subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
>
> Yeah, and the same for asking knowledgeable computer scientists,
> mathemeticans, or philosophers to contribute. Then again, many
> lawyers work pro bono giving actual legal advice and representation?
> certainly editing Wikipedia is easier than this.

Perhaps why, much to my surprise, the computer science areas of Wikipedia
are particularly poor. I would have thought they would be the strongest
areas, but articles on anything which can't be demonstrated with a snippet
of C code are pretty lamentable.

Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etl


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Justin Cormack wrote:

>On 19 May 2006, at 11:54, geni wrote:
>
>
>>On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It
>>>will all
>>>be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
>>>
>>>Justinc
>>>
>>Company logos
>>Certian historic images
>>Movie screenshot.
>>
>
>company logos are fairly harmless, except where they are being used as
>decoration, when we can get rid of them.
>
>I agree that a few of the historic images are worth keeping, the ones
>which have articles.
>
How is this consistent with your initial declaration that "it will
all be gone in a few years"? Either fair use is sometimes acceptable
or never acceptable - even one fair use image, no matter how much it
is "worth keeping", makes en: non-free.

And of course if you admit the principle that some nonfree images
are allowable, you've reduced it to a matter of personal opinion as
to whether any class of nonfree image is worth including. Every
class of image now accepted has a number of respected editors who
support including that class.

Stan


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
>> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
>>
>> On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wikipedia is not your desk at work.  You are not allowed to post
>>> copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia.  On the other
>> hand, you are
>>> allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude.  (But please don't
>> tell us when
>>> you do.)
>> Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing
>> Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
>
> That's fine. Female editors might find themselves the target of harassment
> from the anti-userbox brigade.
>

{{user edits nude}}?

> Pete, requesting spoiler warnings as well

{{spoiler-nude}}?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060519/6a207756/attachment.pgp


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps why, much to my surprise, the computer science areas of Wikipedia
> are particularly poor. I would have thought they would be the strongest
> areas, but articles on anything which can't be demonstrated with a snippet
> of C code are pretty lamentable.
>
> Examples:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etl
>

Err, I wasn't finished yet. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer_Relationship_Management
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_warehouse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_%28computer_science%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_resource_planning ({{expert}})
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Workflow_Analysis

In general, lots of bullet points, but no sources. Little to no academic
journals cited to analyse how the concepts fit together. On specific
technologies or products the articles are usually pretty helpful. But for
trying to understand general concepts like enterprise resource
planning...Wikipedia will not (currently) even get you off the ground.

(I would change my original statement to refer to information systems or
software engineering rather than just computer science)

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Recent edit son the Windows Media Player Article

body:
Eric Demolli wrote:
> Recent edits on the article have removed several criticism about
> Microsoft. Now the article is mainly focused on the "exciting" features
> of WMP 11 and the availability of WMP for other platforms.
>

{{sofixit}}?

At a glance, I can't see any such edits... can you provide a diff?

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060519/73fdebe3/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 34, Issue 182

body:
On 5/19/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Consensus can be an ass. If the section is headed "Plot summary", then if
> it
> *didn't* contain details about the plot, it should be called something
> else.
> Why do we need a spoiler warning in such a case? It's like picking up a
> packet of peanuts and seeing a warning notice: "Caution, may contain
> nuts."

I think it's quite possible to give a pretty detailed plot summary of movies
like the Sixth Sense and Fight Club without giving away the spoiler. For
that reason, the fact that {spoiler} gives the text "Plot and/or ending
details follow" is poor - plot details are fine, spoilers are the problem.

I'm not against spoiler notices where appropriate, but surely common sense
> should come into where they are needed and where they are not!

Again, if the text produces "Plot...details follow" it does seem perfectly
logical to put it where you're giving plot details!

Steve


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm speaking here as someone who works on OTRS, so has to looks at cases
> like this all the time (I'm not claiming extra authority from that, just
> extra insight).
>
> What it comes down to is that fair use is not a right, it is a defense.

Why do people keep saying this?  Fair use is a defense.  It's also a right.

>   The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under
> "fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your
> defense.

You could also get a declaratory judgement or win a case against
someone abusing the DMCA.  But yeah, you'd have to go to court,
because fair use is not black and white, it's a matter of
interpretation.

> In this particular incident, a person with an apparently legitimate
> claim to the image asked us to remove the image, with the understanding
> that he was willing to defend his rights and test our defense in court.
>
It would have been nice if he had sent in a DMCA takedown notice and
the Foundation then forwarded it to the original uploader, who would
then have the opportunity to send the Foundation a DMCA putback notice
if ey chose.

> Now you may believe, and you may be right, that we would win that
> case... but it would be at a significant financial cost (and possibly
> significant other costs, but lets stick with the financial for now).
>
That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now
the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or
not it's worth the financial cost to fight.

> However, if anyone wants to agree to pay all legal costs in defending
> the use of this image - and it is /highly/ likely that there will be
> some if this image is used - then I say go ahead!  I'm sure Danny can
> arrange for a contract to be drawn up with that agreed.  I'm not sure of
> costs in the US - but I guess a few thousand as a down-payment for
> initial legal advice would be sensible too.
>
> --sannse

I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign
such a contract.  Have Danny send me the details.

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia topics (was Re:  Darren@nocuffs)

body:
On 5/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> People tend to write about their hobies rather than the stuff they
> have more formal expertise in. I tend to write about canals rather
> than chemisty for example.

<rant> That's just selfish how dare you! </rant>

Hmm, it's true...the stuff I know the most about I write the least about,
mostly because I enjoy Wikipedia as a learning experience. Probably like
lots of people, I'll correct obvious errors if I see them, but I don't
really want to write essays on topics I know well, or enter into a
collaborative editing process on a topic I know professionally.

All this leaves the question of how to improve areas that are unlikely to
have hobbyists, like the ones I mentioned. Apart from people changing
careers, I can't see who would be suddenly taking a huge interest in these
areas, enough to research and write about them properly, with the time to do
so.

We know that the quality and depth of Wikipedia does not grow evenly across
all knowledge areas. But there are areas that are growing so slowly that we
may at some stage need to specifically address them to bring them up to
speed.

Anyone know of any Wikiprojects or Wikipedia processes that get areas
improved by people with no prior interest/expertise? Collaboration of the
week is one that comes to mind, but if that's all, it would take about
17,000 [1]years to get all of Wikipedia up to a good (not even FA)
standard...:)

Steve
[1] 900,000 articles in need of help / 52 collaborations per year.


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> > I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin
> > made.
> >
> > Mgm
>
>
>  Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't
> simple vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community
> banned.
>

Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week.  He can get community
approval for a ban in that time.

Ryan


from_name: Humus Sapiens

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
I support Jayjg's decision. This user violated enough rules to deserve
a ban. Such extremists radicalize or drive away good contributors.
--
Thank you,
 Humus sapiens

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > So why is his indefinite block being
> > reversed.
>
>
> Because he's a newbie and no one bothered to give him short blocks. This
> isn't simple vandalism and he's not willy on wheels.  Someone
> misunderstanding our policies doesn't give anyone precedent to railroad him
> rather than giving him a chance. We tell people to be bold, and then
> indefinite block them for doing it?
>
> Is Ryan prepared to mentor him?
>
>
> No, I'm not prepared to mentor everyone I unblock.
>
> Ryan
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
Thank you,
 Humus sapiens


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >   The only way to fully show that any image is used legitimately under
> > "fair use" is to go to court and win a case where you use this as your
> > defense.
>
> You could also get a declaratory judgement or win a case against
> someone abusing the DMCA.  But yeah, you'd have to go to court,
> because fair use is not black and white, it's a matter of
> interpretation.
>
I should also point out that someone abusing the DMCA can be held
responsible for the legal costs of the plaintiff.

Anthony


list: commons-l

from_name: Magnus Manske

subject: [Commons-l] Gray - request for help

body:
I've started adding captions to the Gray's anatomy images, but there are
just too many.

I have had a bot prepare links and tags with the appropriate captions at:
    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/gray.html

Ayn help would be appreciated. Best you start somewhere in the list at
random, to avoid double effort.

I'll run the bot again in a few days to see what's left. Then I also can
list the missing Gray images.

Magnus

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20060519/a5dbc5fd/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > That's one advantage of insisting upon a DMCA takedown notice - now
> > the ball is in the court of the uploader, who can choose whether or
> > not it's worth the financial cost to fight.
>
> We can't always contact the uploader.
>
You can always drop a note on the talk page of the uploader.  If they
don't receive the message, then they obviously won't send a DMCA
putback notice, and the image won't be put back up, unless someone
else uploads it.

Anthony


from_name: slimvirgin at gmail.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
> On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week.  He can get community
> > approval for a ban in that time.

Ryan, please don't undo other admins' blocks. Discuss it with the
blocking admin and ask him or her to reconsider. See the blocking
policy.

Sarah


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Saladin1970 added a whole bunch of text to the Alan Hart article which
was copied directly from a website about his book:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&oldid=30102511]

He then reverted it in twice.  I consider that copyvio and advertising.

He has also insisted on labelling Harold Shipman, "the most prolific
known serial killer in the history of Britain (and possibly the
world)" as a "Jew", insisting he be described as a "Jewish British
general practitioner" in the introduction
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=52931256&oldid=52768697]
 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53056969&oldid=53017343]
, and reverted it in 7 more times.

His talk comments contain personal attacks on various editors,
insisting that they, among other things "stop pushing their Zionist
agenda" and stop "vandalising", and stating "never mind, this is to be
expected from zionists".  He offers to edit-war on behalf of other
editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amibidhrohi&diff=prev&oldid=53821548]
and edit wars himself, violating 3RR on more than one occasion.  Oh
wait, I forgot, after three reverts he actually stopped editing, and
"someone else" from his work just happened to spontaneously revert as
an IP editor on his behalf.  And when someone was also reverting from
Saladin1970's home IP, that must have been when that "someone else"
was visiting him at home.

Saladin1970's actual article "contributions" have all been POV,
usually not relevant to the article, extremely poorly written,
generally unsourced, and, when sourced, taken from non-reliable
sources; that's when they haven't been POV copyvios.  Moreover, they
have been reverted by 9 different editors.  He has managed all of this
in under 50 edits.  I'm having difficulty understanding what value he
could possibly bring to the project.

Jay.

On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin
> made.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a
> > block.
> >
> >
> > Agreed that it justifies a block, but an indefinite block? For his second
> > block EVER?
> >
> > Ryan
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> > > I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin
> > > made.
> >
> >  Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't simple
> > vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community banned.
>
> Repeated, persistent copyright violations *is* grounds for an indefinite block.
>
This is a single-issue editor who has arrived with a very strong POV
and is determined to push it, has very poor research and writing
skills, deletes legitimate material, inserts original research,
misuses primary sources, uses dodgy websites as secondary sources,
uses an anon IP to violate 3RR, violates copyright, and makes (so far
as I can tell) no useful edits. So why is his indefinite block being
reversed. Is Ryan prepared to mentor him?

Sarah


from_name: Steve Summit

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> ...I am a little disturbed by how much careful and detailed work went
> into justifying its inclusion only to be trumped with completely
> unsupported "the artist doesn't like it" and "the Foundation lawyer
> doesn't like it" assertions.

This might be a decent illustration of the unfortunate general
principle that "hard work" on something does not necessarily
mean that the something was the right thing to do.

It's also a decent illustration of why our policy is (properly)
to give a very high preference to truly free and GFDL images,
and to use images under fair use or with permission only as a last
resort, and under duress.  Really, the work required to determine
and then to defend fair use rights in an environment like ours
usually isn't worth it.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps a little too long, yes.
> > > I'll see if Jaiyg can tell me more about the copyvio he claimed saladin
> > > made.
> > >
> > > Mgm
> >
> >
> >  Even a copyvio doesn't justify an indefinite block here. This isn't
> > simple vandalism and there's no way we can consider this guy community
> > banned.
> >
>
> Anyway, I'm unblocking and reblocking for 1 week.  He can get community
> approval for a ban in that time.

I announced the indefinite block on WP:AN/3RR when I made it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Saladin1970_also_editing_as_User:62.129.121.63
and so far there have been no objections.  If you agree that should be
blocked for a week at least, then why do you feel the need to
wheel-war and undo my action right now?  Why not at least wait until I
have a chance to login, read the e-mails, and respond?  And why don't
you spend that week trying to get consensus for reducing the block?

Jay.


list: foundation-l

from_name: arnomane at gmx.de

subject:
[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Commons and local wikis can finally grow
	together

body:
Hi,

Although this list is about the organisational part of the Wikimedia project I
think it's right notifying you about a new technology (in fact it's
technically nothing advanced but it just rocks IMHO :) that changes and
improves heavily the communication between a central repository like
Wikimedia Commons and Wikimedia projects that use it.

CommonsTicker is a tool witten by Duesentrieb for collecting critical events
regarding media files on Commons and posts them to the wikis using the
respective file. Given the Wikimedia Commons <-> Wikipedia problems
highlighted on a recent flame war on this very list I don't overestimate it
if I call it *THE solution* to these communication and quality problems. You
can find its project page at:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker

This technology *works right now* and has already started in the German
language Wikipedia at:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CommonsTicker

This page sums up automatically all changes to Commons that are relevant to
de.wikipedia and only those. So people can concentrate on the information
that is improtant to them and don't need to filter and sort the large amount
of maintenance information in Commons for themselves. And of course
CommonsTicker is translateable and customizable in a large range by local
projects.

So please spread the word and read

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker

in order to get as well a CommonsTicker for your Wikimedia wiki you are
working at. This is crucial to the sucess of Wikimedia Commons becoming a
true rival to Getty Images and the improvement of multimedia inside Wikipedia
which deserves heavy improvement compared to other encyclopedias. The quality
of illustration and multimedia is the only larger negative point of Wikipedia
in all Wikipedia vs. traditional encyclopedias comparisons.

May be there no lack of interproject communication anylonger.

Have fun,
Arnomane - Wikimedia Commons


list: wikimedia-l


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Darren@nocuffs

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch

> We should aspire to become an encyclopedia of law. Seriously, the
> great thing about Wikipedia is that Wikipedia can be more than a
> general encyclopedia. Wikipedia can replace specialized enyclopedias
> like encyclopedias of philosophy and encyclopedias of law (if the
> latter even exist yet).

Mmmm, but you'd have to be a right nong to use it as more than a casual
reference. A legal encyclopaedia that anyone can edit?

--Peter in Canberra


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion before discussion

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Alphax
>
> Peter Mackay wrote:
> >> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> >> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Rob
> >>
> >> On 5/18/06, Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Wikipedia is not your desk at work.  You are not allowed to post
> >>> copyright-reserved material to Wikipedia.  On the other
> >> hand, you are
> >>> allowed to edit Wikipedia in the nude.  (But please don't
> >> tell us when
> >>> you do.)
> >> Would it be okay if I posted a GDFL pic of myself editing
> >> Wikipedia in the nude? ;)
> >
> > That's fine. Female editors might find themselves the target of
> > harassment from the anti-userbox brigade.
>
> {{user edits nude}}?

Ahhh, please forgive. I wasn't thinking of a template.

Pete, blushing


subject: [WikiEN-l] Artists' impressions

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Philip Welch
>
> On May 18, 2006, at 10:54 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:

> > Hmm, yes. Anything which is a composite of several existing
> images, or
> > "drawn from life", is probably fine.
>
> This proposal excites me!
>
> Seriously, we need a WikiProject to do sketches of, say, notable
> people who don't have free-content photos of them taken, so we can
> replace a lot of fair use cruft. If I was any good with a pencil I'd
> do it myself.
>
> Any artists?

We could do a whole bunch in the "court artist" style. Russell Crowe glaring
out of the dock, OJ Simpson looking like a mugshot...

Pete, whipping out his crayons


subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

body:
On 5/19/06, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
> This rule is not that clear cut. A quarrelsome user cannot by picking
> petty quarrels thus insulate themselves from administrative action.
> The dispute must have been substantial and the block is good in any
> event. Treating it as a "non-negotiable directive" is inappropriate.
> It is more an action which can get you into trouble and possibly lead
> to loss of administrative status in egregious and repeated cases.

In such cases could the admin leave a message at AN/I and wait for someone
else to carry out the block (usual complaints of ganging up aside...)

Also, there's a difference between "picking a petty quarrel" and actually
succeeding in starting an argument. See the Monty Python sketch, "I'm not
arguing with you", "Yes you are!"...

Steve


from_name: Jerry Sweeton

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request

body:
Greetings,

My account, User:j.sweeton at wnri.com (IP 24.248.57.133), has recently
been blocked by User:Cyde.  Uses:Cyde alleges that I have been party to
"personal attacks and disruption".  In addition, he has also deleted my
user page. He did all this without warning.

I fail to see where I have attacked someone.

After further investigation, it appears that User:Cyde has a habit of
blocking user without warning (please see User talk:Mboverload).  I feel
that he has overstepped his bounds as an admin.  I also do not see any
rule that justifies him being able to delete my user page.

Thanks for listening!

--
-----
Jerry G. Sweeton Jr.
News/Talk 1380 WNRI
Traffic Director

Voice:  401-769-6925
Fax:    401-762-0442

j.sweeton at wnri.com

www.wnri.com

...-.-


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>
> > I won't make any down payment, but I'd most likely be willing to sign
> > such a contract.  Have Danny send me the details.
>
> The down payment would be needed for the costs in making sure the
> contract is done right it would be a right mess if you backed out at the
> last minute.  I can't really believe in your offer if you aren't
> prepared to send a few thousand for the initial costs, not considering
> how much this /could/ cost.
>
It *could* cost a lot, however my guess is that it *would* cost
nothing.  I guess I'd put up a few thousand if it could go into an
interest bearing money market account for a couple years while we see
that this guy's bluff is just that - a bluff.

> But anyway, that's between you and the foundation.  I suggest you write
> to them and see if they have enough faith in your offer to take you up
> on it.

It's your idea, why don't you set it up?

If Wikimedia really did want indemnification then they'd get the guy
to send a DMCA takedown notice and pass it on.  Indemnification is
part of the DMCA putback procedure.

Anthony


from_name: Cheney Shill

body:
--- "Alphax (Wikipedia email)" <alphasigmax at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Eric Demolli wrote:
> > Recent edits on the article have removed several
> criticism about
> > Microsoft. Now the article is mainly focused on the
> "exciting" features
> > of WMP 11 and the availability of WMP for other
> platforms.
> >
>
> {{sofixit}}?
>
> At a glance, I can't see any such edits... can you
> provide a diff?

{{SoUnblockMe}}?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Media_Player&diff=53118228&oldid=53112020

Competition information removed, the template was expanded,
an image of the latest beta version along with its release
information added (which just happened to be Wednesday this
week) not as a note on the page but featured in the
template, nice long features list moved to the top, no list
of bugs and formats it doesn't play, a long description of
the beta version moved in right after the features, and the
EC monopoly fine and restrictions moved to the bottom.

At least have the Foundation charge them for advertising
space.~~~~Pro-Lick

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
> > On 5/19/06, sannse <sannse at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It's your idea, why don't you set it up?
>
> No.  The ball is firmly in your court.  Put up or shut up.
>
> --sannse

LOL, OK, you make up some hypothetical offer on behalf of the
Wikimedia Foundation, and it's my responsibility to contact them to
find out that your offer was complete nonsense.

I notice you haven't addressed the part of my post where I said that
fair use *is* a right.  Probably because you now realize that there
have been Supreme Court cases which have explicitly stated that it is.

Anthony


from_name: Samuel Klein

subject: [Foundation-l] Design for wikipedia's front page (and corporate)

body:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, arnomane at gmx.de wrote:

> Am Freitag, 19. Mai 2006 04:25 schrieb Elisabeth Bauer:
>> If you're a good designer, creating a
>> good layout for wikipedia - do you really want any design ignorant admin
>> later fiddling with it and maybe destroying it?
>
> Well there is a problem: What is destruction? I am very sure that some people
> consider some of our CSS hacks in MediaWiki:Monobook.css destruction of the
> given Monobook design.

Indeed...

> But as you have pointed it out usability is important and so I think we can
> find a good commons sense for some kind of "corporate design" with only minor
> local tweaks if we favour usability over fancy design.

Hmm.  "community design" ?

>> If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we
>> need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was,
>> though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that
>> they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.
>
> Well there is the requirement that you have to credit the author(s). In case
> someone else did modify a design you can force people by license (let us say

We can even provide an archive highlighting past 'accepted' designs in
their pristine state; we can't guarantee that a particular design will be
up forever.  MIT plans a new main page design every day, drawing on
submissions from their community; it works wonderfully.

http://web.mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/site/propose.html

-- Sj


from_name: Philip Welch

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>>> Why do people keep saying this?  Fair use is a defense.  It's
>>> also a right.
>>
>> They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use
>> (just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is
>> repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on
>> television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I
>> took.
>> It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a
>> mile!)
>>
> Interesting.  I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated
> over and over it shouldn't be hard to find.  The first Google hit I
> found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your
> Rights:  The Public's Right of Fair Use.  But I guess the EFF has no
> clue what they're talking about.

Clearly, the EFF is an impartial source.

>> As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right
>> is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can
>> only be used if you yourself are sued.
>
> You have the right to bear arms.  Who can you sue for violation that
> right?

If some police department confiscated all your firearms, and you
weren't insane or a convicted felon, you could most likely sue that
police department for violating your right to keep and bear arms (as
well as violating your property rights).

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 1:41 PM, maru dubshinki wrote:

> From my own experience:
> the Star Wars article. We only accept canon depictions- and because
> canonicity policies say that only material authorized and licensed by
> the copyright holders is canon, and because the copyright holders will
> only do proprietary releases, we cannot, by definition, have free
> images relating to Star Wars.

It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go,
since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less
important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be
appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we
only have fair use images to use.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Jimmy Wales

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body:
Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> I recall a (fairly recent?) ArbCom decision mentioning something about
> userpages that "bring the project into disrepute"; is there any reason
> not to extend this criterion to user subpages?  The denizens of
> WikiTruth and Wikipedia Review and their ilk already have the entire
> rest of the Internet to spout their garbage; there's utterly no reason
> to legitimize it and help spread it by hosting it (however
> inconspicuously) on a top-20 site.

I think that "bringing the project into disrepute" should be interpreted
very narrowly.  One of our great strengths as a project has always been
our healthy tolerance of legitimate discussion and debate about various
internal matters.  If someone notices a trend toward abusive admins, and
writes a respectful and thoughtful page about the issue, I think we
would be very unhealthy indeed if we just deleted it for that reason.

(Indeed, overzealous policing of the user space content for alleged
infractions would itself bring the project into disrepute.)

The sorts of things we should care about in user space are various kinds
of hate speech and advocacy: pro-Nazi pages, pro-pedophilia or 'child
love' pages, pro-violence, racist pages, things of that nature.

Criticism of the project itself seldom rises to the level of hate
speech, although of course sometimes it does.

--Jimbo

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
 information

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> IMHO this kind of writing breaches NPOV and almost NOR - we start to make
> claims about the person by connecting unrelated facts together. We should
> never attempt to expose hypocrisy in our subjects - if it exists, we should
> find reliable sources that have already done that. This was the problem with
> [[Safe Speed]] - editors had tried to debunk claims made by the group,
> whereas what they should have been doing was citing others who had debunked
> them, not just general research that apparently contradicts their claims.
>
> Selective juxtaposition of facts to imply something is definitely out. You
> either say it and cite a source, or you don't say it at all.

Yes.  One important factor in this whole thing is that two things have
happened recently (in the past year):

1. Wikipedia has become a major cultural force especially in the English
speaking world, but also in many other languages as well.  It is
important enough that a current Senator and former US Presidential
candidate I met last week told me that he has his staff check his
biography every day.

But we do not generally have serious problems with people who are that
notable.  Everyone who has a bio in wikipedia is likely to check it with
some regularity.  I try really really hard to not even look at mine,
because I find it so strange to read, but I still do from time to time.

2.  Wikipedia has grown in size to the point that many people who are
NOT particularly famous have an article.  It is easy to understand that
supporters and opponents of George W. Bush will keep an eye on his
article and make sure it do

--
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################


body:
On May 19, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Molu wrote:

> Corollery to Loom91's First Law ([[WP:RAUL]]) states "Whatever must
> pass for the Truth on WIkipedia is necessarily determined by
> consensus". As for obviousness and common sense, Wikipedia's
> article on [[Ball]] begins with "A ball is a round or spherical
> object that is used most often in sports and games." Should that be
> removed because it's obvious (much more obvious than Plot Summaries
> containing spoilers, which is not particularly obvious)? An
> encyclopedia necessarily repeats the obvious for the sake of
> completeness.

Yeah, and if someone with no idea what a ball was looked up "ball",
they better have a way to quickly find out. If someone with no idea
that Citizen Kane was a movie looked up that article and saw a
heading called "Plot summary", they would *already know* that the
following information contained plot details. There's no need to tell
them twice.

I think the {{spoiler}} template, if used at all, should only be used
to guard actual spoilers--i.e. "Darth Vader is Luke's father",
"Rosebud is his sled", the end of any M. Night Shymalan film, etc.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


body:
On May 19, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Molu wrote:

> I do not cite policy without reading it. Guy has the personal
> opinion that spoilers are not good, and he disrupts the normal
> functioning of Wikipedia to make this point, even when consensus is
> clearly against him.

OK, you read the policy. Now *understand it*.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body:
On 5/19/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> I recall a (fairly recent?) ArbCom decision mentioning something about
> userpages that "bring the project into disrepute"; is there any reason
> not to extend this criterion to user subpages?  The denizens of
> WikiTruth and Wikipedia Review and their ilk already have the entire
> rest of the Internet to spout their garbage; there's utterly no reason
> to legitimize it and help spread it by hosting it (however
> inconspicuously) on a top-20 site.

I have nothing in principle against a guideline like this, except for
the essential undefiniability of what does or does not "bring the
project into disrepute."

Again, I don't expect there to EVER be an easy answer to what is or
isn't allowed, but some sort of guideline, along with a few examples,
would probably go a long way towards articulating the policy and its
spirit. (This has worked very well for WP:NPOV, for example -- the
examples have practically eliminated hair-splitting over the issues of
pseudoscience, creationism, fringe theories, etc. that used to consume
NPOV disputes.)

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 3:17 PM, geni wrote:

>> It seems like the "only accept canon depictions" is the rule to go,
>> since it seems silly and arbitrary, and in any case, far less
>> important than "only use free content". Artist depictions would be
>> appropriate in this case, just like almost any other case where we
>> only have fair use images to use.
>
> WP:NOR supports the "only accept canon depictions".

We've had this discussion in the artistic depiction thread. Making an
artistic depiction based on multiple images or real life is no
different from writing a text description based on multiple sources.
By your rationale, all Wikipedia could do would be to stitch together
quotes from outside sources and claim fair use.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>> IOW, no, the desires of the copyright holder have no bearing on
>> whether an image can be fairly used, because the fair use defense
>> presumes that the copyright holder objects to the use.
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but this seems like pretty simple logic to me...
>
> I thought so too, and another editor who _is_ a lawyer (User:Bobak)
> looked at the situation in a fair bit of detail and agreed with my
> logic. But UninvitedCompany claimed at the end of the deletion review
> entry
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review&oldid=50533958#Image:O_RLY.jpg>
> that the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer had had a look at the situation and
> said it should be deleted. Unfortunately I wasn't able to find either a
> link to the Foundation lawyer's comments or the original copyright
> holder's complaint anywhere, so it still leaves me completely in the
> dark as to why this logic is apparently wrong in this case.
>

It was a WP:OFFICE action. No further explanation is required.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060519/3a383b33/attachment.pgp


subject: [WikiEN-l] Deletion of user subpages

body:
On 5/19/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> Define, and define, and define.  Broad definitions are tyrrany.  We
> can't let random people decide what "useful" means!

I agree -- but I think that's pretty much the way it currently works.
I think we need at least some guidelines, examples, etc., if not
definitions. An idea of what is definitely permissable and what is
definitely not would at least allow people to reason in between the
two extremes.

> If you're talking about one subpage I've seen, it ended when the user
> said "X, Y and Z admins are ignorant morons who don't know copyright
> law.  I say we fight back and pepper our userspace with purdy pictures
> we have no right to use!" (in a somewhat less inflammatory fashion,
> admittedly).  Core principles are not negotiable, and attempts to
> organise the community in revolt against being an encyclopaedia, being
> NPOV, respecting copyrights, etc., should not be tolerated.

I've got the page open in front of me, and I didn't say that. The
page, perhaps not terribly articulately, said that some admins had
been using claims of bad fair use as a reason to delete all sorts of
things, and that these admins did not themselves seem to have an
understanding of fair use law. Whatever one thinks of the substance of
the opinion (I have a complicated opinion on this issue which need not
be inserted here), it 1. did not mention any admins by name, 2.
criticized the policies as being perhaps not in accordance with the
law, and 3. criticized certain implementions of the policy. I didn't
agree with all of the page, but I didn't see it doing any harm just by
existing, and certainly didn't think it fell under the "attack page"
of CSD. I don't think our fair use policy counts as a "principle"
policy of the encyclopedia, and I think it was pretty clear he wasn't
trying to organize a "revolt" so much as a place for like-minded
people to discuss potential policy changes (the user himself told me
that he had invisioned it as an alternative to WPFU -- I encouraged
him to think of WPFU less as a "cabal" and more as "a place to talk
about these things," since most of the people there don't agree with
each other anyway).

I know that anybody who makes blanket complaints about "admins" is
going to get a pretty skeptical ear around here -- I've seen enough
crackpots myself to know that 80% of the time, an blanket attacks on
admins or a cabal or whatever are wooly-minded at best. But they are
sometimes legitimate criticisms, or at the very least their ability to
be voiced should be considered worthwhile (nothing is worse for any
sort of bureaucracy or pseudo-bureaucracy than a calcification of
process by means of a lack of criticism, in my opinion). I think if
one reads the (now deleted) page with a more sympathetic ear -- the
sort of ear which assumes good faith -- it is definitely not
speediable, and probably should not be deleted in any case (if anyone
has evidence of it causing harm, I'd be interested in seeing it).

Here's the other point I meant to bring up in my initial posting: if
it is likely that more trouble will come from getting rid of a
"threat" than the "threat" itself would cause, perhaps the threat here
is not the page but the process. I should think this is a lesson from
the userbox debacle -- surely the attempts to eliminate the userboxes
have done more harm to the encyclopedia than the boxes ever did. I
don't blame anybody for this in the userbox case -- it would have
taken remarkable clairvoyance to see this -- but I do think as a
general principle this could be quite useful. I think in most cases,
deletion of pages in the user space whose "right to exist" is
ambiguous causes more problems than it solves. Which is why I think we
should try and make the guidelines here less ambiguous --
straightforward rules, however arbitrary, are a million times easier
to enforce and follow.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think what is meant is that the O RLY owl (O RLY stamped over a picture of
> > an owl taken by someone else) infringed on the copyright of the original owl
> > photographer. And since we weren't doing anything fair-use-wise with respect
> > to that original photo, we were infringing on their copyright as well.
> >
>
>
> Sure we are not useing it for critical comment of the original image
> but there are other posible fair use rationals around for example:
>
> http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=O%20RLY&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sa=N&tab=wi
>
> Is generaly considered to be fair use.

Yes, but Google feels safe in this because there is a specific case
which says that tiny tiny thumbnails for the purposes of search
engines is definitely fair use. (Kelly v. Arriba Soft) Which can give
some guideline about other potential fair use claims, but it not
necessarily analogous to our usage of it (it is just as easy to find
claims to difference in this case as it is to claims of similarity).

FF


from_name: Nick Boalch

subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Molu wrote:
> The hosting space for that userpage is owned by Wikipedia and it has every right
> to regulate my expressions on that space. but the question is whether it will be
> right in doing so.

It certainly will be right in doing so. The only reason that 'hosting
space' is provided to assist in the task of writing an encyclopaedia.

If it doesn't help with that, it shouldn't be there. Find another place
to publicise your political opinions.

Best wishes,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] CSD T1

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>>> WP articles are not written by the general community, they are
>>>> written by editors, usually a handful of core contributors. NPOV
>>>> works out to what these editors agree it is, simply because nobody
>>>> else has any significant input.
>>>
>>> Indeed. The point is that those editors
>>
>> ...should agree on what is NPOV based on the mixture of
>> points-of-view *in the real world*, not just on their own opinions.
>>
>> (Oops.)
>
> Yeah, I was wondering what happened - if only we could edit our posts, hey?

The more I use Wikipedia, the more I wish that facility existed. :)

> But you keep on saying what WP "should" be like. I'm not disagreeing with
> you on this. I'm merely saying that what actually happens is often a long
> way from ideal.

Ah! Ok -- I understand where this difference of opinion is arising from
(and maybe it isn't actually a difference of opinion at all).

Cheers,

N.

--
Nicholas Boalch
School of Modern Languages & Cultures       Tel: +44 (0) 191 334 3456
University of Durham                        Fax: +44 (0) 191 334 3421
New Elvet, Durham DH1 3JT, UK               WWW: http://nick.frejol.org/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Why do people keep saying this?  Fair use is a defense.  It's also a right.

They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use
(just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is
repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on
television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I took.
It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a
mile!)

As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right
is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can
only be used if you yourself are sued. You can't sue somebody for
violating your "fair use" rights -- though I do wish that you could
(it would revolutionize copyright legislation and really make it
dangerous for a the mega-corporations to put the legal squeeze on
small-timers).

FF


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Ok here is why Willaim Connolley and these stupid
	admins are messing up Wikipedia. (Hganesan)

body:
Hi,
  He is moderated, as of about a minute after that last message. I wasn't
quite fast enough to get in before it.

Steve

On 5/19/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with Rob and Keith, please have this guy moderated.
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


from_name: Daniel Kinzler

subject: [Commons-l] CommonsTicker

body:
Hello all

I have activated CommonsTicker [1] for a first live test at the German
Wikipedia [2] (have a look at the wiki text of the actual entries in
[3], you don't need to speak German for that). An announcement about it
is on the Village Pump [4]. After a short test run, I will set up ticker
pages on other projects on request (in cooperation with a local admin).

CommonsTicker monitors Common's RC feed and records deletion and
replacement of images, as well as deletion tags being placed on
description pages. For each project with a ticker page, CommonsTicker
then determines which images are used on that project, and posts a
notice for the local community.

I hope this will help to integrate Commons more closely with the
Wikipedia communities; I hope this will get people more involved with
commons, and gets us some help unlinking images that have to be deleted,
etc.

So, please have a look...

-- Daniel

PS: please forward this message to the mailing lists of wikimedia
projects that may be interested in a CommonsTicker page.

[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker
[2] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CommonsTicker
[3] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CommonsTicker/Liste
[4]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#CommonsTicker:_the_Germans_are_watching.21

--
Homepage: http://brightbyte.de


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Why do people keep saying this?  Fair use is a defense.  It's also a right.
>
> They keep saying it because that's the legal mantra about fair use
> (just like "you can't patent a fact" is one for patents), which is
> repeated in law books and by law professors and by lawyers on
> television. (I think I first heard it from a lawyer in a class I took.
> It's catchy -- catchier than "free as in speech, not as in beer" by a
> mile!)
>
Interesting.  I tried looking this up, because hey, if it's repeated
over and over it shouldn't be hard to find.  The first Google hit I
found was http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html - Understanding Your
Rights:  The Public's Right of Fair Use.  But I guess the EFF has no
clue what they're talking about.

Anyway, actual written publications are a better search.  But
books.google gives me "Fair use is the right to use copyrighted
material..."  "Under the right of fair use..."  "But the precious fair
use right is under attack today..."

> As I understand it, the real difference between a defense and a right
> is that you can sue somebody for violating a right, but a defense can
> only be used if you yourself are sued.

You have the right to bear arms.  Who can you sue for violation that
right?  Perhaps we're talking about different definitions of the word
"right".  I tried looking for a legal dictionary with your definition
in it though, and I couldn't find it.

> You can't sue somebody for
> violating your "fair use" rights -- though I do wish that you could
> (it would revolutionize copyright legislation and really make it
> dangerous for a the mega-corporations to put the legal squeeze on
> small-timers).
>
What would it mean to sue somebody for violating your fair use rights?
 Moreover, what does it mean to violate someone's fair use rights in
the first place?

Anthony


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Saladin1970's actual article "contributions" have all been POV,
> usually not relevant to the article, extremely poorly written,
> generally unsourced, and, when sourced, taken from non-reliable
> sources; that's when they haven't been POV copyvios.  Moreover, they
> have been reverted by 9 different editors.  He has managed all of this
> in under 50 edits.  I'm having difficulty understanding what value he
> could possibly bring to the project.
>
> Jay.

He's a newbie. He doesn't understand our rules or procedures or have any
sense of institutional memory like those of us who have been around for a
long time. Revert him, zap him with the cluebat a few times, and give him a
chance to reform. This is a wiki and the article histories are preserved
indefinitely. If short blocks have no effect on him, then I'd be willing to
consent to a community ban. But we have to try them first.

Ryan


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/19/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So why is his indefinite block being
> reversed.

Because he's a newbie and no one bothered to give him short blocks. This
isn't simple vandalism and he's not willy on wheels.  Someone
misunderstanding our policies doesn't give anyone precedent to railroad him
rather than giving him a chance. We tell people to be bold, and then
indefinite block them for doing it?

Is Ryan prepared to mentor him?

No, I'm not prepared to mentor everyone I unblock.

Ryan


from_name: Sean Barrett

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Philip Welch stated for the record:

> I think the {{spoiler}} template, if used at all, should only be used
> to guard actual spoilers--i.e. "Darth Vader is Luke's father",
> "Rosebud is his sled", the end of any M. Night Shymalan film, etc.

Zeus impregnates the mortal chick.

The horse is full of soldiers.

Beowulf kills Grendel.

Lancelot and Gwenevere hump like bunnies.

The Nazis lose.

I'm sure there's more.

- --
 Sean Barrett     | A thunder of jets in an open sky,
 sean at epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!"
                  | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb,
                  | And once again you know it's time....
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEblFSMAt1wyd9d+URAhF1AJsGjfTK916OfCvWbEEwcBpCFoJ4VgCdEoCy
vIGI6SpRWypWsMjyk6WBtac=
=tEJr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
> Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>> It was a WP:OFFICE action. No further explanation is required.
>
> I thought only Danny could do that and he wasn't involved in this.
> There's no indication on UninvitedCompany's userpage that he can do
> OFFICE actions.
>

Ok, it was an OTRS action. Close enough.

> The only reference to WP:OFFICE anywhere in the relevant talk pages was
> a suggestion that it should be contacted at one point right near the
> end, but there's no indication that this was actually done. Is there any
> way to check this?
>

Sure, just ask anyone listed on [[m:OTRS]].

> IMO further explanation _is_ required because otherwise a lot of people
> are misunderstanding something about how fair use works here without any
> way to correct it.
>

I can't reveal the exact details, but "fair use" most definately did
*not* apply. The image was a copyvio.

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060519/61a431a0/attachment.pgp


body:
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Lukasz Garczewski wrote:

> If this doesn't seem to convince you think about this for a moment: Why
> don't we just release the logos under a free license? When you come to

Why don't we?  I don't know the reason.  It is possible to have a
freely-licensed logo whose use is regulated via trademark; Debian has
managed this with their logo.

Beyond this, there is a need for free licenses that deal effectively with
copyrightable elements of identity.  Debian and GNOME and other projects
are trying to deal with this.

It is one thing to say "This logo/design cannot be used to create a site
or content that pretends to be Wikipedia content, or confuses [consumers]".
It is another to say that there is no permissible use which does not
require a license (which is the same kind of unscalable arrangement that
traditional copyright makes for other content).

For a related discussion, see:  http://wiki.mako.cc/TrademarkFreedom

Sj


from_name: Austin Hair

body:
On 5/18/06, Elisabeth Bauer <elian at djini.de> wrote:
> If we want to have a professional designer creating a layout for us, we
> need to guarantee them that their work remains intact. My idea was,
> though, to use free licenses but have some kind of social contract that
> they will be consulted if any changes to the layout have to be done.

I can't see how this is at all practicable.  Monobook (and the shared
Common.css) are edited all the time, by necessity or at whim, as each
individual project sees fit.  For that matter, if a designer is that
proud of his work, he's certainly not going to like all the custom
styles used on many pages and in almost all templates.

Austin


subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or
	falseinformation

body:
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett

> On 5/19/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:
> >
> > Think of it like a basketball team. If you absolutely need
> to have a
> > basketball team and no one wants to join, you'll take anyone. If
> > everyone in the school wants to join the basketball team,
> you have to
> > set rules and cut people. True, there's a limit to the roster of a
> > basketball team and no limit to the amount of information Wikipedia
> > could have, but more importantly there's a minimum in both
> cases, and
> > when the minimum is met, you can be more discriminating.
>
> Has the minimum officially been met yet? Are we now being
> more discriminating?

There's a few from the "we'll take anyone" days who could be re-examined.

Pete, not naming names, oh no


body:
On 5/19/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every
> single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble
> knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange
> fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.

Precisely.  If you decide to install the most popular wiki software
package out there, you have to go out of your way to make it *not*
look like Wikipedia?at least the default logo isn't the MediaWiki
flower anymore (actually, it is, but at least it's defaced by annoying
text that compels people to change it quickly).

Austin


subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On May 19, 2006, at 3:37 PM, geni wrote:

> The problem is there are a million bits of fan fiction out there so
> the cannon thing is important with starwars. You have to have it there
> unless you want pics of Han solo with 3 arms or something.

Well, of course an artist's rendition should resemble what Han Solo
actually looks like in the movies instead of stupid shit like that.
But there's  no reason to stick with screen captures of the films
themselves.

--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch


from_name: maru dubshinki

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:

> If the copyright holder objects then they might sue. Whether we win
> or not, its not worth our while wasting money on cases like this. We
> are trying to make a free encyclopaedia, so paying lawyers to defend
> our right to use non free stuff is against the aims of the Foundation.
>
> Dont get attached to fair use. Its not part of our mission. It will all
> be gone in a few years at the latest. Dont bother defending it.
>
> Justinc

Unless you are speaking in the ridicoulously long-term sense in which
everything (hopefully) passes into the public domain, fair use is
inevitably part of our mission. There are entire sectors of articles
where fair use is necessary, as the copyright holders will definitely
not release the images under a decent license, and where recreation
under a different license is not acceptable. From my own experience:
the Star Wars article. We only accept canon depictions- and because
canonicity policies say that only material authorized and licensed by
the copyright holders is canon, and because the copyright holders will
only do proprietary releases, we cannot, by definition, have free
images relating to Star Wars. Indeed, the absolute best we could do is
perhaps have some free images of fans, (though trademark and copyright
issues are still problematic. If we have a picture of a bunch of fans
dressed up in pitch-perfect Stormtrooper , tusken raider, Royal Guards
etc. costumes, can that really be GFDL'ed or PD'ed?), or maybe of
productions.

~maru


from_name: Guy Chapman aka JzG

subject:
[WikiEN-l] Zero information is preferred to misleading or false
	information

body:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:24:30 +0200, you wrote:

>Yes. And this is what we used to do before {{fact}} or its synonyms
>became widespread. I think that, because {{fact}} is so easy to tag
>onto something, the practice of moving dubious claims may have
>decreased somewhat in favor of tagging them.  What can we practically
>do to change this? I think policy alone will not be sufficient, given
>how ubiquitous {{fact}} has already become.

I believe it is worse than that: there is a view among many editors
that nothing should be removed unless it can be *proven* false, which
is completely the wrong way round, whether it be for a living person
or not. There is also a widespread view that a large number of Google
hits equals verifiability.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


body:
On 5/19/06, Austin Hair <adhair at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/06, Delphine M?nard <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The problem I see is that the monobook is the default design for every
> > single Mediawiki in the world. Which means that people have trouble
> > knowing whether they are on Wikipedia, on a mirror, or some strange
> > fake site, or on my grand-mother's wiki.
>
> Precisely.  If you decide to install the most popular wiki software
> package out there, you have to go out of your way to make it *not*
> look like Wikipedia?at least the default logo isn't the MediaWiki
> flower anymore (actually, it is, but at least it's defaced by annoying
> text that compels people to change it quickly).

On another note, "visual identity" won't come from copyrights on html
or css, or even trademarking visual components?if someone's aiming for
the same look, he's going to rip it off, and it's going to be in a
more subtle way?he'd like to think he's being creative, after all.
The issue is with passive users who just like how pretty their new
wiki looks.

Austin


body:
On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:24:11 -0400, you wrote:

>Presumably the tradition arose when some early ne'er-do-well,
>who was a poor speller to boot, accused his adversary of being
>a "rouge admin", and the joke stuck.

Correct.  I saw it on at least one of the whining user threads on
Wikitruth, I can't remember which one, but I remembered the user well
enough...

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


subject: [WikiEN-l] hooray, hooray, the lunatics have taken over!

body:
On Sat, 20 May 2006 01:45:31 +1000, you wrote:

>Is it a full moon now, or is Wikipedia just getting stupider?

Youth we got, we need a fountain of eternal Smart.

Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG


from_name: geni

subject: [WikiEN-l] Getting rid of bad fair use

body:
On 5/19/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> O RLY? is a copyvio, which weakend our fair use case even further.

Umm how?

--
geni


from_name: Mark Wagner

subject: [WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Article surveys re-surveyed

body:
Back in mid-November, I did a survey of 100 randomly selected
articles, and re-checked them towards the end of February:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carnildo/The_100.  I've now finished
my second check of those articles.  The seven deleted articles are
still deleted, and the three redirects are still redirects.

Over the past three months, 868 edits were made to articles on the
list, giving a mean of 9.33 edits per article.  The lower edit rate
could be explained by the time periods not being exactly three months:
the first was about a week and a half longer, while this one was a
week and a half shorter.

Many of the articles were unchanged since February: 23 articles had
zero edits, with three of them having not been edited since before
last November.  19 articles had ten or more edits, encompassing 80% of
all edits.  The ratio of trivial edits to major edits remains roughly
the same, at around 99% trivial.

At the other extreme, six articles had 50 or more edits, with one
article ([[Lawrenceville School]]) having over a hundred.  Number of
edits continues to not correlate with improvement, with only one of
the most-edited articles showing significant improvment.

Overall coverage is mostly unchanged, with [[CBS Columbia Square]]'s
improvement from "stub" to "good" being the only major improvement.  A
few other articles added a paragraph or two, but not enough to promote
them to a higher level.

Two articles lost significant ground in terms of quality: [[Padstow,
New South Wales]] added five paragraphs of information, but
wikification was removed from much of the existing article in the
process.  [[Etham]] lost a paragraph.

Sourcing of articles has improved slightly: two articles gained
sources, for a total of 17 out of 85 articles having sources.  The
total number of sources has increased significantly, with 54 sources
cited.  [[General Semantics]] has continued to acquire sources, with
27 being cited, up from 17 the last time I checked.

The image situation has continued on its previous trend: the ratio of
free to non-free images remains roughly 2:1, with the addition of five
free images and five non-free images, and the removal of four non-free
images.  16 of the previous 17 dubious free-license images have been
deleted.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


from_name: Patrick, Brad

subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
You are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Foundation.  That
should be clear.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
Kalken
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with them
tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the
Foundation.

As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
"responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if the
foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It would
be nice to have an answer ASAP.

I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme can
take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and then
never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I do not
understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I have
always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a good job
with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up late
for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how you are
treated like you are a piece of garbage.

Waerth/Walter
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or (2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this message.

If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


from_name: abu hamza

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
ok, i have looked at the links properly. If you could read the whole post
before reply , it would be gratefully appreciated

yes, in my reversion to the previous page , a citation was removed . Given
the notes stated it was just a reversion from the one before mine, i was
unaware that extra information had been added. One has to ask the question,
what about my citation that was delted.

To the second point about the applicability of using the website "z-ionism
the real enemy of the jews". I am a little confused. A forum member says it
is anti - zionism. I say that it is a historical and factual account of the
run up to the creation of israel , not the historical and factual account of
the movement of anti - zionism (whatever that is). Another user then says it
is a POV.
Yet this was a book written by the itv middle east corrospondence of ten
years, who spent 5 years documenting and researching this book using
factual, referencable material. Someone who had a working relationship with
the presidents and gola meir
Now if someone says it is pov and i say it is a factual account, how comes
my assertion gets used as evidence of banning me indefinately. Shouldn't the
question be why is this reference to this book being continuously deleted

Anyhow, the above is  really only relevant, in that it highlioghts the
subjectiveness of this case.

the real crux of the matter is that i have been banned indefinately (in my
first ban -as the ban by thomas harrison was for the same 3rr).

Jaygy has said i broke copy right rules -  yet after 10 hours or so he still
hasn't produced any evidence of this. It would be extremely unfair for me to
have been banned for something a moderator made up . One would have thought
that if this was one of the reasons he would have the evidence at hand.

Jaygy also said i did not post any useful posts  - this is highly subjective
and one has to wonder about the fairness of being banned because of an
administrators subjective view my posts were 'useless'.

Jaygy also said i conducted 'attacks' in the talk pages. My statement that
some one is a zionist can hardly be in the hall of fame of attacks,
especially to merit banning indefinately

Unless Jaygy has been able to produce this evidence of my copy right
violations or show you evidence of my profound attacks on others, then it
would be extremely unfair and against wikipedia policies to ban me
indefinatly.

Thanks once again for taking the time to read my points, your sincerely
Saladin

>From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
>Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:33:36 +0200
>
>You did delete citations, I linked the edits in which you did. And I also
>linked the edit in which you replaced a perfectly fine source with your
>link. The 3RR violation is because you keep adding the same link when
>several people have asked you not to. In such cases, you should engage in
>discussion, not revert back.
>
>I've asked Jaiyg to comment on the copyvio thing.
>
>Mgm
>
>
>On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > hi MacGyver. I wrote the section. Someone else added a request for
> > citations, and i provided them. I didn't delete any citiations,I deleted
> > the
> > citations an put the references in their place
> >
> > and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is
>not
> > a
> > good source other than that it was  "propoganda", which is subjective..
> > The
> > talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page
> > referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as
> > 'propoganda'.
> >
> > And if i broke the 3R rule by reverting 3 times and adding something
> > another
> > time, then fine. but surely this carries just a 24 hour ban, not
> > indefinate.
> >
> > I appreciate that zionism is a 'hot topic', but that surely should mean
> > being as fair as possible to the contributors, not imposing an extremely
> > harsh ban for reasons with little or no substance.
> >
> > Also Jayjg suggested i had broken copy right rules and used this as one
>of
> > the reasons. I cannot find any examples, perhaps you can have a look.
> >
> > thanks saladin1970
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" <macgyvermagic at gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request
> > >Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:08:41 +0200
> > >
> > >I only did a cursory glance, but what I've seen totally justifies a
> > block.
> > >Edits like
> > >
> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640#The_three_talmudic_Oathsare
> > >clearly problematic. You remove sources and add a citation needed
> > >template in its place or replace existing sources with links to a
>website
> > >with obvious POV issues. And a whole section with a scholarly reference
> > >turned into a disputed tag.
> > >
> > >In
> > >
> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767
> > >you
> > >also try to link to http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com
> > >
> > >Multiple people have explained why you can't use this as a source and
>in
> > >response you say they vandalise wikipedia when it's you who remove
> > sources
> > >to get it in.
> > >
> > >Your contributions show the following edits:
> > >  10:41, 18 May 2006
> >
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> > >(diff<
> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53838640
> > >)
> > >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page.
>the
> > >references provide all the information given)
> > >10:06, 18 May 2006
> >
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> > >(diff<
> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53835919
> > >)
> > >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (rv to previous page -
>the
> > >three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good
> > reason
> > >it stays)
> > >06:41, 18 May 2006
> >
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> > >(diff<
> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53819450
> > >)
> > >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (added three oaths
> > section,)
> > >19:26, 17 May 2006
> >
> >(hist<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&action=history>)
> > >(diff<
> >
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zionism&diff=prev&oldid=53731767
> > >)
> > >Zionism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism> (removed pov further
> > reading
> > >and added a factual reference)
> > >
> > >That's 4 reverts in about 15 hours, clearly a 3RR violation. All on the
> > >same
> > >username, your IP has nothing to do with that.
> > >Mgm
> > >
> > >
> > >On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself
> > >banned.
> > > >
> > > > i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons
> > > >
> > > > 1) 3RR rule
> > > > 2) No useful edits
> > > > 3) Copyright violoations
> > > > 4) attacks on talk pages
> > > >
> > > > They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the
>reasons,
> > > > they
> > > > really have no substance.
> > > >
> > > > 1) I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address
> > and
> > > > editor
> > > > the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue
>at
> > > > work.
> > > >
> > > > 2) I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in
>the
> > > > spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section,
> > background
> > > > info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and
> > zionism
> > > > page, and turkic.
> > > >
> > > > 3) There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was
>referenced
> > to
> > >a
> > > > website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of
>their
> > > > copyright. So there was NO copy right violation
> > > >
> > > > 4) there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that
>could
> > be
> > > > said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at
> > best
> > > > are
> > > > minor violations that would carry warnings.
> > > >
> > > > however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to
> > >block
> > > > rule".
> > > >
> > > > my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses .
> > >Including
> > > > the person that banned me jayjg.  These posts included
> > > > a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason
>behind
> > > > orthodox jews who oppose political zionism.  This was reverted many
> > >times
> > > > by
> > > > jayjg amongst others
> > > >
> > > > also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the
> > enemy
> > >of
> > > > the jews by alan hart",
> > > > who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well
> > researched
> > > > 'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.
> > > >
> > > > Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason
> > for
> > >my
> > > > ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a
>user
> > >who
> > > > has a different view of zionism.
> > > >
> > > > for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material
>posted
> > >by
> > > > me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned
> > > > indefinately
> > > > thanks saladin
> > > >
> > > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > > Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN
> > >Messenger
> > > > 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >WikiEN-l mailing list
> > >WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN
>Messenger
> > 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search!
http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [Foundation-l] Wiki Activism (Project Proposal)

body:
Nicholas Barry wrote:

>WikiActivism is a project for past and present social movements such as the Civil Rights movement, Animal Rights movement, and the blooming Immigrant Rights movement. The meat and potatoes of the project will be a page for each separate movement. The majority of pages (great in number, though less important than the main page for each movement) will list evidence used by or against each movement, organizations associated with each movement, and other such items. (Most links on each page will probably go to Wikipedia for explanation of various terms and issues.)
>
The strongest argument against having this as a Wikimedia project is
that it would be necessarily supporting points of view.  Perhaps
Wikicities would be a better place for this.

I do think that the underlying concept is interesting in terms of
opening up how we can do politics politics differently.  I even
suggested after France and Holland voted down the European Constitution
that a wiki would be an excellent medium for writing a People's European
Constitution.  But even if you would limit your efforts the movements
that you enumerate each could give rise to whole project in itself.  The
blooming immigrants in the United States are currently a very hot topic.

Doing politics differently requires an ability to look over the curve of
the horizon, and to synthesize a consensus.  I don't know that your
proposal can accomplish this, but good luck!

Ec


body:
On 5/19/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia at philwelch.net> wrote:

> "Rosebud is his sled"

Spoiler warnings, *please*!  Some of us haven't watched the movie yet.

--
Mark
[[User:Carnildo]]


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
I'm the lawyer for the Foundation.  I represent Wikimedia Foundation,
Inc.  I answer to the Board.

You are *not* authorized to speak for the Foundation.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
Kalken
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:20 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

Patrick, Brad wrote:

>You are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Foundation.  That
>should be clear.
>
>
Says ?????? Do I know you?

Waerth/Walter

>-----Original Message-----
>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>Kalken
>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>
>This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
>doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with them

>tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the
>Foundation.
>
>As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
>"responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am
>to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
>Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if the

>foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It would

>be nice to have an answer ASAP.
>
>I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
>critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
>trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme can

>take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and
>then never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I
>do not understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I
>have always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a good

>job with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up
>late for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how
>you are treated like you are a piece of garbage.
>
>Waerth/Walter
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------
>Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise in
this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or
written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any
taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on
the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or
(2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to
recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this
message.
>
>If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the
purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss the
additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is
possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as
the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>------------------------------------
>Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments are
private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker
P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information meant
solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then
delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

body:
Don't assume anything.  If you are speaking as a person interested in
Wikipedia, great.  I'm sure you have good things to say about Wikipedia
in Thailand.  Good for you.  All I am saying is that you do *not* have
the authority to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
Kalken
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:23 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand

Patrick, Brad wrote:

>I'm the lawyer for the Foundation.  I represent Wikimedia Foundation,
>Inc.  I answer to the Board.
>
>You are *not* authorized to speak for the Foundation.
>
>
Wow then who can speak to these people? It is obvious that you are one
of the people who put me on the garbagebelt in the foundation judging on
your tone.

Waerth/Walter

>-----Original Message-----
>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>Kalken
>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:20 PM
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>
>Patrick, Brad wrote:
>
>
>
>>You are not authorized to speak on behalf of the Foundation.  That
>>should be clear.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Says ?????? Do I know you?
>
>Waerth/Walter
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
>>[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Walter van
>>Kalken
>>Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 5:11 PM
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand
>>
>>This night at 23 hours I was called by a Thai organisation which is
>>doing in Thailand approximately the same as Kennisnet to talk with
>>them
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>tomorrow about some ideas they have for co-operation with the
>>Foundation.
>>
>>As I have been totally purged by the foundation of all my
>>"responsibilities" like presscontact for Asia and steward because I am

>>to critical of the way things go not because I ever abused them!
>>Although those are the rumours that are floating. I want to know if
>>the
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>foundation has any "trust" in me to go talk with these people? It
>>would
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>be nice to have an answer ASAP.
>>
>>I am still disappointed in the way people get purged if they are to
>>critical even if they never abuse the responsabilities they have been
>>trusted with and the board never answers why one "clerk": Dannyisme
>>can
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>take someone's stewardship away under the notion of temporarity and
>>then never has to respond in public to requests to restore it. Also I
>>do not understand why I was taken of the list of the presscontacts. I
>>have always defended wikimedia in radiointerviews and done quite a
>>good
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>job with it, no one in the Dutch community can deny that. I stayed up
>>late for those things I never did say anything wrong and this is how
>>you are treated like you are a piece of garbage.
>>
>>Waerth/Walter
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
>>------------------------------------
>>Disclaimer under IRS Circular 230: Unless expressly stated otherwise
>>in
>>
>>
>this transmission, nothing contained in this message is intended or
>written to be used, nor may it be relied upon or used, (1) by any
>taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on
>the taxpayer under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and/or
>(2) by any person to support the promotion or marketing of or to
>recommend any Federal tax transaction(s) or matter(s) addressed in this

>message.
>
>
>>If you desire a formal opinion on a particular tax matter for the
>>
>>
>purpose of avoiding the imposition of any penalties, we will discuss
>the additional Treasury requirements that must be met and whether it is

>possible to meet those requirements under the circumstances, as well as

>the anticipated time and additional fees involved.
>
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>-
>>------------------------------------
>>Confidentiality Disclaimer: This e-mail message and any attachments
>>are
>>
>>
>private communication sent by a law firm, Fowler White Boggs Banker
>P.A., and may contain confidential, legally privileged information
>meant solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
>distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>Please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, then
>delete the e-mail and any attachments from your system. Thank you.
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


subject: [Foundation-l] Contact in Thailand