This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Issac (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 9 August 2014 (→Out of scope: reply.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:35, 9 August 2014 by Joshua Issac (talk | contribs) (→Out of scope: reply.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Primates Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Indonesia Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Comment about "deletion" of negative comments
I see WikiPedia are working overtime, deleting all the negative comments that have been posted here, regarding their theft of copyrighted works. Well of course you can behave like this and try to disguise the public feeling for your despicable actions on your own site, but there are many other websites, TV news programs, media etc, upon which we can display our disgust, without you being able to whitewash over it. People power is a significant force and I am quite certain that a great many of us will not be making any donations until your deplorable decision is reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.173.191 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Incorrect. I simply moved the comments further down the page — see my edit here. No one has deleted them.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
earlier conversation
"Crested black macaque" seems to be the more widely used name. Should we change the name of the article? Tim Long 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Celebes Crested Macaque is its official common name, according to Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Assessed
Against conservation status as well as content SatuSuro 08:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Killer Dolphins
I have posted a long comment in the Talk section of the main Macaque genus article, about the renaming of all the macaque species articles to " Macaque" (e.g. "Barbary Macaque") from their traditionally names (e.g. Barbary Ape).
Would you please take a look at that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Macaque#Killer_Dolphins
And then correct this individual species article as necessary — I'm not sure which macaque species may have actually been called " Macaque" traditionally.
(And I hope you can see that the fact that I don't know that, after reading a Misplaced Pages article about the species, is why rewriting reality in Misplaced Pages is a problem.)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyright of 'selfie'
Give the guy his photo back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.70.189.38 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, above this page as I type are fundraising adverts and comments on copyright violation, its a shame wikipedia can't seem to do the decent thing and protect the independence and copyright of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.215.173.191 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages cannot unilaterally declare someone else' work open source. That is a legal fact. Give up the photo (Redacted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.225.25 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Slater took it to the court. It is now up to them to decide who is right, not to non-lawyers. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages stealing intellectual property based on some convoluted misinterpretation of the law. Misplaced Pages is developing an abstract culture and complex system of laws of their own.--2.25.5.106 (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope
Without going into the rights and wrongs of the current dispute, this article is supposed to be about the macaque. Surely this is not the place to have a section on copyright issues? See relevant policy WP:NOT#JOURNALISM Periglio (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree — there should only be a brief mention of the copyright issue (though the photos should remain (assuming Wikimedia's position holds) as they are in themselves relevant). The copyright issue probably belongs on the selfie page, and/or on a page dicussing relevant photography law.--A bit iffy (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I tried to be fairly terse, pending the outcome, when I originally created this section. I managed to keep it down to three sentences. In only a day or two it seems to have ballooned out of proportion, as everyone wants to correct niggling details at much greater length. I can only suggest we tolerate it until there's a little more news (e.g. a court date or judgement) and then spin it off into it's own **simian selfie controversy** article, if there's enough to justify that. Alternatively, pruning will be possible when there's less active and current interest, maybe in 6 or 12 months time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strolls (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Therefore I started a proposal to move this section into Monkey painting. Unfortunately, we seem to have no other article about non-human art or copyright. Better ideas are welcome. — Keφr 12:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I tried to be fairly terse, pending the outcome, when I originally created this section. I managed to keep it down to three sentences. In only a day or two it seems to have ballooned out of proportion, as everyone wants to correct niggling details at much greater length. I can only suggest we tolerate it until there's a little more news (e.g. a court date or judgement) and then spin it off into it's own **simian selfie controversy** article, if there's enough to justify that. Alternatively, pruning will be possible when there's less active and current interest, maybe in 6 or 12 months time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strolls (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I 'support the proposal the merge the section into Monkey painting. And I also suggest that it be renamed to something like Non-human primate art, so that the section would actually be within the scope of the article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)