules. With respect to the current dispute, Find-a-Grave is NOT to be regarded as a prohibited site, although linking to any one of its pages may or may not be, depending on its specific content.

That said: Richard Norton is expressly prohibited from linking in the future to any external page to which he himself has contributed content, whether or not this content constitutes a copyright violation. Violation of this specific provision is to be regarded as a blockable offense.

All provisions of the above remedy are indefinite, subject to review at AN/I in six months' time, starting from the date of Richard Norton's formal acceptance of this modified topic ban.

Carrite (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Comments on the above?

Thanks so much for putting the effort into this. It would be fantastic if the article creation topic ban could be lifted as this has likely deprived the project of countless valuable articles. Are you sure it's necessary to prohibit Richard from linking to his work on other sites? Thats obviously something he likes to do, and there seemed to be clear majority opposition to this restriction on ANI. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That was the thing at ANI that was hard to explain. Content creators HAVE to be able to start articles — otherwise it would be like cutting the legs off a soccer player and telling them to go to it. The investigation there in over a year got to 8.5% of his articles, which would be 12 to 20 or more years to finish, depending on the pace. CCI is broken, they need about 5 times the number of volunteers they have just to handle their current case load. They also need a new way of working, which involves sorting by time rather than article size and doing scientific sampling to isolate problems. My opinion. There were about 5 people who have worked on Richard's case; there are 2 or 3 remaining, and they are frankly needed elsewhere more. Anyway, this is the point where Richard needs to chime in whether the above is acceptable, and if not, why not. It would also be good if SPhilbrick, Wizardman, Hut 8.5, and Moonriddengirl made a magical appearance to chime in... (Fram is already advised). Carrite (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The site link ban seems to be the huge copyright concern. This is structured to be re-examined and discussed in six months, but I think it's pretty important to the cause of achieving consensus here. In the interim, RAN can work on such external sites and then bring those examples forward for examination as to whether a relaxation of this is appropriate. Dunno. What do others think? Carrite (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard: It is better to get something moderately nasty done through AN/I rather than ArbCom, which will produce an uncertain result. Chime in. Do you get all this? Will you adhere to it religiously, even if it isn't completely fair? Carrite (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I will have time tomorrow to look at what has been written, I was hoping to have time today, but did not have time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Tentative thoughts - Richard Arthur Norton has done enormous amounts of good work, so any solution that would allow him to continue that good work is welcome in my mind. While I worked extensively on the CCI for some time, I got bogged down in some theory regarding the quote parameter, and decided to halt involvement pending resolution of that matter. There's some recent progress on that front, but that's a different issue, I'm bringing it up mainly to explain my lack of involvement over the past few months. I have not followed the Arbcom case, and feel I should review it before commenting further. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks as though this dispute is headed for ArbCom, and I think it would be best off there. ArbCom has the advantage of being more thorough and deliberative than community processes, and its rulings are generally better enforced. One question that any proposed community restriction will have to answer is why the previous community restrictions haven't been adhered to and why the new one would be any different. I would recommend that Carrite refrain from acting as an advocate for RAN, which isn't a terribly constructive way of resolving disputes. Hut 8.5 21:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's always been my hope to see Richard doing what he does so well without there being any problems generated. While I've looked far more at his image contributions than his text, it's clear he's added a lot of good content. I would support any solution that leads to his being able to continue that without some of the issues we've had in the past. That said, I have to agree with Hut 8.5 about ArbCom's role here. (It might be more valuable to check his more recent contributions, rather than reviewing some of the older listings at the CCI, just to make sure that there is no lingering confusion, other than the WP:LINKVIO issue. I don't say that to suggest that there is, but it would be a better predictor of potential future issues than evaluating older material, I think. If anybody wants a list of Richard's contribs for the past year, just let me know.) --Moonriddengirl 21:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Anything that can be done to keep this editor contributing is a good thing. Moonriddengirl is quite versed in copyright issues so perhaps a collaboration to find a way to make RAN a specialist in applying current copyvio content would be a benefit for all. The goalposts do move so this would likely benefit all concerned. I also suggest a trial one period (or 30 days of actual editing) so he can adjust to getting all his new creationing looked over, then relaxed to the above proposal. Insomesia (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This sounds reasonable to me, both for allowing decent content creation while addressing the concerns, and setting ground for 'good behavior' to allow for later relaxing of the sanctions. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This seems too restrictive. How about must exercise caution and default to using the talk page when in doubt? Insomesia (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a reasonable basis to start discussions if ArbCom doesn't take the case, but, as with some of the folks above, I still feel that an ArbCom solution would be better than a community-generated one, if only because more admins would be wiling to enforce it. I would suggest that if ArbCom does take the case, you re-frame the suggested remedy above to be suitable for submitting to the Workshop page. Thanks for your work on this, it is appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not really a party here; I'm coming on Casliber's request. I agree with Moonriddengirl's assessment; if possible, we need to have a way of permitting him to create the good content that he's capable of producing, and this seems to be it. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • How about mentorship? GiantSnowman 09:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a very good set of proposals. In the event that ArbCom do take the case up, these should be considered as potential remedies. If they don't take the case, I'm happy for them to be applied if Richard is. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Seems to be overall solid proposal, I don't see any glaring problems in it.--Staberinde (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The quote equal parameter is not a copyright issue, it is a fair use issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The use of public domain material in the quote equal parameter does not impinge on fair use.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The quote equal parameter is part of current accepted practice.  RAN should not be topic banned because of the style preferences of editors opposed to current accepted practice.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree this is a good starting point. I'd not restrict the quote parameter per Unscintillating, or if we had to, limit him to 20 words or something. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
It looks like our settlement has been rejected by Arbcom. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, some of them seem to be still waiting for outcome of this discussion, so if you would prefer to avoid arbcom then you probably should give your own opinion on this proposal. It is still completely unclear what you yourself actually think of it.--Staberinde (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering that a user talk page discussion has no binding value anyway, and that RAN has not indicated any agreement with the proposals (he promised a reply for yesterday evening, but none has been posted), nor any indication that he agrees that he has actually done anything wrong (quite the contrary so far), I see no compelling reason to suspend the ArbCom case. I doubt that the discussion here will have any "teeth", so to speak, making it basically useless. Seeing how the proposer of the remedies there is the same editor who vehemently rejected any proposals at the ANI discussion, and even any indications that there were more pressing problems than getting the article creation ban lifted, it seems to me that this is not a genuine effort to improve Misplaced Pages, but a desperate effort to avoid an ArbCom case only. People are already chopping away at the proposed restrictions anyway, making them even weaker than what is suggested. Considering all this, I don't support the remedies and would prefer ArbCom to take the case. Fram (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You have misrepresented me yet again. I wrote: "I will have time tomorrow to look at what has been written" which you translated into "he promised a reply for yesterday evening". "Look at" and "promised a reply" are not synonyms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Any comments on the actual case instead? Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


Whats your rush? Why not give the man time to comment? We should be trying to avoid taking this case to Arbcom instead of your insistence it must go there. I also don't agree that this doesn't have "teeth". Regardless of the venue the discussion and end result can be just as binding regardless of where it occurs. I also don't thinking maintaining a smear blog at User:Fram/RAN evidence is necessary or appropriate! 108.28.162.125 (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I actually like this remedy for the most part. The only part I'm not sold on is the mentoring, does it does seem a bit out of place. Certainly, image copyright is a lot tougher to tackle than text copyright, so I don't think the punishment has to have all three parts on that front. Wizardman 22:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cristmas eve, Isle of Pines, 1910 copy.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)