For hard work at the help desk.
Molotov
(talk)
22:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence for work on the Bahá'í Pages
For services rendered to the Bahá'í pages (and there are a bewildering array of very obscure ones) I, MARussellPESE, present Geni the Barnstar of Diligence which is awarded here in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. These pages are the better for your services.
Also awarded to, in no particular order: PaulHammond, Occamy, Geni, Rboatright, and Tomhab.
Hey Geni :)
I'm gonna put it for ALL readers, not just the watchlist notice.
1) it's something I feel everyone should know
2) It was at Slashdot, where a majority of people don't care about Wikipedia, and I think even readers should care more than Slashdot crawlers...
3) some people don't check their watchlists (such as bumm13, who has never used it)
4) Jimbo never objected
5) Profit.
Cheers :) R e dwolf24 ( talk) 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, alright, the summary (for George W. Bush) may have been out of line. But it was a useful (albiet minor) post (which I'll be putting back in, with a different summary ideally), and I thought it was funny, at least. ;) Still (being serious for a second), it was probably a bad idea. Sorry. Matt Yeager 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Please be aware that your reversion of the accurate information in the Prussian Blue article (which I understand was done in completly good faith - you doubted the accuracy, so I sourced it) is being used by wikipedians of dubious motiviation to argue for the exclusion of the entirety of the information regarding the band's belief in holocaust denial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
So, did I do the self-important, getting all excited, over-stating a problem and jumping the gun thing? I hate it when other people do that, so now I'm embarrassed :(
Fox1 (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't revert my work at Animal testing. Yesterday you deleted a whole section on the LD50 test, even though it was completely factual. Today, you're reverting in support of an anon, who uses more than one IP address, won't sign up for a user name, and who posts only to this article, so he's here as a single-issue editor. His edits are pro-testing POV, and he doesn't understand our polices. He feels we should insert what he believes to be true, even if it hasn't been published anywhere and even if it contradicts what all the sources say.
I'm in the middle of rewriting this article, so please bear in mind that it's a work in progress, and will improve. However, I feel that the intro as it stands is very NPOV. It doesn't give the pro or anti side, but simply lists facts in the first three paragraphs, then in the fourth, it gives a broad overview of the basic dilemma that's at issue. To insert (as the anon wants to, and as you support) in the intro that animal testing has, as a matter of fact, made positive contributions in that particular list of diseases, is to take one side of the debate in the second sentence. The details of the debate should take place in the body of the article, in my view, after the facts of animal testing have been explained (numbers, what types of tests, conducted mainly by which countries).
This is an article that has needed to be improved ever since I started editing here, so now that it's finally being done, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't revert my efforts in the middle of the process. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
00:56, 18 September 2005 Geni (→History - rm deleted image)
Do you by any chance know why this image was deleted? Source was stated as being myself and I didn't put a copyright on the picture (public domain).
Thanks -- Tom Lasswell 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate your help. SlimVirgin is editing numerous animal rights-related topics in the name of NPOV but is actually pushing an insidiuous POV in the pretence of making things neutral.
He actually has some extreme views. See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barry_Horne
Bizarre conspiracy theory. The death threat was made by a well-known animal rights militant. Any suggestion of a conspiracy theory is just weird
He is clearly sympathetic towards the aims of the animal rights movement. He is editing articles removing the most blatant POV claims in pursuit of a semblance of NPOV but actually weaving a path towards a conclusion by the way facts and AR opinions are presented.
He is dead-set that a picture of a caged monkey should appear on SHAC, even though it is a blatantly POV-pushing image. He reverted content to that page that explained about Huntingdon Life Sciences in a more balanced way. They are NOT an animal testing firm; they are a contract research laboratory that conducts no more than half of its experiments on animals.
All pages he maintains are unbalanced and do nothing to explain what HLS actually do and that it might actually be positive. There are dozens of links to animal rights websites, and little or nothing on respected, mainstream scientists like internationally renowned Robert Winston who said ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1283048.stm)
"They operate in a way which leads one to consider that is very close to a fascist way of acting if you can't get what you personally want as a minority you are going to try to go to any kind of lengths at the limit of the law or just beyond it."
None of this is reported.
It's just:
in 1997 HLS was found abusing animals ALF activitists filmed more abuse
there is nothing in between, no pro-HLS line, no justification, just animal rights propaganda
The conclusion is implied: HLS abuses animals. There is nothing close to balance.
Compare a neutral organisation like the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4295706.stm
'Huntingdon Life Sciences carries out cancer and other medical research on animals, which the government has described as vital, but have come under fire from campaign groups. '
Or a balanced article on animal testing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/index.shtml
Contents
Key points Does animal testing work? Is it morally right? What are the alternatives? Protests and pickets How many animals are used in experiments?
You see nothing in support of HLS, even though there is a consensus from the government (SlimVirgin deleted a link from former Prime Minister John Major in support of HLS, and also one from Tony Blair describing their works as vital).
Jack Straw said:
"The work here is critical to humankind and we need to applaud the people who work here rather than abuse them.
They are undertaking medical and other research which is essential for the benefit of us all and it is vital that this work continues."
These are serious heavyweight figures who aren't give any say; meanwhile SlimVirgin is busy editing articles in favour of Barry Horne, imprisoned several times, including one episode where he tried to kidnap a dolphin using a Mini Metro, who firebombed Boots stores causing millions of damage.
It is all sympathetic. None of it looks like http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.animals/browse_frm/thread/1a0341dafc6ad572/e9041b84bdcb79b9, a Sunday Times article on Horne.
On HLS there is little on the bombs sent to staff, the tampon said to be infected with AIDS, the beatings of Brian Cass (whose work was supported by the Prince of Wales when he gave him the CBE), but fulsome detail on every alleged transgression of HLS.
He also put something in the talk page about SHAC stating that criminal actions of SHAC members shouldn't be added. Highly bizarre, given that every wrongdoing by HLS is covered. See e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200212/21/animal_rights.shtml,
"50 year old Rae Schilling from Station Road in Otford was jailed for four and a half years in April after pleading guilty to three counts of putting people in fear of their lives.
Schilling was a member of the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, which threatened shareholders in Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd to abandon their investments."
Other SHAC activists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1425980,00.html
What an HLS article should look like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1124524.stm
Andrew Blake of the campaign group Seriously Ill for Medical Research:
'Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is the UK's largest contract research organisation (CRO) and does more than just preclinical animal safety testing (see box). In fact, the majority of CRO employees are analysts who analyse soil, plants, water, human blood samples and, yes, some animals .... CROs are helping to develop therapeutic proteins in sheep's milk, animal organs for human transplants (xenotransplantion), cancer treatments, antibiotics, anti-rheumatics, vaccines, anti-epileptics, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's treatments and many more besides ... These "animal rights terrorists" hold a fanatical belief that animal research does not work.
But most disturbing is the arrogant attitude that because they have an obscure view of life, then everyone else, including patients, should be forced to live life according to their opinions.
For fit and healthy people, which most anti-vivisectionists are, animal research may not seem so important but for seriously ill people, it is a matter of life or death. ' followed by contradicting view from AR proponents.
But you won't get anything like balance here, not while SlimVirgin is doing the rounds.
Hope you can help.
14:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
issue | claimant | status |
---|---|---|
photo is misrepresentative | Kyz | unresolved |
I see you also disagreed with the external links in question. This has now gone for RFC, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman and kindly offer your views. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The comments you have made about the moon landing hoax were rather vague and not led by evidence. Most of the sentences can be either defined as "no, it is not true" or "I'm attacking your claims just to make you mad." The lack of seriousness also concerns me whether you are starting a pointless war or just act foolish.
Geni, if you have a chance would you mind taking a look at this: WP:AN/3RR#User:FuelWagon. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have blocked Wbfl ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours. He has been editwarring with Geni ( talk · contribs) on Wikipedia talk:Administrative probation, see [1]. I am putting this notice up as I was the target of the original attack. Fred Bauder 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't use email. Regarding blocks, the reason always gets truncated to around 240 characters, so if it's an autoblock of the underlying IP of a very very long username, it will get truncated before the username itself finishes printing out. -- Curps 07:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I´m wondering: in the edit summaries: how do you get the link to the users contributions? I´ve tried, (see Bogdanov Affair) but I have just messed it up. Regards, Huldra 13:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Your 3RR complaint was plainly done in a mean spirit. It was obvious that you knew I was strictly dealing with a request for assistance with vandalism, not editing the article. What is your real issue here?
FeloniousMonk 15:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey there! I think there is something odd with the block you applied to User talk:I Hate My Ex! - in the block log, it shows that you have blocked the user, yet the username link does not link to the correct userpage. Just to let you know, I have reapplied your block. -- HappyCamper 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
are you kidding, in the picture it was shown that the picture was taken by me, uploaded by me, etc...
agh, just guess i'll have to readd it
-- Tom Lasswell 04:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Durin has a point actually - although she says she won't sue him, she still calls it libel, in other words, she says that he has commited a crime against her. She follows it up with demands that he change his behaviour. I would see that as menacing if I were in his shoes - Guettarda 04:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI, Yoism is on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Edwardian 18:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Dunno if this is your territory, but I see you've done good work on alt med articles previously. Check out the Gerson links at Wikipedia:Cleanup#November 11, 2005: these pages need a POV and factual check, as they're currently written entirely by a proponent. Tearlach 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[2]. R adiant _>|< 10:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Geni - your latest reversion on thimerosal is baseless on facts and appear only to be made to spite the subject matter. It is vandalism, pure and simple. -- Leifern 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have reported you to WP:VIP as a moderate vandalism with the appropriate documentation. I will continue to do this as long as you persist in wholesale reversions. If you find reason to object to single points, edit these. Wholesale reversions are unacceptable. BTW, your version of "magic cream" is shameful. -- Leifern 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've responded to your objection that you would have to protect more pages if WP:PWDS was implemented. I include the text below. If you have any further thoughts or concerns on this, I'd really like to hear them, as it will help improve the proposal(and hey, maybe it'll change my mind about it ;-) ). Thanks!
Quoting from the page:
The "Edit this Article" tab definitely works, try it again. If you were refering to the tab above, remember that it will only say "view source" to non-admins(most readers). Non-admins, if they dont already know about this kind of thing when they look at it, will easily figure it out. Voice of All T| @| ESP 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I have loaded the classic skin, and I kind of see what you mean, but it is not that bad. Also, the the other edit links for the sections are the same. Quite frankly, this monobook is set up poorly in that categories should be on bottom. Voice of All T| @| ESP 07:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
put the stuff back at Flaus page-im not experimenting-IVE GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THEN WASTE MY TIME REDITING THAT PAGE-YOU VANDAL-YOU MUST BE PROUD OF YOURSELF-WIKIPEDIA HAS LESS INFO BECAUSE OF YOU 128.250.99.135 03:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I've started Alex McDowell as a stub and it got labeled with db-bio in 30 minutes. I've left a message on the user talk page, of the user who marked it for speedy deletes and then I've noticed his/hers contribs. Any ideas? +MATIA ☎ 14:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help with all this and for deleting all the images I've linked for you so far. I'll have another clear out soon. Keep you posted. Thanks! Wikiwoohoo 17:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
sorry about that, I mistook that for another policy page thus this edit. That being said though I feel the need to point out to you that since this was not vandalism just an honest mistake it was innapropriate for you to use your administrator rollback function. Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Geni, why did you revert my questions to the arbcom candidates?-- Silverback 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Geni. If you're still willing to delete my images for me, here is the latest batch. Thanks again! Wikiwoohoo 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Not entirely sure why the UK flag images are still listing as being in articles, they aren't! They are still showing the articles they were in as stubs, either for the UK retail stub or the UK bank template. They are orphans though. If you check some of the articles they are meant to be in, they aren't. Confusing! :) Thanks for all your help though. Wikiwoohoo 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It must be great to be so comfortable with ignorance. As I predicted, you simply reverted the introduction to the homeopathy article, just like you've reverted every single attempt at making it anything less than a polemic against homeopathy. Your conduct is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community and the scientific community you think you belong to. Oh, and unless you revert to my version and edit it rather than doing a wholesale reversion, I am reporting you for vandalism. And I'll insist that you as an admin get blocked for some significant period of time. -- Leifern 01:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You have been reported for vandalism as a result of repeated wholesale reversions to your POV. I will continue to report such offenses by you where I find them. -- Leifern 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you reverted Trojanpony's edit to George W. Bush. It was legitimate, I have restored it. Please don't revert edits just because they are made by a new user. - Greg Asche (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, If you have time could you look at this image for speedy delete. (desc) Photo 1.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg . . 90,069 bytes . . Carajou . . 23:46, December 6, 2005 (Salman Pak facility, courtesy Space Imaging ( http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove_connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_terrorists.guest.html)) It seems like it should go, but the uploader didn't have a User page. If it can be speedied could you do it and then explain the steps. I want to learn, but if you don't have time that okay.-- FloNight 05:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I have now reported you for the third time in just a few days for wholesale reversions, again on the Homeopathy article. Please consult WP:Vandalism, where such wholesale reversions are described and clearly defined as vandalism. The fact that you are doing it to promote your point of view actually aggrevates the offense. -- Leifern 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The image is a movie screenshot.
this user is not a sockpuppet and I keep getting banned. Very unfair.
Thanks for the advice Geni. I'm worried about him coming out of this block with this mindset, but i'm sure we'll be ready. karmafist 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Geni,
I was wondering if we could get your point of view on a revert war on Baha'i persecution. Thanks -- Jeff3000 02:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the user signature only. It was getting kind-of old. -- Fplay 14:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I see you deleted the article IEEE P1901 I've done. I have clearly written that I'm authorized to use the text from http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1901/ in Wikipedia. The permission was given to me by Jim Mollenkopf (IEEE P1901 Co-Chair). If you don't believe me you can email to him. I loose time in making it and in asking permissions, so please restore the article or tell me what other should I do. -- Armando82 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. A user you blocked indefinitely has made a request to be unblocked. Would you mind stating your opinion of this request on their talk page? Thanks. // Pathoschild 05:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Greetings;
I recently saw a page on a company that was marked as for deletion due to copyvio. According to the instructions at the time I made a new page as “/Temp” that is new content and not copyvio per instructions was on the orgional location. The original page has since been purged. The /Temp which is (appears to be) clear of copyvio is still there and could probably be moved in to place now that the copyvio page is gone. The original page was Avanade the new rewrite is Avanade/Temp or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanade/Temp Thanks Bdelisle 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to be able to see the deleted Pugly page, which you deleted and described as "patent nonsense." It most certainly was nonsense, but it was created by a friend of mine and I am interested in seeing the page he created. I am not an administrator and I am not eminent enough in Wikipedia to be nominated (or nominate myself) with any hope of success. I have no intention to repost the page or anything like that. I simply wish to chuckle at the utter flimflam my friend mankind716 attempted to slip into the site. Please reply on my discussion page. Thank you. arevolvingonob (talk) 19:52 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves#December 17, 2005? I see that the requested moves of three asteroids to add diacritics were made once before, and seem to have been reverted by you, but I can find nothing on any of the six talk pages to say why... in fact, there's nothing on the talk pages at all. Andrewa 10:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:657 Gunlod. Andrewa 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Minor planets -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in the bugzilla report I put in here: bugzilla:4411. Also, WP:VP (tech)#MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages' diff link doesn't work in Classic skin. Blackcap (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
But why would this be ironic? - brenneman (t) (c) 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If there's a problem, this is the first I've heard of it. You have something particular in mind? I'll take 'em down.
Hi,
There's a debate on Wikipedia right now as to the fair use of images on user pages. I'd please prefer not to delete the image until the debate is settled. -- CJ Marsicano 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that Trekphiler has removed our comments about his User page from his Talk page without comment. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you and I looking at the same User page? The one with the Kari Wuehrer and Mariah Carey images? However, I see that Fred Bauder has removed them all. That should cause an uproar. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What about the Kari Wuehrer image? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the military images, but the Wuehrer image has got to go. There isn't even an FU claim, and even if there were, it can't go on a User page. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
From the talk page USS Nautilus (SS-168): Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:
And this from the article:
Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for your message re fair use image in one of my userboxes. I have removed the image. However, I have a page been deleted notice on my userpage now. Could you add more light on this for me please? Many thanks Funky Monkey 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I hope you're well. Thanks for helping to move things forward regarding the ArbComm elections. While we all can't agree all of the time, and acknowledge and appreciate different points of view, there's a time for debate and a time for action ... and I believe we've long since moved passed the former.
Further to that, thanks for taking the initiative in starting to configure the ArbComm election pages. Moreover, I took the liberty to copy and tweak one vote page with some common sense/RfAdmin notions. Given recent discussions, I apologise for the delay. Some tweaks include:
What do you think? If you're OK with some or all of these changes, should you put them in place, should I, someone else, or not at all? Anyhow, thanks again for your feedback and help. E Pluribus Anthony 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello; thanks again for your work on this. I want to reiterate that, while I agree with the vote limitation you've proposed, I do not agree with doing so at this juncture ... regardless of it being "right" or "wrong." It diverges from what Jimbo has laid out and has already been discussed. If any Admin can invoke that sort of reasoning – and potentially open a can of worms – then we can't possibly move forward. If I came across as curt, I apologise.
As well, the voting instructions require minor copy editing: I suggest any or all of:
The election instructions, extensively discussed, are as follows:
That's it for me. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a misreading of the voting procedure. Votes should be placed on the sub-pages containing the candidate statements. I think this is reasonable because people can then easily see who they're voting for or against and how that candidate answered questions. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the oppose votes on Everyking, who I voted for even though I'll readily admit he's not the best behaved fellow on Wikipedia (one of our best editors, though) I see that it's getting very ugly already. Isn't there some general agreement that we avoid a repetition of the disendorsement thing? If so, do we have appointed tellers to delete campaigning messages from votes? Or am I just getting my silly head all worked up over nothing? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; it's gone now. -- King of All the Franks 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, they're gone. If any more need to go, I'll be happy to remove them. -- King of All the Franks 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is with images in userboxes. If an image is already in use on wikipedia and is ok for the purpose of an article, why is using that same image in a userbox so problematic? I've been careful to use images already on the site, or (if an article lacked a photo) supplying one and using it too. Exceptions are pics that I don't intend to keep for long (photoshopped picture of Spock) or are made by me for the purpose of userboxes ( File:Stars and swastikas (small).jpg "Stars and Swastikas") which other users are free to use (I've gotten a few requests by other contributors). If we could host a pic elsewhere and put an URL up on our Userpages it would save a lot of headaches all around. Isn't there a way this could be done? I'm still kinda new here and figuring things out.--
"That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
"That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively 2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Censorship is not exclusive to governments. It is the suppression of free speech, an act which requires no government authority to do (only the power to do so). You should consult a lawyer on this, because blocking secondary use (on the SAME site) gives Wikipedia NO additional protection. Believe me, any pic on Wikipedia is vulnerable, wherever it is. Fair Use law doesn't really mean much anymore than what a copyright holder will allow. I've dealt with this stuff before. If believing somehow there is a "safe" way to use copyrighted pictures makes you feel better, go ahead. But it doesn't exist. There are lots of Star Trek-related fansites who got got shut down by Paramount who said the same thing you did.--
"That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(from US Copyright Office)
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised December 2005
new history-- ◀Puck talk▶ 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What is your logic for claiming this is public domain?Geni 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC
File:South park lebowski avas-film-23.jpg | "That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
File:South park lebowski avas-film-23.jpg | "That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Having more noticeable reminders for people to donate is part of a long term board-approved strategy to make sure Wikipedia continues to have enough money to stay online. Please don't remove the one line message. We can't afford to not greatly increase donations between fundraisers. :) -- mav 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Geni, I just was informed that you claimed as copyrighted images in article "Stauromedusae" in Ukrainian Wiki ( http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauromedusae). Could I ask you please to indicate more precisely which exactly image(s) you meant? Sincerely --Shao 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, Geni, I put that comment there because seems to be a User:Farseer who is Special:Contributions/Farseer systematically removing categories and links that he disagrees with. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#[HelpDesk-l] would be appreciated. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-13 t18:51z
Hello! I noticed your negative comments regarding the proposed redesign, and I'd like to invite you to review a radically revamped revision, and to post your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Proposed_version. Thanks! — David Levy 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, why the deletion of an external link from Canals of the United Kingdom? I've asked this on the talk page, so best to reply there... Cheers JackyR 20:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Artisson has a livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/son_of_art, and the email listed on his profile is howlet_dark@yahoo.com. I hope this will help to confirm the identity of whoever emailed you asking that those pictures be taken down. Madame Sosostris 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I had created a page on the nosairi, only to find out that there is a page on the alawis. Someone else pointed this out and the page is up for deletion, can you delete it? Nygdan 1-20-2006
No, there is no information in nosairi that is not in alawite, i moved the information, and included more and some other sources. Nygdan
Sorry, I didn't realize that this image was fair use. I've removed it. -- ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You have a number of fair use images on your userpage. I'm afaraid these are not allowed on userpages. Could you please remove them? Geni 12:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, dude, I get it...So, I've changed the guinness drinker template to the following: {{ Guinness Drinker}}
Thanks for policing Wikipedia.
Rowlan 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You have been banned for one day for blanking the anonnotice page. If you agree not to do this again, I will unblock you ASAP. I've been told otherwise.
WikiFanatic 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Geni. I am currently revert-warring with someone on the Neal Chase page. Since you're not a Baha'i I think your input would be valuable. The issue is pretty simple and there is plenty of legal documents supporting it. Cuñado - Talk 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am the President of the Hermit Crab Association (hermitcrabassociation.com). The Hermit Crab Association was founded in March 2001 by a small group of land hermit crab lovers. In the past few years the membership has grown to over 1000 members and counting. Recently there has been an online "war" of sorts and as a result there are a few disgruntled former members trying to reroute traffic from the established communities of hermitcrabassociation.com (over 1000 members), landhermitcrabs.com (also more than 1000 members) and hermit-crabs.com (#1 on Google and averaging over 20,000 hits a day.)
The attackers are trying to reroute people on the Wiki Hermit Crabs page to hermitcrabassociation.org, hermit-crabs.net and landhermitcrabs.net. Said sites ARE legitimate hermit crab sites and thus deserve a viewing. However the parties that are constantly changing the URLs need to stop doing so. There is enough room on the internet for everyone.
I'll admit, I deleted hermitcrabassociation.org once but that was it.
I'd appreciate if you keep an eye on this. I'd post a TALK page about it but these people are really malicious, they would edit it and it would get pretty darn gross.
Thanks!
--
Christa 05:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to WP:CP...also...what is the deal with Image:Phrygian cap.jpg?-- MONGO 12:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks...I should have seen that for myself. Duh-- MONGO 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I don't respond to every single talk page message.
Maybe it isn't common practice on Wikipedia. But I was backed up by several other users when I blocked, and I blocked for obvious reasons. Once again, I'm sorry. WikiFanatic 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=37946621&oldid=37946584 Am I a sockpuppet of you? Is the man reliable? Midgley 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's unorthodox, but actually it's a very good idea. I just hope that (if it passes) it doesn't set a precendent for sockpuppets... Jimbo Wales on wheels! for admin, anyone :-)? Good luck. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted a nasty professional spammer yesterday and kept a watch on Talk:Internet and it seems to be one of the places where they have targeted their spambot. I've tried to list it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress but I don't think that the best place, but WP:AIV is for users which are given the last warning, so that might not be the proper place either. The point is that these are the real spammers and not users adding their favorite own website and the IPs are mostlikely open proxies. What do you think is the best place to report stuff like this? Dr Debug ( Talk) 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just want to let you know that I am asking for arbitration with JeffMichaud. I posted it here. Cuñado - Talk 01:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
My edits to the Daniel Brandt article were perfectly valid
And indeed all other Brandt related articles
" back to "the", making it incorrect again. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Speedy delete image
21:51, 11 February 2006 Geni deleted "Henneicke Colonne" (yep copyvio)
Can you explain why does this violates any copyright ? I would like to be able to see the deleted page, which you made disappear completely from Wikipedia without any chance of editing, copyright violation notice, or any comment on the reason why.-- LanguageVirus 03:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you restored that page. In the future, could you tell me before undoing my deletions? Thanks, -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I knew it would be controversial and immediately nominated my own action for review at WP:DRV. I've explained my actions there as well as I know how. I can not in good conscience reverse my action because I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to
As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to
As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch( talk) 14:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Metallica--C10005060.jpg is supposedly fair use and not allowed to be used. Well, don't posters and other advertising materials fall under free use? -- Mas T er of Puppets Peek! 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. At least it shows I care. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. -- Leifern 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The image you removed from Turbo-folk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ceca_raznatovic_36.jpg is most definitely a newspaper page scan. The page was published in a teeny-bopper/celebrity type magazine (sort of like Tiger Beat in US, but targeted to audience that's little older) in Serbia some 14 years ago. Zvonko 05:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for conducting this edit. I'm not so sure that the other images in the article qualify as fair use either. However, there are several users placing non-fair use or free images in the article and I was wondering if you could participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Images in the Kelly Clarkson article (which is still relatively... empty). I'd really appreciate it. I really need to get User:HeyNow10029 to understand that the images she uploaded do not carry proper fair use rationale, which she has constantly denied in the edit summaries in the Kelly Clarkson article and on her talk page. — Eternal Equinox | talk 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about your "clearly isn't fair use" of the image there, it does show all of the leaders of the respective parties and I think could fit. I'm not terribly familiar with the fair use though, could you explain why it isn't? Thanks! -- Tawker 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Danny doesn't forget these, and was just a bit pissed off ... I said I'd leave a note for you reminding you please don't revert WP:OFFICE tags. Any Office tag means something serious may be going on - David Gerard 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Does past experience suggest that you respond to the official legal threats and therefore know why something was protected? Danny 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to say this... Danny works directly as Jimbo's right-hand man for Wikipedia, therefore he has the information and authority to do what he has to for the benefit of the project as a whole. If you think the arbitration committee would interfere with that... well, then you have a very poor view of the sense of the Arbcom. -- sannse (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it would be convenient if you put orphaning notes and the like on the image description page directly. I know it's a little irregular, but for whatever reason image handlers have been putting their activity notes on the image page itself, so a talk page note will likely get overlooked. Stan 06:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Alot of those Sports Illustrated covers are basiclly the only image for those players that wikipedia can use, fair use can be used for those Magazine covers. I want to hear your thoughts. Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I understand, I contacted topps right before you left me a message on my talk page. A problem is that I don't know how to use stock.xchng. Can you help me with that, I want to get sports images without breaking copyright law. And thanks for warning me about the magazine covers. -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
K I understand, but the main problem is the copyright status of older images, I need to find some, Tom Fears for example. Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shrine of Bahaullah.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Данное изображение не имеет сопроводительной информации относительно источника, авторства и лицензии, или эта информация неполна. Если она не будет предоставлена, то через 7 дней изображение будет удалено с сервера.
RE: 3:29, 2 January 2006 Geni deleted "Jaywick Martello Tower" (content was - I have removed the template so that this talk page does not show up in the copyright violations category. The content can be seen here -- Kjkolb 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) No Guru 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)'yep copyvio)
You seem to have deleted an article I wrote, and one for John Kippin at a similar time. I actually don't remember what I wrote. But it certainly was my copy an ddidn't belong to absolute arts, so I don't know where that link came from. Can you tell me how to re-install th epage, because now there is no copy to for jaywick Martello Tower which i sobviously a mistake.
Please explain your rationale for determining the non-fair use of the AK image from the cover of Stock Car Racing magazine. You removed the image without explaining your position on the article talk page. Royalbroil 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just seen your changes in the Anti-psychiatry article and fully agree. Recently I helped another admin and Rockpocket to massively cull the old version of this article. I am very new to Wikipedia (just 15 days) but thanks to them I am learning to write in a NPOV way. Cesar Tort 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop messing with my userboxes. I'm wondering if there's something wrong with people today that they can't use the good old fashioned method of communication to talk about my userboxes before they blindly make changes.
Xytra.jpg is not a fair use image. It used to be a company logo but I've had permission to distribute this as GDFL. I have the author's permission. The log of the conversation is here, I don't make up lies.
Kindly discuss matters such as this on my talk page, I won't bite and I'll have more respect for you if you brought up matters with me first before blindly making changes.
I've asked for an admin's help because these constant reversions are raising my stress level. You may familiarize yourself with the issue here. Please read this instead of blindly making changes! Thank you in advance. — nath a(?) nrdotcom ( T • C • W) 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that referred to the number of "fair use" images on one page, List of Jean-Michel Jarre concerts isn't bad either. (Currently 11, but I once removed 19 unsourced images from there. I'll have to re-check...) Painters' articles are pretty good, too: Helen Frankenthaler (14), Jacob Lawrence (12), and then there is commons:Category:Georgia O'Keeffe (12 paintings erroneously tagged as PD)... :-) Lupo 12:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Geni, just the record, we can block for personal attacks. See excessive personal attacks. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Geni. No, I have not edited that article, as far as I can remember. I was just modifying the post to your talk page because it was placing your talk page in Category:Possible copyright violations because template contains Category:Possible copyright violations. Some of the user pages, talk pages and even user talk pages in the category do contain copyright violations. Some of those articles have been overlooked for months or years and I've been trying to clear them out. I did not mean to cause any confusion or offense. Sorry, Kjkolb 18:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm just wondering what is the problem with [Image:00 1 b.JPG]? Should I link it to the The Source page to make it become fair use or what? Lajbi 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are you deleting the image from the template ?? There are many of the same style of images being used at the wiki Category:Fair use political posters Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I find your image remove rather ridicioulous. It is a tiny, neat PNG? Is it for the reason that it was "logo", and not "fair use"? I only asked to respect "safe halloween", it is fully allowed to republish it. Or is it for the reason of the imprint???
Questions over questions. I need an answer why people delete my images. I am shy to delete "offensive" content, but right now i am going to move one image to a /slash page pan. the illustration is highly illegal in many countries!
By the way i am friendly... alex 08:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, am writing to you again. It is a logo in the true meaning of the word "logo". It is a protected trademark. I.e. i can put a picture of a complete mini-disc player under "fair use", it is something personal. But the signature "mini-disc" is clearly a logo. I do not see why you removed it from the template. Can you explain it to me? In the future, can you ask me to change it myself? I can take arguments well.
again thanks. alex 08:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE CHANGED IT TO CREATIVE COMMONS. The disc content: recorded video game music, j-pop and midi, nothing offensive/uncommon.
Well sorry my general misunderstanding/lack of knowledge. I assume it should be possible to publish this image (it is a consumer electronics representation). Probably you can help out, and put it under an appreciate license?
thanks alex 12:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for writing so much. I have uploaded it again, now under creative common license.
It is 100% my own work. I hope it is acceptabele, i can upload a "graphical image" only version if required/asked for.
thaks. alex 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why did you erased the picture from the template I created? I am not familiar with "fair use". I just took the logo that was in University of Manitoba and I cropped to only show the emblem. I am guessing that that is why it is not allowed. Could you elavorate if you have a few spare minutes? Thank you. Gadig 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a page on the UK theatre company Stan's Cafe and it looks like you deleted it, but I think you forgot to tell me that you did and the reason why. Mr Clean 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I wondered whether that might be the reason. I'm not sure I agree with you. Did you think that was all the article was going to contain? Mr Clean 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would add "It would be friendly to notify the author of the article as well; everyone was new once. Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it" from criteria for speedy deletion. I'll write another version with more references in it and put it in place all at once. Mr Clean 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've been following a thread you're involved with in WP:AN/I. In your latest edit you said something that surprised me a bit because of what you appeared to be implying: "they were not much of a threat to en.wikipedia thus if they were pure vandalism (if not then we run into issue that if you are going to lie to protect wikipedia then your lies should at least be credible)" [5]. In this, it looked to me as if you were saying that either Kelly or Danny might be lying.
I appreciate that you feel strongly that Danny may have exceed his authority, but this doesn't justify accusations of lying. Please be careful. This is one of the most extreme personal attacks I have ever seen a serving administrator make on another and it surely cannot be furthering your argument. I would appreciate a retraction, which I'm sure would be a good way to clear the air. -- Tony Sidaway 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[ [6]]
He is removing all sockpuppets allegations proven against his myriad of usernames.
It's back - Image:1stBatBW.jpg
Hey, I assumed that it was juding by the users username and the name in the picture. If you don't think it's legit, goahead and remove my GFDL-presumed tag, and mark it as unsourced. Sorry for any troubles, Cheers! -- light darkness ( talk) 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen the disclaimers you mentioned before. And I have been using Wikipedia for quite some time now (not editing tho). What is your reason for removing the templates? I suppose not everybody knows what wikipedia is (and that it can be edited by anyone), and you should suppose not everybody is that smart to check - most people just read something and if it sounds scientific (or if they LIKE it), they will believe it. Visible warnings/disclaimers should be placed on every page about health or healthcare, like every other serious webpages concerning health and healthcare. ackoz 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
For hard work at the help desk.
Molotov
(talk)
22:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar of Diligence for work on the Bahá'í Pages
For services rendered to the Bahá'í pages (and there are a bewildering array of very obscure ones) I, MARussellPESE, present Geni the Barnstar of Diligence which is awarded here in recognition of a combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service. These pages are the better for your services.
Also awarded to, in no particular order: PaulHammond, Occamy, Geni, Rboatright, and Tomhab.
Hey Geni :)
I'm gonna put it for ALL readers, not just the watchlist notice.
1) it's something I feel everyone should know
2) It was at Slashdot, where a majority of people don't care about Wikipedia, and I think even readers should care more than Slashdot crawlers...
3) some people don't check their watchlists (such as bumm13, who has never used it)
4) Jimbo never objected
5) Profit.
Cheers :) R e dwolf24 ( talk) 22:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Alright, alright, the summary (for George W. Bush) may have been out of line. But it was a useful (albiet minor) post (which I'll be putting back in, with a different summary ideally), and I thought it was funny, at least. ;) Still (being serious for a second), it was probably a bad idea. Sorry. Matt Yeager 23:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Please be aware that your reversion of the accurate information in the Prussian Blue article (which I understand was done in completly good faith - you doubted the accuracy, so I sourced it) is being used by wikipedians of dubious motiviation to argue for the exclusion of the entirety of the information regarding the band's belief in holocaust denial. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
So, did I do the self-important, getting all excited, over-stating a problem and jumping the gun thing? I hate it when other people do that, so now I'm embarrassed :(
Fox1 (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't revert my work at Animal testing. Yesterday you deleted a whole section on the LD50 test, even though it was completely factual. Today, you're reverting in support of an anon, who uses more than one IP address, won't sign up for a user name, and who posts only to this article, so he's here as a single-issue editor. His edits are pro-testing POV, and he doesn't understand our polices. He feels we should insert what he believes to be true, even if it hasn't been published anywhere and even if it contradicts what all the sources say.
I'm in the middle of rewriting this article, so please bear in mind that it's a work in progress, and will improve. However, I feel that the intro as it stands is very NPOV. It doesn't give the pro or anti side, but simply lists facts in the first three paragraphs, then in the fourth, it gives a broad overview of the basic dilemma that's at issue. To insert (as the anon wants to, and as you support) in the intro that animal testing has, as a matter of fact, made positive contributions in that particular list of diseases, is to take one side of the debate in the second sentence. The details of the debate should take place in the body of the article, in my view, after the facts of animal testing have been explained (numbers, what types of tests, conducted mainly by which countries).
This is an article that has needed to be improved ever since I started editing here, so now that it's finally being done, I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't revert my efforts in the middle of the process. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
00:56, 18 September 2005 Geni (→History - rm deleted image)
Do you by any chance know why this image was deleted? Source was stated as being myself and I didn't put a copyright on the picture (public domain).
Thanks -- Tom Lasswell 06:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate your help. SlimVirgin is editing numerous animal rights-related topics in the name of NPOV but is actually pushing an insidiuous POV in the pretence of making things neutral.
He actually has some extreme views. See e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barry_Horne
Bizarre conspiracy theory. The death threat was made by a well-known animal rights militant. Any suggestion of a conspiracy theory is just weird
He is clearly sympathetic towards the aims of the animal rights movement. He is editing articles removing the most blatant POV claims in pursuit of a semblance of NPOV but actually weaving a path towards a conclusion by the way facts and AR opinions are presented.
He is dead-set that a picture of a caged monkey should appear on SHAC, even though it is a blatantly POV-pushing image. He reverted content to that page that explained about Huntingdon Life Sciences in a more balanced way. They are NOT an animal testing firm; they are a contract research laboratory that conducts no more than half of its experiments on animals.
All pages he maintains are unbalanced and do nothing to explain what HLS actually do and that it might actually be positive. There are dozens of links to animal rights websites, and little or nothing on respected, mainstream scientists like internationally renowned Robert Winston who said ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1283048.stm)
"They operate in a way which leads one to consider that is very close to a fascist way of acting if you can't get what you personally want as a minority you are going to try to go to any kind of lengths at the limit of the law or just beyond it."
None of this is reported.
It's just:
in 1997 HLS was found abusing animals ALF activitists filmed more abuse
there is nothing in between, no pro-HLS line, no justification, just animal rights propaganda
The conclusion is implied: HLS abuses animals. There is nothing close to balance.
Compare a neutral organisation like the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4295706.stm
'Huntingdon Life Sciences carries out cancer and other medical research on animals, which the government has described as vital, but have come under fire from campaign groups. '
Or a balanced article on animal testing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/index.shtml
Contents
Key points Does animal testing work? Is it morally right? What are the alternatives? Protests and pickets How many animals are used in experiments?
You see nothing in support of HLS, even though there is a consensus from the government (SlimVirgin deleted a link from former Prime Minister John Major in support of HLS, and also one from Tony Blair describing their works as vital).
Jack Straw said:
"The work here is critical to humankind and we need to applaud the people who work here rather than abuse them.
They are undertaking medical and other research which is essential for the benefit of us all and it is vital that this work continues."
These are serious heavyweight figures who aren't give any say; meanwhile SlimVirgin is busy editing articles in favour of Barry Horne, imprisoned several times, including one episode where he tried to kidnap a dolphin using a Mini Metro, who firebombed Boots stores causing millions of damage.
It is all sympathetic. None of it looks like http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.politics.animals/browse_frm/thread/1a0341dafc6ad572/e9041b84bdcb79b9, a Sunday Times article on Horne.
On HLS there is little on the bombs sent to staff, the tampon said to be infected with AIDS, the beatings of Brian Cass (whose work was supported by the Prince of Wales when he gave him the CBE), but fulsome detail on every alleged transgression of HLS.
He also put something in the talk page about SHAC stating that criminal actions of SHAC members shouldn't be added. Highly bizarre, given that every wrongdoing by HLS is covered. See e.g., http://www.bbc.co.uk/kent/news/stories/200212/21/animal_rights.shtml,
"50 year old Rae Schilling from Station Road in Otford was jailed for four and a half years in April after pleading guilty to three counts of putting people in fear of their lives.
Schilling was a member of the group Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, which threatened shareholders in Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd to abandon their investments."
Other SHAC activists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrights/story/0,11917,1425980,00.html
What an HLS article should look like: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1124524.stm
Andrew Blake of the campaign group Seriously Ill for Medical Research:
'Huntingdon Life Sciences (HLS) is the UK's largest contract research organisation (CRO) and does more than just preclinical animal safety testing (see box). In fact, the majority of CRO employees are analysts who analyse soil, plants, water, human blood samples and, yes, some animals .... CROs are helping to develop therapeutic proteins in sheep's milk, animal organs for human transplants (xenotransplantion), cancer treatments, antibiotics, anti-rheumatics, vaccines, anti-epileptics, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's treatments and many more besides ... These "animal rights terrorists" hold a fanatical belief that animal research does not work.
But most disturbing is the arrogant attitude that because they have an obscure view of life, then everyone else, including patients, should be forced to live life according to their opinions.
For fit and healthy people, which most anti-vivisectionists are, animal research may not seem so important but for seriously ill people, it is a matter of life or death. ' followed by contradicting view from AR proponents.
But you won't get anything like balance here, not while SlimVirgin is doing the rounds.
Hope you can help.
14:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
issue | claimant | status |
---|---|---|
photo is misrepresentative | Kyz | unresolved |
I see you also disagreed with the external links in question. This has now gone for RFC, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman and kindly offer your views. JFW | T@lk 23:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The comments you have made about the moon landing hoax were rather vague and not led by evidence. Most of the sentences can be either defined as "no, it is not true" or "I'm attacking your claims just to make you mad." The lack of seriousness also concerns me whether you are starting a pointless war or just act foolish.
Geni, if you have a chance would you mind taking a look at this: WP:AN/3RR#User:FuelWagon. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have blocked Wbfl ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours. He has been editwarring with Geni ( talk · contribs) on Wikipedia talk:Administrative probation, see [1]. I am putting this notice up as I was the target of the original attack. Fred Bauder 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't use email. Regarding blocks, the reason always gets truncated to around 240 characters, so if it's an autoblock of the underlying IP of a very very long username, it will get truncated before the username itself finishes printing out. -- Curps 07:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I´m wondering: in the edit summaries: how do you get the link to the users contributions? I´ve tried, (see Bogdanov Affair) but I have just messed it up. Regards, Huldra 13:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Your 3RR complaint was plainly done in a mean spirit. It was obvious that you knew I was strictly dealing with a request for assistance with vandalism, not editing the article. What is your real issue here?
FeloniousMonk 15:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey there! I think there is something odd with the block you applied to User talk:I Hate My Ex! - in the block log, it shows that you have blocked the user, yet the username link does not link to the correct userpage. Just to let you know, I have reapplied your block. -- HappyCamper 03:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
are you kidding, in the picture it was shown that the picture was taken by me, uploaded by me, etc...
agh, just guess i'll have to readd it
-- Tom Lasswell 04:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Durin has a point actually - although she says she won't sue him, she still calls it libel, in other words, she says that he has commited a crime against her. She follows it up with demands that he change his behaviour. I would see that as menacing if I were in his shoes - Guettarda 04:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
FYI, Yoism is on Wikipedia:Deletion review. Edwardian 18:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Dunno if this is your territory, but I see you've done good work on alt med articles previously. Check out the Gerson links at Wikipedia:Cleanup#November 11, 2005: these pages need a POV and factual check, as they're currently written entirely by a proponent. Tearlach 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
[2]. R adiant _>|< 10:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Geni - your latest reversion on thimerosal is baseless on facts and appear only to be made to spite the subject matter. It is vandalism, pure and simple. -- Leifern 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have reported you to WP:VIP as a moderate vandalism with the appropriate documentation. I will continue to do this as long as you persist in wholesale reversions. If you find reason to object to single points, edit these. Wholesale reversions are unacceptable. BTW, your version of "magic cream" is shameful. -- Leifern 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I've responded to your objection that you would have to protect more pages if WP:PWDS was implemented. I include the text below. If you have any further thoughts or concerns on this, I'd really like to hear them, as it will help improve the proposal(and hey, maybe it'll change my mind about it ;-) ). Thanks!
Quoting from the page:
The "Edit this Article" tab definitely works, try it again. If you were refering to the tab above, remember that it will only say "view source" to non-admins(most readers). Non-admins, if they dont already know about this kind of thing when they look at it, will easily figure it out. Voice of All T| @| ESP 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I have loaded the classic skin, and I kind of see what you mean, but it is not that bad. Also, the the other edit links for the sections are the same. Quite frankly, this monobook is set up poorly in that categories should be on bottom. Voice of All T| @| ESP 07:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
put the stuff back at Flaus page-im not experimenting-IVE GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO THEN WASTE MY TIME REDITING THAT PAGE-YOU VANDAL-YOU MUST BE PROUD OF YOURSELF-WIKIPEDIA HAS LESS INFO BECAUSE OF YOU 128.250.99.135 03:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I've started Alex McDowell as a stub and it got labeled with db-bio in 30 minutes. I've left a message on the user talk page, of the user who marked it for speedy deletes and then I've noticed his/hers contribs. Any ideas? +MATIA ☎ 14:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for offering to help with all this and for deleting all the images I've linked for you so far. I'll have another clear out soon. Keep you posted. Thanks! Wikiwoohoo 17:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
sorry about that, I mistook that for another policy page thus this edit. That being said though I feel the need to point out to you that since this was not vandalism just an honest mistake it was innapropriate for you to use your administrator rollback function. Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 23:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Geni, why did you revert my questions to the arbcom candidates?-- Silverback 13:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey Geni. If you're still willing to delete my images for me, here is the latest batch. Thanks again! Wikiwoohoo 19:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Not entirely sure why the UK flag images are still listing as being in articles, they aren't! They are still showing the articles they were in as stubs, either for the UK retail stub or the UK bank template. They are orphans though. If you check some of the articles they are meant to be in, they aren't. Confusing! :) Thanks for all your help though. Wikiwoohoo 21:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It must be great to be so comfortable with ignorance. As I predicted, you simply reverted the introduction to the homeopathy article, just like you've reverted every single attempt at making it anything less than a polemic against homeopathy. Your conduct is a disgrace to the Wikipedia community and the scientific community you think you belong to. Oh, and unless you revert to my version and edit it rather than doing a wholesale reversion, I am reporting you for vandalism. And I'll insist that you as an admin get blocked for some significant period of time. -- Leifern 01:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
You have been reported for vandalism as a result of repeated wholesale reversions to your POV. I will continue to report such offenses by you where I find them. -- Leifern 02:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering why you reverted Trojanpony's edit to George W. Bush. It was legitimate, I have restored it. Please don't revert edits just because they are made by a new user. - Greg Asche (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, If you have time could you look at this image for speedy delete. (desc) Photo 1.Par.0002.ImageFile.jpg . . 90,069 bytes . . Carajou . . 23:46, December 6, 2005 (Salman Pak facility, courtesy Space Imaging ( http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/cold/photos_prove_connection_between_iraq_and_al_qaeda_terrorists.guest.html)) It seems like it should go, but the uploader didn't have a User page. If it can be speedied could you do it and then explain the steps. I want to learn, but if you don't have time that okay.-- FloNight 05:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I have now reported you for the third time in just a few days for wholesale reversions, again on the Homeopathy article. Please consult WP:Vandalism, where such wholesale reversions are described and clearly defined as vandalism. The fact that you are doing it to promote your point of view actually aggrevates the offense. -- Leifern 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
The image is a movie screenshot.
this user is not a sockpuppet and I keep getting banned. Very unfair.
Thanks for the advice Geni. I'm worried about him coming out of this block with this mindset, but i'm sure we'll be ready. karmafist 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Geni,
I was wondering if we could get your point of view on a revert war on Baha'i persecution. Thanks -- Jeff3000 02:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed the user signature only. It was getting kind-of old. -- Fplay 14:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I see you deleted the article IEEE P1901 I've done. I have clearly written that I'm authorized to use the text from http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1901/ in Wikipedia. The permission was given to me by Jim Mollenkopf (IEEE P1901 Co-Chair). If you don't believe me you can email to him. I loose time in making it and in asking permissions, so please restore the article or tell me what other should I do. -- Armando82 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi. A user you blocked indefinitely has made a request to be unblocked. Would you mind stating your opinion of this request on their talk page? Thanks. // Pathoschild 05:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Greetings;
I recently saw a page on a company that was marked as for deletion due to copyvio. According to the instructions at the time I made a new page as “/Temp” that is new content and not copyvio per instructions was on the orgional location. The original page has since been purged. The /Temp which is (appears to be) clear of copyvio is still there and could probably be moved in to place now that the copyvio page is gone. The original page was Avanade the new rewrite is Avanade/Temp or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avanade/Temp Thanks Bdelisle 21:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to be able to see the deleted Pugly page, which you deleted and described as "patent nonsense." It most certainly was nonsense, but it was created by a friend of mine and I am interested in seeing the page he created. I am not an administrator and I am not eminent enough in Wikipedia to be nominated (or nominate myself) with any hope of success. I have no intention to repost the page or anything like that. I simply wish to chuckle at the utter flimflam my friend mankind716 attempted to slip into the site. Please reply on my discussion page. Thank you. arevolvingonob (talk) 19:52 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves#December 17, 2005? I see that the requested moves of three asteroids to add diacritics were made once before, and seem to have been reverted by you, but I can find nothing on any of the six talk pages to say why... in fact, there's nothing on the talk pages at all. Andrewa 10:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Talk:657 Gunlod. Andrewa 19:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects#Minor planets -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be interested in the bugzilla report I put in here: bugzilla:4411. Also, WP:VP (tech)#MediaWiki:Youhavenewmessages' diff link doesn't work in Classic skin. Blackcap (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
But why would this be ironic? - brenneman (t) (c) 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
If there's a problem, this is the first I've heard of it. You have something particular in mind? I'll take 'em down.
Hi,
There's a debate on Wikipedia right now as to the fair use of images on user pages. I'd please prefer not to delete the image until the debate is settled. -- CJ Marsicano 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that Trekphiler has removed our comments about his User page from his Talk page without comment. User:Zoe| (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you and I looking at the same User page? The one with the Kari Wuehrer and Mariah Carey images? However, I see that Fred Bauder has removed them all. That should cause an uproar. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
What about the Kari Wuehrer image? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with the military images, but the Wuehrer image has got to go. There isn't even an FU claim, and even if there were, it can't go on a User page. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
From the talk page USS Nautilus (SS-168): Maybe I misunderstood something. I wasn't aware lifting directly & exactly from DAFS was OK, yet that's exactly what the article is doing. I pulled this from the DAFS site:
And this from the article:
Hmmm... I think Leno calls this "Eerie Similarity". I'd call it plagairism. Trekphiler 07:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Thanks for your message re fair use image in one of my userboxes. I have removed the image. However, I have a page been deleted notice on my userpage now. Could you add more light on this for me please? Many thanks Funky Monkey 03:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I hope you're well. Thanks for helping to move things forward regarding the ArbComm elections. While we all can't agree all of the time, and acknowledge and appreciate different points of view, there's a time for debate and a time for action ... and I believe we've long since moved passed the former.
Further to that, thanks for taking the initiative in starting to configure the ArbComm election pages. Moreover, I took the liberty to copy and tweak one vote page with some common sense/RfAdmin notions. Given recent discussions, I apologise for the delay. Some tweaks include:
What do you think? If you're OK with some or all of these changes, should you put them in place, should I, someone else, or not at all? Anyhow, thanks again for your feedback and help. E Pluribus Anthony 03:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello; thanks again for your work on this. I want to reiterate that, while I agree with the vote limitation you've proposed, I do not agree with doing so at this juncture ... regardless of it being "right" or "wrong." It diverges from what Jimbo has laid out and has already been discussed. If any Admin can invoke that sort of reasoning – and potentially open a can of worms – then we can't possibly move forward. If I came across as curt, I apologise.
As well, the voting instructions require minor copy editing: I suggest any or all of:
The election instructions, extensively discussed, are as follows:
That's it for me. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a misreading of the voting procedure. Votes should be placed on the sub-pages containing the candidate statements. I think this is reasonable because people can then easily see who they're voting for or against and how that candidate answered questions. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the oppose votes on Everyking, who I voted for even though I'll readily admit he's not the best behaved fellow on Wikipedia (one of our best editors, though) I see that it's getting very ugly already. Isn't there some general agreement that we avoid a repetition of the disendorsement thing? If so, do we have appointed tellers to delete campaigning messages from votes? Or am I just getting my silly head all worked up over nothing? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the note; it's gone now. -- King of All the Franks 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, they're gone. If any more need to go, I'll be happy to remove them. -- King of All the Franks 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what the problem is with images in userboxes. If an image is already in use on wikipedia and is ok for the purpose of an article, why is using that same image in a userbox so problematic? I've been careful to use images already on the site, or (if an article lacked a photo) supplying one and using it too. Exceptions are pics that I don't intend to keep for long (photoshopped picture of Spock) or are made by me for the purpose of userboxes ( File:Stars and swastikas (small).jpg "Stars and Swastikas") which other users are free to use (I've gotten a few requests by other contributors). If we could host a pic elsewhere and put an URL up on our Userpages it would save a lot of headaches all around. Isn't there a way this could be done? I'm still kinda new here and figuring things out.--
"That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
"That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Main Entry: cen·sor·ship
Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-s&r-"ship
Function: noun 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring b : the actions or practices of censors; especially : censorial control exercised repressively 2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor 3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/ : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Censorship is not exclusive to governments. It is the suppression of free speech, an act which requires no government authority to do (only the power to do so). You should consult a lawyer on this, because blocking secondary use (on the SAME site) gives Wikipedia NO additional protection. Believe me, any pic on Wikipedia is vulnerable, wherever it is. Fair Use law doesn't really mean much anymore than what a copyright holder will allow. I've dealt with this stuff before. If believing somehow there is a "safe" way to use copyrighted pictures makes you feel better, go ahead. But it doesn't exist. There are lots of Star Trek-related fansites who got got shut down by Paramount who said the same thing you did.--
"That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(from US Copyright Office)
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
FL-102, Revised December 2005
new history-- ◀Puck talk▶ 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What is your logic for claiming this is public domain?Geni 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC
File:South park lebowski avas-film-23.jpg | "That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
File:South park lebowski avas-film-23.jpg | "That's just, like, your opinion, man." |
Mike Nobody ¿ =/\= 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Having more noticeable reminders for people to donate is part of a long term board-approved strategy to make sure Wikipedia continues to have enough money to stay online. Please don't remove the one line message. We can't afford to not greatly increase donations between fundraisers. :) -- mav 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Geni, I just was informed that you claimed as copyrighted images in article "Stauromedusae" in Ukrainian Wiki ( http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stauromedusae). Could I ask you please to indicate more precisely which exactly image(s) you meant? Sincerely --Shao 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Look, Geni, I put that comment there because seems to be a User:Farseer who is Special:Contributions/Farseer systematically removing categories and links that he disagrees with. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Your input at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#[HelpDesk-l] would be appreciated. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-13 t18:51z
Hello! I noticed your negative comments regarding the proposed redesign, and I'd like to invite you to review a radically revamped revision, and to post your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Main Page/Draft#Proposed_version. Thanks! — David Levy 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, why the deletion of an external link from Canals of the United Kingdom? I've asked this on the talk page, so best to reply there... Cheers JackyR 20:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Artisson has a livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/son_of_art, and the email listed on his profile is howlet_dark@yahoo.com. I hope this will help to confirm the identity of whoever emailed you asking that those pictures be taken down. Madame Sosostris 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I had created a page on the nosairi, only to find out that there is a page on the alawis. Someone else pointed this out and the page is up for deletion, can you delete it? Nygdan 1-20-2006
No, there is no information in nosairi that is not in alawite, i moved the information, and included more and some other sources. Nygdan
Sorry, I didn't realize that this image was fair use. I've removed it. -- ¿ WhyBeNormal ? 01:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You have a number of fair use images on your userpage. I'm afaraid these are not allowed on userpages. Could you please remove them? Geni 12:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, dude, I get it...So, I've changed the guinness drinker template to the following: {{ Guinness Drinker}}
Thanks for policing Wikipedia.
Rowlan 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
You have been banned for one day for blanking the anonnotice page. If you agree not to do this again, I will unblock you ASAP. I've been told otherwise.
WikiFanatic 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Geni. I am currently revert-warring with someone on the Neal Chase page. Since you're not a Baha'i I think your input would be valuable. The issue is pretty simple and there is plenty of legal documents supporting it. Cuñado - Talk 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am the President of the Hermit Crab Association (hermitcrabassociation.com). The Hermit Crab Association was founded in March 2001 by a small group of land hermit crab lovers. In the past few years the membership has grown to over 1000 members and counting. Recently there has been an online "war" of sorts and as a result there are a few disgruntled former members trying to reroute traffic from the established communities of hermitcrabassociation.com (over 1000 members), landhermitcrabs.com (also more than 1000 members) and hermit-crabs.com (#1 on Google and averaging over 20,000 hits a day.)
The attackers are trying to reroute people on the Wiki Hermit Crabs page to hermitcrabassociation.org, hermit-crabs.net and landhermitcrabs.net. Said sites ARE legitimate hermit crab sites and thus deserve a viewing. However the parties that are constantly changing the URLs need to stop doing so. There is enough room on the internet for everyone.
I'll admit, I deleted hermitcrabassociation.org once but that was it.
I'd appreciate if you keep an eye on this. I'd post a TALK page about it but these people are really malicious, they would edit it and it would get pretty darn gross.
Thanks!
--
Christa 05:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to WP:CP...also...what is the deal with Image:Phrygian cap.jpg?-- MONGO 12:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks...I should have seen that for myself. Duh-- MONGO 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I don't respond to every single talk page message.
Maybe it isn't common practice on Wikipedia. But I was backed up by several other users when I blocked, and I blocked for obvious reasons. Once again, I'm sorry. WikiFanatic 20:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=37946621&oldid=37946584 Am I a sockpuppet of you? Is the man reliable? Midgley 03:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's unorthodox, but actually it's a very good idea. I just hope that (if it passes) it doesn't set a precendent for sockpuppets... Jimbo Wales on wheels! for admin, anyone :-)? Good luck. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted a nasty professional spammer yesterday and kept a watch on Talk:Internet and it seems to be one of the places where they have targeted their spambot. I've tried to list it on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress but I don't think that the best place, but WP:AIV is for users which are given the last warning, so that might not be the proper place either. The point is that these are the real spammers and not users adding their favorite own website and the IPs are mostlikely open proxies. What do you think is the best place to report stuff like this? Dr Debug ( Talk) 14:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Just want to let you know that I am asking for arbitration with JeffMichaud. I posted it here. Cuñado - Talk 01:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
My edits to the Daniel Brandt article were perfectly valid
And indeed all other Brandt related articles
" back to "the", making it incorrect again. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit]
Speedy delete image
21:51, 11 February 2006 Geni deleted "Henneicke Colonne" (yep copyvio)
Can you explain why does this violates any copyright ? I would like to be able to see the deleted page, which you made disappear completely from Wikipedia without any chance of editing, copyright violation notice, or any comment on the reason why.-- LanguageVirus 03:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you restored that page. In the future, could you tell me before undoing my deletions? Thanks, -- MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I knew it would be controversial and immediately nominated my own action for review at WP:DRV. I've explained my actions there as well as I know how. I can not in good conscience reverse my action because I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to
As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to
As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch( talk) 14:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:Metallica--C10005060.jpg is supposedly fair use and not allowed to be used. Well, don't posters and other advertising materials fall under free use? -- Mas T er of Puppets Peek! 17:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. At least it shows I care. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. -- Leifern 17:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The image you removed from Turbo-folk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ceca_raznatovic_36.jpg is most definitely a newspaper page scan. The page was published in a teeny-bopper/celebrity type magazine (sort of like Tiger Beat in US, but targeted to audience that's little older) in Serbia some 14 years ago. Zvonko 05:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for conducting this edit. I'm not so sure that the other images in the article qualify as fair use either. However, there are several users placing non-fair use or free images in the article and I was wondering if you could participate in the debate at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Images in the Kelly Clarkson article (which is still relatively... empty). I'd really appreciate it. I really need to get User:HeyNow10029 to understand that the images she uploaded do not carry proper fair use rationale, which she has constantly denied in the edit summaries in the Kelly Clarkson article and on her talk page. — Eternal Equinox | talk 02:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about your "clearly isn't fair use" of the image there, it does show all of the leaders of the respective parties and I think could fit. I'm not terribly familiar with the fair use though, could you explain why it isn't? Thanks! -- Tawker 21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Danny doesn't forget these, and was just a bit pissed off ... I said I'd leave a note for you reminding you please don't revert WP:OFFICE tags. Any Office tag means something serious may be going on - David Gerard 20:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Does past experience suggest that you respond to the official legal threats and therefore know why something was protected? Danny 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to say this... Danny works directly as Jimbo's right-hand man for Wikipedia, therefore he has the information and authority to do what he has to for the benefit of the project as a whole. If you think the arbitration committee would interfere with that... well, then you have a very poor view of the sense of the Arbcom. -- sannse (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, it would be convenient if you put orphaning notes and the like on the image description page directly. I know it's a little irregular, but for whatever reason image handlers have been putting their activity notes on the image page itself, so a talk page note will likely get overlooked. Stan 06:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Alot of those Sports Illustrated covers are basiclly the only image for those players that wikipedia can use, fair use can be used for those Magazine covers. I want to hear your thoughts. Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok I understand, I contacted topps right before you left me a message on my talk page. A problem is that I don't know how to use stock.xchng. Can you help me with that, I want to get sports images without breaking copyright law. And thanks for warning me about the magazine covers. -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
K I understand, but the main problem is the copyright status of older images, I need to find some, Tom Fears for example. Thanks -- Jaranda wat's sup 02:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Shrine of Bahaullah.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are
open content,
public domain, and
fair use. Find the appropriate template in
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Данное изображение не имеет сопроводительной информации относительно источника, авторства и лицензии, или эта информация неполна. Если она не будет предоставлена, то через 7 дней изображение будет удалено с сервера.
RE: 3:29, 2 January 2006 Geni deleted "Jaywick Martello Tower" (content was - I have removed the template so that this talk page does not show up in the copyright violations category. The content can be seen here -- Kjkolb 16:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) No Guru 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)'yep copyvio)
You seem to have deleted an article I wrote, and one for John Kippin at a similar time. I actually don't remember what I wrote. But it certainly was my copy an ddidn't belong to absolute arts, so I don't know where that link came from. Can you tell me how to re-install th epage, because now there is no copy to for jaywick Martello Tower which i sobviously a mistake.
Please explain your rationale for determining the non-fair use of the AK image from the cover of Stock Car Racing magazine. You removed the image without explaining your position on the article talk page. Royalbroil 01:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I have just seen your changes in the Anti-psychiatry article and fully agree. Recently I helped another admin and Rockpocket to massively cull the old version of this article. I am very new to Wikipedia (just 15 days) but thanks to them I am learning to write in a NPOV way. Cesar Tort 04:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Please stop messing with my userboxes. I'm wondering if there's something wrong with people today that they can't use the good old fashioned method of communication to talk about my userboxes before they blindly make changes.
Xytra.jpg is not a fair use image. It used to be a company logo but I've had permission to distribute this as GDFL. I have the author's permission. The log of the conversation is here, I don't make up lies.
Kindly discuss matters such as this on my talk page, I won't bite and I'll have more respect for you if you brought up matters with me first before blindly making changes.
I've asked for an admin's help because these constant reversions are raising my stress level. You may familiarize yourself with the issue here. Please read this instead of blindly making changes! Thank you in advance. — nath a(?) nrdotcom ( T • C • W) 08:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Assuming that referred to the number of "fair use" images on one page, List of Jean-Michel Jarre concerts isn't bad either. (Currently 11, but I once removed 19 unsourced images from there. I'll have to re-check...) Painters' articles are pretty good, too: Helen Frankenthaler (14), Jacob Lawrence (12), and then there is commons:Category:Georgia O'Keeffe (12 paintings erroneously tagged as PD)... :-) Lupo 12:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Geni, just the record, we can block for personal attacks. See excessive personal attacks. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Geni. No, I have not edited that article, as far as I can remember. I was just modifying the post to your talk page because it was placing your talk page in Category:Possible copyright violations because template contains Category:Possible copyright violations. Some of the user pages, talk pages and even user talk pages in the category do contain copyright violations. Some of those articles have been overlooked for months or years and I've been trying to clear them out. I did not mean to cause any confusion or offense. Sorry, Kjkolb 18:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello there. I'm just wondering what is the problem with [Image:00 1 b.JPG]? Should I link it to the The Source page to make it become fair use or what? Lajbi 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Why are you deleting the image from the template ?? There are many of the same style of images being used at the wiki Category:Fair use political posters Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I find your image remove rather ridicioulous. It is a tiny, neat PNG? Is it for the reason that it was "logo", and not "fair use"? I only asked to respect "safe halloween", it is fully allowed to republish it. Or is it for the reason of the imprint???
Questions over questions. I need an answer why people delete my images. I am shy to delete "offensive" content, but right now i am going to move one image to a /slash page pan. the illustration is highly illegal in many countries!
By the way i am friendly... alex 08:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, am writing to you again. It is a logo in the true meaning of the word "logo". It is a protected trademark. I.e. i can put a picture of a complete mini-disc player under "fair use", it is something personal. But the signature "mini-disc" is clearly a logo. I do not see why you removed it from the template. Can you explain it to me? In the future, can you ask me to change it myself? I can take arguments well.
again thanks. alex 08:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I HAVE CHANGED IT TO CREATIVE COMMONS. The disc content: recorded video game music, j-pop and midi, nothing offensive/uncommon.
Well sorry my general misunderstanding/lack of knowledge. I assume it should be possible to publish this image (it is a consumer electronics representation). Probably you can help out, and put it under an appreciate license?
thanks alex 12:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for writing so much. I have uploaded it again, now under creative common license.
It is 100% my own work. I hope it is acceptabele, i can upload a "graphical image" only version if required/asked for.
thaks. alex 08:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why did you erased the picture from the template I created? I am not familiar with "fair use". I just took the logo that was in University of Manitoba and I cropped to only show the emblem. I am guessing that that is why it is not allowed. Could you elavorate if you have a few spare minutes? Thank you. Gadig 17:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to write a page on the UK theatre company Stan's Cafe and it looks like you deleted it, but I think you forgot to tell me that you did and the reason why. Mr Clean 03:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I wondered whether that might be the reason. I'm not sure I agree with you. Did you think that was all the article was going to contain? Mr Clean 03:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I would add "It would be friendly to notify the author of the article as well; everyone was new once. Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves. Try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation, as the author may be working on it" from criteria for speedy deletion. I'll write another version with more references in it and put it in place all at once. Mr Clean 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've been following a thread you're involved with in WP:AN/I. In your latest edit you said something that surprised me a bit because of what you appeared to be implying: "they were not much of a threat to en.wikipedia thus if they were pure vandalism (if not then we run into issue that if you are going to lie to protect wikipedia then your lies should at least be credible)" [5]. In this, it looked to me as if you were saying that either Kelly or Danny might be lying.
I appreciate that you feel strongly that Danny may have exceed his authority, but this doesn't justify accusations of lying. Please be careful. This is one of the most extreme personal attacks I have ever seen a serving administrator make on another and it surely cannot be furthering your argument. I would appreciate a retraction, which I'm sure would be a good way to clear the air. -- Tony Sidaway 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[ [6]]
He is removing all sockpuppets allegations proven against his myriad of usernames.
It's back - Image:1stBatBW.jpg
Hey, I assumed that it was juding by the users username and the name in the picture. If you don't think it's legit, goahead and remove my GFDL-presumed tag, and mark it as unsourced. Sorry for any troubles, Cheers! -- light darkness ( talk) 01:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I have never seen the disclaimers you mentioned before. And I have been using Wikipedia for quite some time now (not editing tho). What is your reason for removing the templates? I suppose not everybody knows what wikipedia is (and that it can be edited by anyone), and you should suppose not everybody is that smart to check - most people just read something and if it sounds scientific (or if they LIKE it), they will believe it. Visible warnings/disclaimers should be placed on every page about health or healthcare, like every other serious webpages concerning health and healthcare. ackoz 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)