subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request

body:
G'day Jerry,

> Thank you for taking the time to look at the situation.
>
> Is there anyway to restore my userpage long enough to remove offending
> remarks?

I'd advise you simply start from scratch.  However, if you'd *really*
much rather have your userpage back, let me know and I'll undelete it
... on the proviso that anything inappropriate is removed.  And please
remember that my view of what's "inappropriate" will differ markedly
from yours.

Cheers,

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006


list: commons-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [Commons-l] Models, toys, and other objects can be copyrighted

body:
On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action
> figures are copyright infringement?

Not to my knowledge.

-Matt


body:
On 5/21/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> The situation is complicated by our assertion that the image is free
> content, allowing you to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Of course
> it's always possible to effectively turn a free content picture into a
> copyright infringement through modification. I really don't have a
> clue where to draw the line at the moment.

Given the way the law works right now, I don't think we can ever 100%
guarantee that an image is not legally restricted from certain uses.

-Matt


list: wikien-l

from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/21/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Wheel war" is not an epithet, it is a description of an activity.
> > When you undo an admins actions without first discussing it with him,
> > or getting broad consensus for doing so, you are wheel warring.  That,
> > in fact, is what happened here.  And since *everyone* is agreed that
> > Saladin1970 deserved *at least* a 1 week block, any discussion
> > regarding the appropriateness of an indefinite block could have taken
> > place during that week.  There was no pressing need to immediately
> > undo the block and impose a different one.  Wheel warring is bad.
> >
> > Jay.
>
> He pretty much had consensus here on the list though. There were what,
> three of four admins that thought that an indefinite block was way
> over the top.

Were there? I didn't see that.  I saw quite a few who thought an
indefinite block was quite reasonable.

> And he didn't do anything totally unreasonable,

Yes he did, he reverted another admin's actions.

> it's
> still a one week block, plenty of time for you to explain your reasons
> to the rest of us.

No, plenty of time for him to try to get consensus for reducing the
block.  I haven't seen that consensus yet.

> Can we please stop screaming "Wheel warrior!" to anyone who does
> anything slightly resembling a wheel war, but is in actuality, pretty
> reasonable.

No-one screamed, but calling it wheel-warring (which is what it is)
highlights how inappropriate it is.  I want people to think 3 and 4
and 5 times before undoing another admin's action.  And then think it
over another 5 times.  And then get consensus.

Jay.


from_name: Alphax (Wikipedia email)

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits

body:
Philip Welch wrote:
> On May 20, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I just look through [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]] and find no mention of a
>> connection with the 9/11 incident.
>
> "Hamza has publicly expressed support for al-Qaeda [and] Osama bin
> Laden."
>
> Again, I'm not claiming he was connected to 9/11, only that he
> supports that kind of violence. Consider:
>
> "John Doe has publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge [and]
> Pol Pot."
>
> If anyone came on this listserv publicly identifying with such a John
> Doe, I'd want to run him out for the same reason.
>

It's not his fault for having a common name...

--
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: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060521/c57d2150/attachment.pgp


list: foundation-l

from_name: Walter van Kalken

subject: [Foundation-l] Thai project status

body:
After talking today I realized that the info talked about is very
sensitive, but I need to talk with some people very soon. Is it possible
to create a temporary closed readership list to discuss some things? On
which the readership would be: The board, 1 or 2 of our lawyers,
Delphine, Oscar, 2 members of the special projects committee (the 2
considered to be the wisest, most culturally open people?) and last but
not least Danny.

Like I said the issues that came up are very sensitive. Basically
everything they proposed is doable I think and could be discussed in a
very open way. It is just one issue that needs to be talked about
pivately before we can go on the path to the rest of the ideas.

Waerth/Walter


list: wikimedia-l

subject: [Foundation-l] Thai project status


from_name: Michelle

subject: [WikiEN-l] Blocking opponent in disputes

body:
Raphael Wegmann wrote:

>
>May I ask you what reason you'd have stated for your block?
>I'd like to state beforehand, that "Image removal" is not part
>of the Blocking policy, and ignoring content suggestions
>(resp. orders) from administrators (or block warnings for
>not to obeying to them) is neither.
>
>
>
Since you've apparently read the Blocking policy, you did see the part
about disruption, right?
I'm fairly certain you're now just going to argue that you weren't being
disruptive.

And for the record, you were ignoring an overwhelming consensus rarely
seen on any subject (see the poll on the issue you conveniently forget
about), not a few suggestions.

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
Humus Sapiens wrote:
[fixed top posting]
> On 5/20/06, Justin Cormack <justin at specialbusservice.com> wrote:
>> On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote:
>>
>> Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza?
>>
>
> Let's respect everyone's privacy please.
> I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum.
>
>

It's a relevant question. If I were to post under the name "Richard
Stallman", you'd want to know if it were really *the* Richard Stallman
or not, wouldn't you?

--
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: 564 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060521/d9f184b2/attachment.pgp


list: wikitech-l

from_name: Platonides

subject: [Wikitech-l] [Foundation-l] correcting a big usability problem

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote
 >
> Personally I've never found the double-click option at all intuitive
> or useful. I've only ever invoked it by accident. If there was a way
> of adding an entry to the right click menu, that would be better.
>
> Steve

You'd need the collaboration of the browser. It'd be easy if done as a
firefox extension, but can't provide it only with the page. Moreover you may
javascript it and show a custom menu, but'd lose your normal right-button
menu.


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

body:
On 5/21/06, Daniel Kinzler <daniel at brightbyte.de> wrote:
> > I still don't see why a car or an I-pod is any less copyrightable than
> > an action figure.  A generic computer, perhaps, because its look is
> > purely functional.  But even then, I'm sure the design of the I-mac is
> > copyrighted - a lot of creative work went into making the I-mac *look
> > good*.
>
> The reason is the concept of "character copyright". Google for it. On a
> first glance, I found this to be interesting:
> http://www.ivanhoffman.com/jointauthors.html (about half way down).
>
> Regards
> -- Daniel
>
Yes, characters are copyrighted.  But that doesn't say that a car or
an I-pod isn't.  In the case of cars:

"Copyright law is an additional, but less commonly used, legal
protection for automobile designs. The application of copyright law is
via a specific category of sculptural works, recognized as being
protected in their three-dimensional form. Copyright protection arises
when (1) a specific feature of the design is original - that is,
possessing more than a mere quantum of creativity in its design, and
(2) that specific feature exists separate and apart from the feature's
functional aspect."
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/current.php?artType=view&artMonth=June&artYear=2005&EntryNo=2974

The same would be true of the Ipod - functional aspects of the design
would not be copyrightable, but creative asaesthetic aspects of the
design would (though I doubt I can find a link specifically describing
this in terms of the Ipod).

Anthony


subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection policy

body:
On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> maru dubshinki wrote:
> > I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the
> > Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries
> > to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how
> > everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord
> > knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second
> > level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for
> > temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more
> > permanent ones?
>
> I would support something like that, or better yet, perhaps having the
> default for semi-protection be that the 'edit this page' tab is still
> there and active, but when you click it and you can't edit, you get a
> nice explanation there that yes, anyone can edit, but that for this
> particular page, you can't edit it at this moment.  In this way, we only
> bother telling people who are interested in editing, without having a
> strange message for people who only want to read.
>
The only thing I'd be concerned about is making sure that this is
implemented in a way which still allows for easy access to the wiki
source (without going through Special:Export).  Just an implementation
issue, but IMO an important one.

Anthony


from_name: Dan Rosenthal

subject: [WikiEN-l] 911

body:
I'm sorry Prasad, I never said I identify with SPC. England: In fact, I
condemn her actions as strongly as possible. I do think it is shameful for
users to refer to US soldiers with disrespect: I also feel it's shameful for
people to refer to ANY soldiers with disrespect. I believe the Bushido code,
the Way of the Warrior is alive and well amongst soldiers. As for your side
note, you're entitled to your beliefs.

-Dan/Swatjester

On 5/21/06, Prasad J <prasad59 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You find the username Abu Hamza offensive, tomorrow if someone adopts
> the pseudonym Lynddie England, then what will your reaction be? Just
> like some Muslims support Hamza, there are Americans (I have met these
> people on the internet) who condone what England did to POWs in Abu
> Ghraib. If a situation arises where a user identifies with a sadist
> like Lyndie, will the Community react in such a strong manner.
> Especially you Mr. Rosenthal-I have noticed that you have implied on a
> certain occassion that it was "freakin shameful"  for users to refer
> to U.S soldiers with disrespect. On a side-note let me make it clear
> to you that I do NOT respect American soldiers and personally think of
> them as a band of glorified mercenaries and you do not have any
> authority whatsoever to refer to my opinion as "shamegul". Perhaps you
> are accustomed to violating the human-rights of Iraqi POWs, but you
> cannot do the same to me especially since I am not a U.S citizen and
> hence owe no loyalty to the American military.
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
>
> > On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > I refer to
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> > > clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other
> > > support such as a wall.
> > >
> > Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and
> > so it's a work for hire.
>
> We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP.

No, we shouldn't, but we also should assume good faith.

> In any case, the license
> used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is the creator, and to
> my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the subject, then
> the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
>
I'd say the template should be changed, then.  I was going to say it
should be changed to "I, the copyright holder...", but if it's public
domain then the person no longer is a copyright holder.  If you've got
a suggestion how to better phrase the template so that it encompasses
the situation of a work made for hire, let us know.

> > Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
>
> There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is that I can't.
>
I just checked, and he does have his email turned on.  But maybe
you're banned from that too.  Anyway, is the second reason that you
don't really care, and are just trying to make trouble?

I now understand the accusation Jimbo was trying to make when he
pointed out that I was taking a similar position to you on another
issue.  Not that it was any more than a petty jab, but at least it now
makes sense.

Anthony


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Ronald Chmara

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
On May 21, 2006, at 5:37 AM, Giuseppe DAngelo wrote:
> It has been obvious to me for a long time that this sort of thing is
> quite prevalent.  On the one hand it sort of makes a mockery of the
> open and free principles espoused by wikipedia.  But then again, it
> seem an inevitable development, afterall, we all know it can't be an
> out and out free for all.
>   So I accept that there is a place for it, but occasionally I get the
> feeling there is a cosy little club operating, to which not even
> 20,000 edits will open a door.
>   Furthermore, those born prior to 1976 need not apply - open and free
> indeed!
>   pippu d'angelo

<http://www.bartleby.com/73/1828.html>
:-)

Seriously though, 5,50, or even 500 people may create a publicly
unknown mailing list, IRC channel, whatever, but in the end, they lack
the ability to effectively have more "control" over wikipedia, as a
group, than 5,50,or 500 independent people who have *no* participation
in private mailing lists, or chats, or whatever. In order for a group
to gain that level of control, they would have to have a consensus of
the community, in which case, where they discuss things, and how they
discuss things, is irrelevant.

-Bop
--
4245 NE Alberta Ct.
Portland, OR 97218
503-282-1370


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
"Steve Bennett" wrote:
> Anyone written an MS word/javascript macro to convert to/from MS word
> format? I was just thinking it might be kind of cool to be able to pop
> the code of the page out into word, where ==Level 2== would be
> converted into the Heading 2 format and so forth. It might even be
> able to embed images within the article.
>
> Then, when you were finished editing, it could convert it all back again.
>
> Stupid idea? :)
>
> Steve

Well, not really stupid, as we had people trying to upload Word documents
but complicated.
Word is a propietary format. Data is quite binary and there's no public
specification. The format has more-or-less been reversed so prograsm as
OpenOffice or AbiWord can work with it, but there're still issues, specially
the embedded objects (images, equations...).

Maybe it could be done with RTF.
Easier of course with OpenDocument
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/wiki2xml/w2x.php ;)
BTW Magnus, your page says it's able to export to PDF but there's not such
option in the tool. I think you used the XML export to then PDF it but i
found no references about how to do it. Maybe you should explain it at the
page.


from_name: Andre Engels

body:
2006/5/21, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher at gmail.com>:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Car_company_logos
>
> Some problems are so big it's hard to know where to start... sigh.
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:IPods
>
> I freely admit that my knowledge of copyright is lacking. It can apply
> to 3D objects like toys, models? machinery like i-pods? cars, why not?
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ford_fiesta_mk5.jpg

I have in the Netherlands a judgement that yes, they (in that case, a
car model) are copyrighted, however publishing the photographs was
still allowed because the copyright owner could provide no argument
that this publication was harmful to him.

--
Andre Engels, andreengels at gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/21/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, not really stupid, as we had people trying to upload Word documents
> but complicated.
> Word is a propietary format. Data is quite binary and there's no public
> specification. The format has more-or-less been reversed so prograsm as
> OpenOffice or AbiWord can work with it, but there're still issues, specially
> the embedded objects (images, equations...).

Oh, I wasn't thinking of trying to actually read Word documents, but
simply using Word's macro language to generate Word content on the
fly. So, you'd be in Wikipedia, and using Mozex or similar, extract
the current page markup, and magically turn it into something that
could be pasted into Word. After editing, a different macro would do
the reverse - turn the Word content (disregarding anything not
supported by MediaWiki) back into Wiki markup.

The major issue would obviously be achieving idempotency:
towiki(toword(X)) = X. Otherwise, every time you went through the
process, all the text on the page would risk being changed, causing
spurious diffs etc...

Steve


from_name: Fastfission

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us. In a situation like this,
I think we can, for once, assume good faith in terms of copyright --
that the person who is providing the picture of themselves has the
ability to make some claims as to its copyrightable status. I see no
reason to doubt it in this instance, or in most instances where users
are using pictures of themselves.

FF

On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks,
> and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the
> photograph states that he is the creator.
>
> I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support
> such as a wall.
>
> In contrast, another photograph of the same user released under an identical
> license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT2085.JPG) is clearly taken
> by the subject by holding the camera at arm's length.
>
> While I applaud the photographer for his long record of contributions to WP,
> I must wonder about the ethics of claiming the work of another as his own,
> even if he is the subject of a photograph taken on his own camera.
>
> I suspect that a great many photographs of editors on WP would fall into the
> same category.
>
> In fact I raise the point because the photograph on my user page was removed
> under the same circumstances and if something is good for the goose, it
> should be equally as good for the gander(s).
>
> Pete, keen photographer
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
>
I don't know, and frankly I don't care.  You seem to care, but yet you
don't want to ask the only person who knows.

> As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough
> that it needs clarifying.
>
I agree that it'd be useful to clarify it, but I can't think of a
better phrasing.

> > > > Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
> > >
> > > There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
> > that I can't.
> > >
> > I just checked, and he does have his email turned on.  But
> > maybe you're banned from that too.  Anyway, is the second
> > reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to
> > make trouble?
>
> No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were
> saying about AGF?
>
He's an admin, you're a banned user.  AGF applies differently to each
situation :).  Seriously, though, if you "wonder about how people
[handle] uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the
creator", just ask.  I'd say they should be handled like any other
photo.

Anyway, if you can't get a straight answer, I'm sorry.  But any
comment by any of the rest of us would be a guess.

Personally I really don't care who took the photo, as long as it stays
out of the article namespace (which I expect).

> The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's
> page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where
> they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks
> like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is
> setting a good example.
>
> Peter

There doesn't seem to be a tag for an image which was released into
the public domain by a non-Wikipedian (such as a spouse or friend).
That would probably be a good addition to the current tags.

Anthony


from_name: Brianna Laugher

body:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Car_company_logos

Some problems are so big it's hard to know where to start... sigh.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:IPods

I freely admit that my knowledge of copyright is lacking. It can apply
to 3D objects like toys, models? machinery like i-pods? cars, why not?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ford_fiesta_mk5.jpg

Brianna

On 21/05/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like we've seen a bit of a silent creep of photos of objects
> representing copyrighted cartoon or movie characters. Photographing an
> _object_ of something which is copyrighted does not magically remove
> it from being so. As a start, I've nominated several Star Wars
> pictures for deletion:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Deletion_requests#Various_Star_Wars_pictures
>
> I've also updated Commons:Licensing:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Licensing&diff=1965530&oldid=1953402
>
> Please help to clean up photos of copyrighted characters on Commons.
>
> Thanks,
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


body:
On 5/21/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > The same would be true of the Ipod - functional aspects of the design
> > would not be copyrightable, but creative asaesthetic aspects of the
> > design would (though I doubt I can find a link specifically describing
> > this in terms of the Ipod).
>
> In practice, there is no case law (in the US, at least) suggesting
> that photographs of such objects are considered copyright
> infringement.
>
> Thus, Commons should not consider this an issue.
>
Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action
figures are copyright infringement?

Anthony


from_name: Plyd

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

references:
<f1c3529e0605210245k1aa0dceaqdeba8f845bdba62e@mail.gmail.com>
	<e4psop$ke6$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<f1c3529e0605210754q1034c337jef0c13ab00a4f4ad@mail.gmail.com>

body:
maybe this could be solved by the implementation of a wysiwyg editor.
For example, tinyMCE automatically translates copy/pastes from Word into html.

Plyd

On 5/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, not really stupid, as we had people trying to upload Word documents
> > but complicated.
> > Word is a propietary format. Data is quite binary and there's no public
> > specification. The format has more-or-less been reversed so prograsm as
> > OpenOffice or AbiWord can work with it, but there're still issues, specially
> > the embedded objects (images, equations...).
>
> Oh, I wasn't thinking of trying to actually read Word documents, but
> simply using Word's macro language to generate Word content on the
> fly. So, you'd be in Wikipedia, and using Mozex or similar, extract
> the current page markup, and magically turn it into something that
> could be pasted into Word. After editing, a different macro would do
> the reverse - turn the Word content (disregarding anything not
> supported by MediaWiki) back into Wiki markup.
>
> The major issue would obviously be achieving idempotency:
> towiki(toword(X)) = X. Otherwise, every time you went through the
> process, all the text on the page would risk being changed, causing
> spurious diffs etc...
>
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro

[snip conversation that wasn't going anywhere]

> > He's an admin, you're a banned user.
>
> Well, that's not true. You should check your facts.
>
IHBT.  IHL.  HAND.

> My point is that claiming to be the creator of a photograph
> you didn't take is a bit rich when you are assigning a free license to it.

Depends on the circumstances.

> Claiming fair use seems to be a better way of going about it.

Only if the photo was not released under a free license.

> We use fair use images non-controversially to illustrate biographical articles, why not
> do the same thing for user pages, which are similar in nature?
>
There's a stupid rule saying it's not allowed.

> Pete, wondering if common sense might apply here
>

Anthony


body:
On 5/21/06, William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have never found it hard to edit at the beginning of the section,
> the PageUp key works just fine.

It's not intuitive though - at least, it wasn't to me for a very long
time. Why? Probably because you think in terms of adding something to
the bottom of the section. "Oh, I'll just add a sentence down the end
there" - counterintuitive to scroll back up to the top, to click edit,
to then scroll down again. However, if there was a marker at the end
of the section, there would be an ambiguity - do you want to edit the
section, subsection, subsubsection etc.

> The problem I've had is the edit box sometimes cannot be found, as it is
> in some incongruous place after having been moved by floating images.  As
> the section header can be very short (the edit link away on the right is
> easy to miss), or very long with multiple lines (the edit link can appear
> disassociated with the section heading).

This mostly seems to happen when images are "stacked" rather than
spread out throughout the article. That is:

Image
Image
Image
Text
Text
Text

Rather than:

Image
Text
Image
Text
Image
Text

See [[Marseille]] for a current example. The "culture" section has 5
stacked images, which leads to 6 [edit] links appearing on the same
line.

> An icon with alt text might be nice, but it should be placed at the *left*
> of the section header, where it is quite firmly attached.

That would seem to solve a lot of problems. Particularly if it was
outside the left margin.

> All in all, the current practice is not perfect, but it's hard to come up
> with something universally better....

We don't need anything universal. It'd be good to have some more
advanced interfaces for editing Wikipedia with, though. Someone must
have come up with something WYSIWYG by now, right?

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us.
> In the case of attributing ownership to creative works?

Nope! Just the legal aspect is enough, thanks. That's enough, without
worrying about ethics. Let the person uploading the photo worry about
the ethics.

> I disagree. When the photographs are obviously NOT taken by the subject, the
> question of copyright becomes non-trivial.

Sorry, it's pretty trivial in this case. If the picture in question
was being used to make big bucks somewhere, or was at least the work
of a professional, sure, it might be worth worrying about. But for
casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user
in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal
intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like
this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to
complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.

If it were an exceptionally "artistic" photograph -- perhaps it would
be worth checking in with the user to make sure they have permission
from the photographer. But if it's just a "here I am, there is a
statue" sort of thing, it seems pretty unnecessary to get up in arms
about it.

FF


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
On 5/21/06, Plyd <wiki.vincent at amplyd.com> wrote:
> maybe this could be solved by the implementation of a wysiwyg editor.
> For example, tinyMCE automatically translates copy/pastes from Word into html.

Sounds excellent, a tiny in place content editor that avoids the need
to even use wiki syntax.

Steve


from_name: Prasad J

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
I agree with Anthony, maybe the person who actually photographed the
concerned user  was in a technical sense "working" for the latter.


from_name: Drini drini

subject: [WikiEN-l] Proposed deletion stakhanovites

body:
On 5/21/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Proposed deletion patroller [[User:Wompa99]] impressively is able to
> review
> proposals and tag them within 20 seconds.
>
> We should be eternally grateful for such productivity.  Our norms will be
> trebly overfulfilled.
>
> Actually, to tell the truth, I'm royally annoyed that [[cultural
> pessimism]], which I started a while ago but interwikis to a solid de-WP
> article, is being given the proposed OR proposed deletion treatment.
> User:Wompa99 has also okayed proposed deletion of [[Derivation of the
> partition function]].
>
> This is pretty nonsensical, someone going down a list in alphabetical
> order.
> Can we have a plie-on to halt the nonsense here, please?
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

I've ran in to the newly created "prod patrol" before.

first for deleting an article 3 hours before the 5th day
They say policy states a prod must have a 360 hours grace period, so you
CANNOT delete a prodded article on the 5th day, but you must wait until the
6th, just so be sure that all articles (specially those tagged late night)
get 360 hours.

it annoyed me more so since they agreed the article was crap, and should
have been deleted, they were complaining I didn't wait a few hours more.

they also posted on WP:AN that *gasp* the prod count of some day was off by
ONE!! somebody messed up with the proposed deletion process! alert all
admins!

I guess since I'm not putting the "prod patrol" userbox on my page, I'm no
longer qualified to deal with prods.


from_name: Brion Vibber

subject: [Wikitech-l] [MediaWiki-CVS] SVN:  [14333] trunk/phase3

body:
brion at svn.leuksman.com wrote:
> Revert part of r14280 which broke history paging on 32-bit systems.
[snip]
> -		list( $limit, $offset ) = wfCheckLimits( $this->defaultLimit );
> +		$limit = $wgRequest->getInt('limit', $this->defaultLimit);
> +		$offset = $wgRequest->getText('offset');

For reference, the problem here is that the history page now uses timestamps for
the offset parameter by default, making for more efficient paging through very
long histories (and enabling to jump to an arbitrary point in history).

wfCheckLimits() forces the values to integers, but the 14-digit timestamp format
we use is too big to fit in a 32-bit signed integer. As a result, history paging
was broken on 32-bit machines.

We still have a couple dozen Pentium IV machines in service, but the majority
now are 64-bit Opteron boxen, where PHP's default integer type ends up being big
enough to accept the larger numbers transparently; so this problem was only
intermittent for the last few days and we didn't hear about it until today.

The moral of the story is: don't forget to test history paging when you change
the code that does history paging.

And if you've got a 64-bit box? Don't forget to test 32-bit too. :D

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

-------------- 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/wikitech-l/attachments/20060521/4771e3d7/attachment.pgp>


from_name: Peter Ansell

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
On 5/21/06, Tony Sidaway <f.crdfa at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not really.  For some reason fair use deletion are pretty
> controversial and I doubt very much whether we'd delete many of them
> if we relied on straw polls.  So we have a speedy for them because,
> basically, there are a lot of people on Wikipedia who are willing to
> pack a straw poll but not willing to do the thinking necessary to make
> a reasonable decision.

I may be naive, but I think it is going over the top to generalise
straw polls as unreasonable just because they come up with different
decisions to what you expect.

> Absolutely.  What we *mustn't* do is delete good articles.  Crappy
> articles we can live without and we should be happily deleting them.

Is that crappy in how they look, or in their encyclopedic value.

Peter


body:
On 5/21/06, Drini drini <wpdrini at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On 5/21/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > Proposed deletion patroller [[User:Wompa99]] impressively is able to
> > review
> > proposals and tag them within 20 seconds.
> >
> > We should be eternally grateful for such productivity.  Our norms will
> > be
> > trebly overfulfilled.
> >
> > Actually, to tell the truth, I'm royally annoyed that [[cultural
> > pessimism]], which I started a while ago but interwikis to a solid de-WP
> >
> > article, is being given the proposed OR proposed deletion treatment.
> > User:Wompa99 has also okayed proposed deletion of [[Derivation of the
> > partition function]].
> >
> > This is pretty nonsensical, someone going down a list in alphabetical
> > order.
> > Can we have a plie-on to halt the nonsense here, please?
> >
> > Charles
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
>  I've ran in to the newly created "prod patrol" before.
>
> first for deleting an article 3 hours before the 5th day
> They say policy states a prod must have a 360 hours grace period, so you
> CANNOT delete a prodded article on the 5th day, but you must wait until the
> 6th, just so be sure that all articles (specially those tagged late night)
> get 360 hours.
>
> it annoyed me more so since they agreed the article was crap, and should
> have been deleted, they were complaining I didn't wait a few hours more.
>
> they also posted on WP:AN that *gasp* the prod count of some day was off
> by ONE!! somebody messed up with the proposed deletion process! alert all
> admins!
>
> I guess since I'm not putting the "prod patrol" userbox on my page, I'm no
> longer qualified to deal with prods.
>

 ??What's going on at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling]]
??

* [[User:Wompa99]] is an account 3 days old
* [[User:Geo.plrd]] has less than 10 edits
* [[User:Matwat22]] was inactive after a dozen edits past year and
suddenly came to life 4 days ago.
* [[User:DarthVader]] an account that seems to exist for AFd and the like
discussing...
* [[User:General Eisenhower]] no further comments...

and those are the guys certifying and taking care no one messes with
the proposed deletion process?


body:
On 5/21/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action
> > figures are copyright infringement?
>
> That's a valid question. One could argue that photographing a doll
> removes the expression from commercial relevance to the copyright
> holder. If that is true, then I would suspect photos of dolls (not 3D
> models) work particularly well for cartoon characters, while artist's
> impressions are better for human actors. Is there such a thing as
> "clearly derivative, but not infringing"?
>
Actually, this brings up a common misnomer about US copyright law,
which is probably in part spread because of the strange terms of the
GPL.  Whether or not something is a "derivative" is irrelevant to the
particular situation.  Copyright law protects *preparation* of a
derivative work and *copying* of a copyrighted work, it doesn't
*directly* protect copying of a derivative work.  Copying of a
derivative work is infringement only because (or maybe I should say to
the extent) it involves copying of the original work (see Mirage
Editions v. Albuquerque A.R.T. and Galoob v. Nintendo).

> The situation is complicated by our assertion that the image is free
> content, allowing you to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Of course
> it's always possible to effectively turn a free content picture into a
> copyright infringement through modification. I really don't have a
> clue where to draw the line at the moment.
>
> We live in a copyrighted world. It gets quite nauseating sometimes.
>
> Erik

The combination of copyright, international law, and free content is a
very tricky one.  This is one of the things I hope can be hashed out
to some extent during the Free Content Definition procedure.


from_name: Will "Sceptre" Noble

subject: [WikiEN-l] blocked for a week for these edits...

body:
On 5/21/06, Harish Ganesan <kamehameha87 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Well I'm not surprised some guy has been blocked for a
> week for what seems to be no reason, it happened to me
> too. That's what happens when admins team up and don't
> agree with your legitimate posts, and want to mess you
> over to save their own povs and bias, and keep
> wikipedia full of bias.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

No, it's what happens when you call the administration retarded. I'll use
big text for this, ok?

You Broke the 3RR rule. You then started to attack admins. BLOCK JUSTIFIED.

Understand?

--
-Sceptre
http://tintower.co.uk


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

references:
<85h$2lPYBOcEFwPy@cartref.demon.co.uk>
	<069f01c67d22$3a1802d0$6400a8c0@Tiny>
	<b8ceeef70605211511r3b983969id41c66bffb76c3e2@mail.gmail.com>

body:
On 5/21/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> This whole conversation is getting a bit silly. But I don't agree with your
> statement that releasing a copyrighted image into PD (insofar as that's
> actually possible) is necessarily morally wrong. Would my mother care if I
> published her photo of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it?

I think the more important question is whether or not she'd care if
*someone else* did [whatever] with the photo.  If there's a moral
problem with marking something as PD which isn't, it's that someone
else might use the image and then get in trouble with the actual
copyright holder.

I think it'd be much better to tag the image with truthful information.

IOW, *if* the uploader of that picture was never the copyright holder
of that image and *if* he didn't at least get permission from the
copyright holder to release the image into the public domain, then I
think he added the tag inappropriately.  But as he did in fact tag the
image as public domain, I'm going to assume in good faith that he has
some reason to believe the image is indeed public domain.

Anthony


body:
On 5/21/06, charles matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> Proposed deletion patroller [[User:Wompa99]] impressively is able to
> review
> proposals and tag them within 20 seconds.
>
> We should be eternally grateful for such productivity.  Our norms will be
> trebly overfulfilled.
>
> Actually, to tell the truth, I'm royally annoyed that [[cultural
> pessimism]], which I started a while ago but interwikis to a solid de-WP
> article, is being given the proposed OR proposed deletion treatment.
> User:Wompa99 has also okayed proposed deletion of [[Derivation of the
> partition function]].
>
> This is pretty nonsensical, someone going down a list in alphabetical
> order.
> Can we have a plie-on to halt the nonsense here, please?
>
> Charles
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

 I've ran in to the newly created "prod patrol" before.

first for deleting an article 3 hours before the 5th day
They say policy states a prod must have a 360 hours grace period, so you
CANNOT delete a prodded article on the 5th day, but you must wait until the
6th, just so be sure that all articles (specially those tagged late night)
get 360 hours.

it annoyed me more so since they agreed the article was crap, and should
have been deleted, they were complaining I didn't wait a few hours more.

they also posted on WP:AN that *gasp* the prod count of some day was off by
ONE!! somebody messed up with the proposed deletion process! alert all
admins!

I guess since I'm not putting the "prod patrol" userbox on my page, I'm no
longer qualified to deal with prods.


from_name: Daniel Kinzler

body:
> I still don't see why a car or an I-pod is any less copyrightable than
> an action figure.  A generic computer, perhaps, because its look is
> purely functional.  But even then, I'm sure the design of the I-mac is
> copyrighted - a lot of creative work went into making the I-mac *look
> good*.

The reason is the concept of "character copyright". Google for it. On a
first glance, I found this to be interesting:
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/jointauthors.html (about half way down).

Regards
-- Daniel

--
Homepage: http://brightbyte.de


body:
Drini drini wrote:

>* [[User:Wompa99]] is an account 3 days old
>* [[User:Geo.plrd]] has less than 10 edits
>* [[User:Matwat22]] was inactive after a dozen edits past year and
>suddenly came to life 4 days ago.
>* [[User:DarthVader]] an account that seems to exist for AFd and the like
>discussing...
>* [[User:General Eisenhower]] no further comments...
>
>
>

Most of those accounts are involved in the "anti-censorship" or "free
speech" movements.

Jareth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jareth)


from_name: Timwi

subject: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index missing?

body:
Hi,

it appears that [[Special:Contributions/Timwi]] loads relatively
quickly. However, if you choose a namespace in which I have very little
contributions (e.g. Image talk, Category talk), it takes ages to appear.
This leads me to believe that a relevant index is missing on the DB table?

Timwi


subject:
[Wikitech-l] Is this a bug (strikethrough doesn't carry onto
	lists)

body:
Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 09:16:46PM +0300, Rotem Liss wrote:
>
>>As far as I understand, a block element (<ul>) cannot be included in an
>>inline element (<s>).
>
> You can always redefine block elements as inline elements, and vice
> versa, though.  Of course, I'm not entirely sure that's relevant to this
> discussion.

No, you can't. You can use CSS to make <s> appear as a block element, or
<ul> as an inline element, but that doesn't make <ul> allowed inside <s>.

Timwi


from_name: Mark Gallagher

subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
G'day Steve,

> On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to
>>    disagree?".  Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going
>>    through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another
>>    admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
>
> You know about {{hangon}} ?

Why?  Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it
into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the
{{delete}} tag.  No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because
*the article is not a speedy candidate*.

> b) I remove the tag, and cop (at best) a polite query or (at worst)
>
>>    unfettered abuse as a result.  "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove
>>    it?"  It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
>>    an admin would dare to disregard their recommendations.  I suspect
>>    the only way to make them happy would be to either give them delete
>>    buttons themselves, or write a bot that automatically deletes any
>>    article that finds its way into the CSD category.
>
> AfD it for them? Third opinion and all that...

To Hell with that.  I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if
they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it,
> but I think you misunderstand my point.

I'm not saying that at all. Whether or not something actually breaks
the law in copyright issues is never clear cut. What I'm saying we do
is go with the good-faith assumption that in these cases the users
have the ability to set the license of the photo, and are willing to
take the legal flack if it turns out they gave us false information
about it. I'm also saying that the risk of this being a problem is so
low as to be basically nonexistant.

> I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is
> the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with *zero*
> risk of being sued?

There is no way to have zero risk of being sued. But I think in cases
like this, the chances of being sued are so low as to not warrant a
separate policy.

If we have real concerns about individual pictures being mis-licensed,
we can contact the user who uploaded it as usual. When it is clearly a
picture which originates from the user his- or herself, and is not
something which appears to be high-risk (I consider a snapshot of a
non-famous person in a not-interesting context to be pretty low risk),
and there is no way to know whether or not the user "truly" has the
legalities of it spelled out in hard ink, I say we assume that it is
unlikely to be a problem. Certainly not something worth splitting
legal hairs over, in my opinion.

> Jimbo seems to have gone about it by obeying the rules. Perhaps we should
> emulate his example?

Sure, emulate him, go ahead, it can't hurt. But we don't need a new
policy about it.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

references:
<b8ceeef70605211511r3b983969id41c66bffb76c3e2@mail.gmail.com>
	<b8ceeef70605211511r3b983969id41c66bffb76c3e2-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
	<06a001c67d24$f193d590$6400a8c0@Tiny>
	<PtQzjxZdXPcEFwZI@cartref.demon.co.uk>

body:
On 5/21/06, Arwel Parry <arwel at cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option which states
> something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not
> reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that this
> is intended only to be used in the case of private images which have not
> been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a sinkhole for all
> the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from elsewhere).

I think that's a bad idea. People will start labeling everything that
they can't find the author on as "technically copyrighted".

When a user labels something as their own creation and that they have
licensed it under X-and-Y license, and we have no real reason to
really suspect otherwise (and no, I don't think "but they didn't
necessarily take the picture of themself" is enough to really suspect
otherwise), then I think the risk is legally theirs. I'm also
reasonably sure it falls under the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA,
as I understand them.

FF


from_name: jayjg

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
On 5/21/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> well jaygy, i haven't seen anything from you , to justify a ban at all.
> If i recall you stated i was to be banned indefinately because
>
> a) copy right violations.
> You have still as yet to produce any evidence for this. If you can't that
> means you deliberately lied in order to justify blocking me

For the 3rd time, you copied large sections of text verbatim 3 times
from the zionism-realenemyofthejews.com into the Alan Hart article.
Here are the links where you did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&oldid=30102511
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid=53345764
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid=53825560

I also listed in previous e-mails your attacks on Talk: pages etc.  Do
you plan to claim for a 4th time that I have produced no evidence of
your copyright violations?   Do you plan to yet again claim it was
your "friends" who were reverting for you from your home and
workplace?  Do you plan to again claim that the fact that the real Abu
Hamza claims Harold Shipman is a Jew, and you keep inserting that
claim into the article on Harold Shipman, has nothing to do with your
chosen name "Abu Hamza"?

Your continued denials of behavior that has already been documented
show quite well why your indefinite ban is justified.

Jay.


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime
> as stealing a million.
>
> Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different
> question.
>
> Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if
> nobody gives a rat's bum.

Assuming that 1. we all agree that something like claiming that you
have IP ownership over a snapshot of yourself, even if it is not
legally clear cut, is "morally wrong" and 2. that Wikipedia image
policy should be directed around "moral" concerns (I think that's a
barn door of problems that we really don't need to open), the "moral"
problem here lies in the person who took the picture and is claiming
they have the ability to license it.

FF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Speedy deletions

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>>>a) an admin unthinkingly deletes it, "it's tagged; who am I to
>>>>   disagree?".  Sometimes I've seen a salvageable article while going
>>>>   through the CSD category and been busy rewriting it when another
>>>>   admin thoughtlessly deletes it; that *really* irritates me.
>>>
>>>You know about {{hangon}} ?
>>
>>Why?  Article X is clearly not a speedy delete, and while I'm making it
>>into a good stub (as opposed to a merely decent one) I remove the
>>{{delete}} tag.  No admin should be speedying in the meantime, because
>>*the article is not a speedy candidate*.
>
> Ok, but at this point, you're saying that two separate people think the
> article is speedyable - the person who put the tag, and another admin who
> deleted it even without the tag. And from a pragmatic point of view, you had
> to edit and save the article to rm the {{delete}} tag, and you had to
> edit/save to add the new text - you wouldn't be losing a lot using
> {{hangon}}. But it's your call.

Umm ... I'm talking about admins who don't think about it, but just say
"it's tagged speedy, not my place to not delete it."

>>>>   unfettered abuse as a result.  "It's tagged; who are YOU to remove
>>>>   it?"  It seems to be a grave insult to the CVUers and their ilk that
>
> To Hell with that.  I don't AfD articles unless I want them deleted; if
>>they want them on AfD, they can do the leg work themselves.
>
> I can see how "to hell with that" might be taken as a "grave insult", yes.

When you're quite finished tying others' words in knots, let's review ...

a) User A is RC patrolling.  He sees a stub about a school, and tags it
   {{db|Just advertising for an external link}}
b) Mark comes across the article while checking the CSD category.  He
    says "that's not a speedy, and what's more, I think I could improve
    it a little ..."

Now, we have three alternative resolutions:

c0) The article is improved by Mark.  User A appears on Mark's talkpage
     and says "whoops, sorry, that was never a speedy, I'll be more
     careful".  And Alyson Hannigan appears, too, and says "what a good
     decision, oh, you're so sexy."  This is the Preferred Resolution.

c1) Admin C comes along and speedies it.  This is *not* the Preferred
     Resolution, but in at least one case it has led to a discussion on
     IRC, and I believe the admin involved now has obtained a bit of a
     Clue as to when to speedy and when not.  This is probably a Good
     Thing.

c2) User A appears on Mark's talkpage saying "if you don't think an
     article should be speedied, it is NOT APPROPRIATE for you to remove
     the tag.  Only admins can do that, you idiot!  What do you think
     you're playing at?"

At what point did Mark insult anyone?

Now, given that every time I clean up CAT:CSD, I run across roughly half
a dozen improperly-tagged articles (and, no, I don't put them to AfD),
yet I only get a complaint once every two or three attempts (and abusive
complaints are rarer), I guess we can say "c2" is not the norm,
fortunately.  *Un*fortunately, neither is c0.  Wither art thou, Ms
Hannigan? :-(

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006


from_name: Peter Mackay

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks,
and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the
photograph states that he is the creator.

I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support
such as a wall.

In contrast, another photograph of the same user released under an identical
license (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT2085.JPG) is clearly taken
by the subject by holding the camera at arm's length.

While I applaud the photographer for his long record of contributions to WP,
I must wonder about the ethics of claiming the work of another as his own,
even if he is the subject of a photograph taken on his own camera.

I suspect that a great many photographs of editors on WP would fall into the
same category.

In fact I raise the point because the photograph on my user page was removed
under the same circumstances and if something is good for the goose, it
should be equally as good for the gander(s).

Pete, keen photographer


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
G'day Pete,

> I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions against personal attacks,
> and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the
> photograph states that he is the creator.
>
> I refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod or other support
> such as a wall.

Okay, you have a point, but given your history I find it hard to believe
you found these particular images during harmless "research".  I suspect
your points would be better received if you didn't use Dr Carr to help
illustrate them.

<snip rest/>

--
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006


from_name: abu hamza

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
well jaygy, i haven't seen anything from you , to justify a ban at all.
If i recall you stated i was to be banned indefinately because

a) copy right violations.
You have still as yet to produce any evidence for this. If you can't that
means you deliberately lied in order to justify blocking me

b) attacks on talke pages.
Again you have failed to produce any evidence to justify a permanent block
based on this.

c) no useful edits.
this is highly subjective

d) 3RR games.
24 hour ban, at best

It seems that not only were you prepared to make false charges against me to
have me banned indefinately on my first ever ban. But you are now hassling
the other administrators who have questioned your indefinate ban.

If you cannot give any evidence , based on that which you banned me , you
should swallow your pride, accept the Wikipedia polices and guidelines and
brush aside this clear mistake in your actions.
Wikipedia is not a fiefdom.

Remember that all of this is logged on wikipedia, and it really doesn't come
across good at all.

>From: jayjg <jayjg99 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: Sun, 21 May 2006 15:01:57 -0400
>
>On 5/21/06, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/21/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Wheel war" is not an epithet, it is a description of an activity.
> > > When you undo an admins actions without first discussing it with him,
> > > or getting broad consensus for doing so, you are wheel warring.  That,
> > > in fact, is what happened here.  And since *everyone* is agreed that
> > > Saladin1970 deserved *at least* a 1 week block, any discussion
> > > regarding the appropriateness of an indefinite block could have taken
> > > place during that week.  There was no pressing need to immediately
> > > undo the block and impose a different one.  Wheel warring is bad.
> > >
> > > Jay.
> >
> > He pretty much had consensus here on the list though. There were what,
> > three of four admins that thought that an indefinite block was way
> > over the top.
>
>Were there? I didn't see that.  I saw quite a few who thought an
>indefinite block was quite reasonable.
>
> > And he didn't do anything totally unreasonable,
>
>Yes he did, he reverted another admin's actions.
>
> > it's
> > still a one week block, plenty of time for you to explain your reasons
> > to the rest of us.
>
>No, plenty of time for him to try to get consensus for reducing the
>block.  I haven't seen that consensus yet.
>
>
> > Can we please stop screaming "Wheel warrior!" to anyone who does
> > anything slightly resembling a wheel war, but is in actuality, pretty
> > reasonable.
>
>No-one screamed, but calling it wheel-warring (which is what it is)
>highlights how inappropriate it is.  I want people to think 3 and 4
>and 5 times before undoing another admin's action.  And then think it
>over another 5 times.  And then get consensus.
>
>Jay.
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters


from_name: Oskar Sigvardsson

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/21/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> "Wheel war" is not an epithet, it is a description of an activity.
> When you undo an admins actions without first discussing it with him,
> or getting broad consensus for doing so, you are wheel warring.  That,
> in fact, is what happened here.  And since *everyone* is agreed that
> Saladin1970 deserved *at least* a 1 week block, any discussion
> regarding the appropriateness of an indefinite block could have taken
> place during that week.  There was no pressing need to immediately
> undo the block and impose a different one.  Wheel warring is bad.
>
> Jay.

He pretty much had consensus here on the list though. There were what,
three of four admins that thought that an indefinite block was way
over the top. And he didn't do anything totally unreasonable, it's
still a one week block, plenty of time for you to explain your reasons
to the rest of us.

Why are we even fighting here? We all agree that this guy should be
blocked, the only issue is for how long, and I'm sure that if we stop
using inflammatory terms (wheel war, that is) and just calmed down we
could come to an agreement.

Can we please stop screaming "Wheel warrior!" to anyone who does
anything slightly resembling a wheel war, but is in actuality, pretty
reasonable. You know, "Don't let process stand in the way of common
sense", that kind of a thing. I know Ryan Delaney meant no offence, so
lets not do the hurt-feelings thing.
--Oskar


from_name: Anthony DiPierro

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything along
> those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is
> non-controversial and used with permission.
>
> Peter

[[Image:Leeinvelo1.JPG]], which is also on Jimbo's user page, was
apparently uploaded by the same person who claims to have released it
into the public domain.

Anthony


from_name: Michael Snow

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:

>>From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
>>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
>>
>>Peter Mackay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same
>>>
>>>
>>>crime as stealing a million.
>>>
>>>
>>I would have to say there are precious few ethical systems that make
>>that claim.
>>
>>
>Most criminal codes will identify the crime of theft (or larceny) without
>discrimination as to amount:
> Theft is "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another
>with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Theft_in_English_law
>
>
To define theft as a concept doesn't require any statement as to the
amount or value of the property stolen. Nevertheless, at least in the
United States, most jurisdictions classify theft in different degrees of
seriousness, generally tied to the dollar amount involved. The standard
sentences that accompany these degrees of theft increase along with the
minimum dollar amount, which is effectively an element of the crime.

--Michael Snow


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Nor is having the idea for a particular photograph enough to give you
> copyright over an image taken by somebody else. I don't know about
> "setting
> the settings" - you may have some point here - but on examining this image
> it doesn't seem to have been taken in any particularly challenging
> lighting
> or other conditions. Depth of field, the "flat" lighting of an overcast
> day
> - it all looks to me like the camera was set on automatic and the
> autofocus
> picked out the subject.
>
> It looks to me unremarkable in every way. There must be a million happy
> snaps out there taken in the same location all looking much the same.

If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the whole question of
copyright totally moot? Can you claim copyright over the way you parked your
car? Over the way you filled in a cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on
a given night? Such a bad photo as that one hardly seems to fulfil any
criteria for creativity - the person aimed in roughly the right direction
and pressed a button.

Point and shoot? That's about all that anyone does with a digital camera
> nowadays.

Most people - but not all.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken by someone
> else
> as your own is a legitimate one. It applies to a great many photographs on
> user pages. How I got to this particular is really immaterial, and I
> mentioned research in case someone like you wondered why I chose this user
> as an example.

With respect, it's really not important, and was probably a tag slapped on
in haste, knowing that no one is going to dispute the copyright of that
image, and that no one is ever going to attempt to reuse it for anything.
Our system isn't really geared to handle these types of images - what tag
would *you* have put on it? All I can think of is getting the creator (yes,
that random passerby) to write an email certifying that they release it
under GFDL, and we could *still* dispute whether it was actually them or
not.

We don't really have a way of dealing with images whose copyright value is
so low as to actually be negligible. Copyright is not like other laws - if
it's inconceivable that anyone could actually sue us over it, or even
complain about it, there is not, afaik, any problem with us violating it.

Steve


from_name: BJörn Lindqvist

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
> > Let's respect everyone's privacy please.
> > I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum.
> >
> It's a relevant question. If I were to post under the name "Richard
> Stallman", you'd want to know if it were really *the* Richard Stallman
> or not, wouldn't you?

NO! The right to remain anonymous on Wikipedia is SACRED. Don't mess
with it unless you want someone to reveal who "alphasigmax at gmail.com"
is. If you want to inquire about someones real identity, then email
that person DIRECTLY.

--
mvh Bj?rn


body:
On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, I am liking this idea.  Essentially the idea here it to move the
> notification from the page where you read to the page where you have
> attempted to edit but can't.  In this way, when someone tries to edit,
> they get a friendly explanation of how to join the community.  But if
> they are just trying to read, they don't have to see a notice that is
> probably fairly useless and bewildering to them.

It's even more confusing now that I see there's a phrase about "or to stop
banned editors from editing". Is this such a common situation that it's
worth mentioning? People there to read about GWB really don't need to know
about the effect that a few recidivist prats occasionally have on our
community...

Steve


from_name: charles matthews

body:
Proposed deletion patroller [[User:Wompa99]] impressively is able to review
proposals and tag them within 20 seconds.

We should be eternally grateful for such productivity.  Our norms will be
trebly overfulfilled.

Actually, to tell the truth, I'm royally annoyed that [[cultural
pessimism]], which I started a while ago but interwikis to a solid de-WP
article, is being given the proposed OR proposed deletion treatment.
User:Wompa99 has also okayed proposed deletion of [[Derivation of the
partition function]].

This is pretty nonsensical, someone going down a list in alphabetical order.
Can we have a plie-on to halt the nonsense here, please?

Charles


subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/21/06, BJ?rn Lindqvist <bjourne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's a relevant question. If I were to post under the name "Richard
> > Stallman", you'd want to know if it were really *the* Richard Stallman
> > or not, wouldn't you?
>
> NO! The right to remain anonymous on Wikipedia is SACRED. Don't mess
> with it unless you want someone to reveal who "alphasigmax at gmail.com"
> is. If you want to inquire about someones real identity, then email
> that person DIRECTLY.

You're at cross purposes. Richard Stallman is famous. If someone is posting
as "Richard Stallman", we really do want to know if it's him or not. We
could simply ask him to give us proof that it's really him, but if it's not
- or he declines to say so -  we don't need any further info.

Steve


from_name: Delirium

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
Peter Mackay wrote:
> It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime
> as stealing a million.
>

I would have to say there are precious few ethical systems that make
that claim.

-Mark


from_name: Joanot Martorell

subject: [Foundation-l] Request to launch WikiNews in Catalan.

body:
Hi to everyone.

Since around one year ago in meta was requested a new Catalan version
for WikiNews. Our lingual community of Catalan-speaker wikimedians is
little but enough persistent and active as to maintain several
projects in Wikimedia.

The requested translations to do on templates listed in a prelaunch
page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/New_language_pre-launch ) is all
done. A personalized logo for Catalan WikiNews is also done (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikinews-logo-ca-small.png )
and available to use in the front-end webpage of WikiNews in Catalan.

We would like to see Catalan WikiNews launched already as soon as
possible, please. We also want to change the namespace of "Wikinews"
to "Viquinot?cies". I suppose that some of the request I'm writing
here maybe should to be sent to bugzilla instead to the list, but I'm
writting to the foundation list because in the Wikinews prelaunch page
there's recommending to do it.

Cheers,

Wikimedian user: Joanot Martorell
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Martorell


from_name: Ryan Delaney

subject: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request

body:
On 5/21/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> No, plenty of time for him to try to get consensus for reducing the
> block.  I haven't seen that consensus yet.
>
>
You don't get consensus for reducing community bans or indefinite blocks.
You get consensus for making them.

Ryan


from_name: Ray Saintonge

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

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 5/20/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Riiight... do you have a point in this argument anymore, or are you
>>just doing it for sport?
>>
>>
>I'll summarize my stance in this particular argument in case you can't
>follow:  The statement that "fair use is a defense and not a right" is
>the kind of confusing mumbo jumbo I'd expect to be spouted out by the
>RIAA, not a Wikipedian.  Fair use is a fundamental right which is part
>of the fundamental rights to free speech, free expression, free press,
>etc.  While it is difficult for a person to get an advance court
>ruling guaranteeing her right to fair use in a particular case, it is
>often possible - in fact the recent passage of 17 USC 512(f) as part
>of OCILLA provides a promising new avenue for fighting the chilling
>effects of copyright threat over materials distributed online.
>
The difficulty with that one may be with the word "knowingly"  It will
probably require a pattern of repeated takedown orders over the same
material and with no real effort to respond to a putback order with a
court case.

Ec


from_name: Minh Nguyen

subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 5/21/06, Plyd <wiki.vincent at amplyd.com> wrote:
>> maybe this could be solved by the implementation of a wysiwyg editor.
>> For example, tinyMCE automatically translates copy/pastes from Word into html.
>
> Sounds excellent, a tiny in place content editor that avoids the need
> to even use wiki syntax.
>
> Steve

I dunno... I have TinyMCE embedded into my copy of Movable Type, and I
can tell you it does some /serious/ reformatting every time you load it.
  There's another user on that copy of MT who always copy-pastes stuff
from Word, and things like unclosed tags frequently ensure that the
resulting page is mangled to pieces. TinyMCE attempts to account for
mismatched tags, but the result is that it italicizes the entire post
because the user didn't think to close <i>, an inline tag that doesn't
even need to be closed in HTML.

TinyMCE might work for things like forums, where the post is rarely
edited and the forum code is relatively simple. But with MediaWiki's
rather complicated wiki syntax ([[Template:Infobox Language]] anyone?),
combined with various editors' coding ideosynchracies, even an embedded
code highlighter would be a pain to implement AFAICT.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: geni

body:
On 5/21/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> There's a region between "being transparent" and "confusing the heck out
> of our readers because we're so fond of little pastel boxes", and it's a
> region we really need to be inhabiting.

However our little pastel boxes can have the effect of makeing readers
feel confident that wikipedia has ways to protect itself. It tells
them that if there is trouble we can act. See
[[Talk:Louis_Braille#sprotect]].

--
geni


from_name: Arwel Parry

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
In message <068f01c67d18$3667b090$6400a8c0 at Tiny>, Peter Mackay
<peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> writes
>> From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org] On
>>Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
>> Sent: Monday, 22 May 2006 6:00 AM
>> To: English Wikipedia
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay
>><peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > > From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>> > > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org]
>> > >On Behalf Of Anthony
>> > > DiPierro
>> >
>> > > On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay
>> > ><peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > > > I refer to
>> > > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
>> > > > clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod
>> or other
>> > > > support such as a wall.
>> > > >
>> > > Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so
>> > > it's a work for hire.
>> >
>> > We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP.
>>
>> No, we shouldn't, but we also should assume good faith.
>
>See below.
>
>> > In any case, the license
>> > used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is
>> the creator,
>> > and to my mind if the actual photographer is someone other than the
>> > subject, then the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
>> >
>> I'd say the template should be changed, then.  I was going to
>> say it should be changed to "I, the copyright holder...", but
>> if it's public domain then the person no longer is a
>> copyright holder.  If you've got a suggestion how to better
>> phrase the template so that it encompasses the situation of a
>> work made for hire, let us know.
>
>Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
>
>As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough
>that it needs clarifying.
>
>> > > Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first, maybe he'll fix it.
>> >
>> > There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
>> that I can't.
>> >
>> I just checked, and he does have his email turned on.  But
>> maybe you're banned from that too.  Anyway, is the second
>> reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to
>> make trouble?
>
>No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were
>saying about AGF?
>
>The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's
>page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where
>they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks
>like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is
>setting a good example.

I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling
copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright
holder is inherently indeterminable.

For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary
school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it
reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD
or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
- it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of the portrait
survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files,
- the photographer is unlikely to still be in business,
- I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use of the photo
(except on grounds of artistic taste!)

Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in Wikipedia under
any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the theoretical
copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of
tracing effort?

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > If it's so unremarkable and so uncreative, isn't the whole
> > question of copyright totally moot?
>
> Hardly. We put a lot of effort into monitoring the license status of
> photographs in WP. It doesn't matter if the photographs themselves are
> good
> or bad, exciting or boring.

I think it does matter what the chances of the copyright violatee making a
complaint are. I could be wrong on this. But if we are to focus our efforts
anywhere, surely they should be areas where there actually is a potential
complainant.

> Can you claim copyright
> > over the way you parked your car? Over the way you filled in
> > a cheque? Over your choice of TV watching on a given night?
>
> ????

Well, apparently you can copyright pointing a device that takes a photo and
pressing a button - with no further creative input.  As you pointed out,
it's not necessarily a creative process.

I wouldn't call it a bad photograph. It's slightly tilted, but that's easily
> fixed. There's no sparkle to it, but that's more the fault of the lighting
> than anything else. From the subject's point of view it is pretty good. It
> shows him in front of a famous landmark and is admirably suited to the
> user's page, showing what he is doing.

It's funny, again, very likely the fact that it's in a front of a landmark
and that it has him in it is almost certainly his doing. The fact that it's
tilted is the photographer's, but the subject could easily "fix" that -
again pointing to the subject as having the greater creative input.

My problem lies with the fact that he has called himself the creator of the
> photograph and released it into the public domain when to my mind
> copyright
> belongs to the photographer rather than the subject.

I have a collection of several thousand digital photos taken with my camera.
I'm sure one of these days I'll inadvertently, or without thinking too much,
claim to be the creator of one that I didn't actually take. Hell, there are
lots of near-duplicates where I took one and my girlfriend took the other. I
don't think this is a case where claiming copyright over the wrong one is
really going to cause anybody a great deal of harm.

> Sure. But there is no evidence in this photograph that the subject "set
> the
> settings", as you surmised earlier. It looks like a straight "point and
> shoot" image to me.

Yep.

Steve


from_name: Mark Ryan

subject: [WikiEN-l] SPAM-LOW: Re: Message: 1 Unblock Request

references:
<72cf88627c9749198de15b7ca9c1f20e@earthhopenetwork.net>
	<230C1620-A5EE-4E11-BA9D-612D8D1F301F@philwelch.net>
	<f96f3dec0605202037s6555a4fbhabc34b2917e6268e@mail.gmail.com>
	<446FED4B.9050302@student.canberra.edu.au>

body:
On 21/05/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Don't forget the Syndicate, the Freemasons and especially the Queen.
> Oh, she's a terror, Her Maj is.

Don't let them know she's the Grand Master of the Temple of Sion! Or
is that Grand Mistress...


subject: [Wikitech-l] Wiki markup <-> MS Word?

body:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 5/22/06, Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com> wrote:
>> I dunno... I have TinyMCE embedded into my copy of Movable Type, and I
>> can tell you it does some /serious/ reformatting every time you load it.
> [snip]
>
> I was going to stay quiet on this one, but someone else is objecting...
>
> WYSISYG editing isn't what we want most editors on Wikipedia to have.
>
> We want them to have WYSIWYM (What you see is what you mean).  We
> generally do not want editors fussing with appearance too much while
> working on content, at least so long as we want people to stay
> productive (rather than spending hours futzing with getting the most
> attractive customized fonts for every heading) and so long as we want
> the look and feel to be even remotely consistent.
>
> Our current system gets us pretty close to this, although the syntax
> does present a little learning curve. However, if people are really
> put off by the inability to do pretty formatting without a minimal
> amount of studying... can we really expect them to grok wiki writing
> overall?
>
> So, improved editing systems.. not a bad thing, so long as we stay
> clear of turning the interface into a toy.

Well, I would be more in favor of having a built-in code highlighter
instead of a WYSIWYG editor. I think it'd improve readability,
especially with the new endnote syntax threatening to take over some
articles. I was going to propose doing something like this for the
Summer of Code, but I just couldn't think of an elegant way to implement
it. Using TinyMCE for code would require converting HTML-encoded
HTML/wikitext into HTML/wikitext, and a feature using Flash or Java
probably wouldn't be that popular with users.

A developer for the XUL Widgets project <http://xulwidgets.mozdev.org/>
has been doing some thinking about this, though:
<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/weirdal/archives/015930.html> and
<http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/weirdal/archives/015932.html>. An
pretty-printing editor written in XUL for Firefox and Netscape 6/7 would
be pretty cool IMO.

--
Minh Nguyen <mxn at zoomtown.com>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: mxn at myjabber.net; Blog: http://mxn.f2o.org/


from_name: Matt Brown

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Secret admin list

body:
On 5/21/06, Giuseppe DAngelo <pippudoz at yahoo.it> wrote:
> Furthermore, those born prior to 1976 need not apply - open and free indeed!

On the English wikipedia, at least, many influential users are over 30.

-Matt


from_name: Yury Tarasievich

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Classical Belarusian in Wikipedia

body:
On 21/05/06, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
...

It seems, that my attempts to reach some compromise on subject of
disputable clauses in rules of Be: community failed. My final
proposals and admins (EugeneZelenko) replies were (translated more or
less verbatim from Be: talk):

1 Names of [allowed] orthographies are currently politically slanted
and pejorative. So I suggested to change the clause to ?...besides the
common/standard/normative (?school?) orthography the alternative
[orthography] is allowed (according to "????????? ???????? ????????.
???? ????????. ???????? ????????????", 2005 [the (first) book
containing the rules of alternative orthography])". [To name standard
orthography] ?official? is not good, as this name has connotation of
?non mandatory? in our cultural practice.?

2 Current rules mention alternative orthography as preferred. So I
suggested to remedy this by putting clause 1.1 into separate rule on
orthography referenced from all other rules [concerned with text].

I've got no clear reply from admins to these two proposals at all.

3 Currently categories are done only in (and forcibly re-done into)
alternative orthography. Admin points out that there exists bug 3311
which prevents redirect of categories (therefore preventing making
categories in both orthographies). I contended that in such a case the
categories should be temporarily done only in standard orthography.

Admin disagreed completely, named my proposal ?another POV?, suggested
poll in community. Eligibility will be apparently limited to persons
already being authors of certain number of articles before the certain
date.

4 Currently rules require asking ?author of article? for permission in
order to be able to edit article when editing involves ?changing the
orthography of the article?. I suggested cancelling this requirement
and making one sentence the minimally possible unit of text in
orthography different from rest of the text (allowing mix of
orthographies in one text therefore).

Admin and supporter (MaximLitvin) contend, propose to instead allow
changing of the orthography of the complete article, together with
keeping one orthography both in text and references (?!), and
conditioning the very possibility of such a change by amount of text
being newly added (variously, by some % of existing or by added being
bigger than existing).

I can't make myself to believe any more that those folks are acting in
good faith, and I feel that the further discussion on rules in Be:
would be pointless. Sorry to drop this in your lap in this manner, but
it definitely seems the issue must go in your hands now.

-regards


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> Please don't be crass. Possibly the photographer went to immense trouble
> to
> take a photograph. It doesn't matter, anyway. We can't just claim
> copyright
> over photographs because we think that the photographer didn't have much
> creative input.

Just querying your use of "we". Do you mean "Wikipedia cannot claim
copyright"? If so, no problem, Wikipedia does not claim copyright over
photos contributed to it. Or do you mean "Wikipedia's editors should not
falsely assert copyright"? In that case, true, but it's really their
problem, not ours. We're not going to get sued over it.

Steve


from_name: Erik Moeller

body:
On 5/21/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> Is there case law suggesting that photographs of costumes or action
> figures are copyright infringement?

That's a valid question. One could argue that photographing a doll
removes the expression from commercial relevance to the copyright
holder. If that is true, then I would suspect photos of dolls (not 3D
models) work particularly well for cartoon characters, while artist's
impressions are better for human actors. Is there such a thing as
"clearly derivative, but not infringing"?

The situation is complicated by our assertion that the image is free
content, allowing you to use it for any purpose whatsoever. Of course
it's always possible to effectively turn a free content picture into a
copyright infringement through modification. I really don't have a
clue where to draw the line at the moment.

We live in a copyrighted world. It gets quite nauseating sometimes.

Erik


from_name: Rob

subject: [WikiEN-l] jaygy and indefinate ban

body:
On 5/21/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> This is clearly not copyright infringements. At best you should have
> challenged me about it,

To sidestep the copyright/fair use issue for a second, this material
is inappropriate for the article regardless.  Large excerpts from
promotional material or press releases are generally considered
inappropriate for Wikipedia articles.

> Imagine what 1. 7 billion muslims would think of the wikipedia policy of
> open community if you were banned indefinately for just calling yourself abu
> hamza, a name as common as john.

Instead of threatening to bring down the wrath of the Muslim world
upon us, I think you'd be better off explaining why your apparent
obsession with Jews and Zionism is compatible with our mission of
compiling a neutral, accurate encyclopedia.


from_name: XaosFluX

body:
View Source could be moved to a permenant tab for all pages if this type of
change were going to go through.
xaosflux
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal at inbox.org>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:39 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Proposal: limited extension of semi-protection
policy

> On 5/21/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>> maru dubshinki wrote:
>> > I have to disagree with you here. Wikipedia is famous as the
>> > Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". If a random anon sees a page and tries
>> > to edit it, and cannot (while the main page still proclaims how
>> > everyone can edit), they are going to be dreadfully confused- lord
>> > knows enough are confused by the basic idea without adding on a second
>> > level of possible confusion. Perhaps two templates: the scary one for
>> > temporary semiprotection, and another, more discreet one for the more
>> > permanent ones?
>>
>> I would support something like that, or better yet, perhaps having the
>> default for semi-protection be that the 'edit this page' tab is still
>> there and active, but when you click it and you can't edit, you get a
>> nice explanation there that yes, anyone can edit, but that for this
>> particular page, you can't edit it at this moment.  In this way, we only
>> bother telling people who are interested in editing, without having a
>> strange message for people who only want to read.
>>
> The only thing I'd be concerned about is making sure that this is
> implemented in a way which still allows for easy access to the wiki
> source (without going through Special:Export).  Just an implementation
> issue, but IMO an important one.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Rob Church

body:
On 21/05/06, Brion Vibber <brion at pobox.com> wrote:
> Timwi wrote:
> > it appears that [[Special:Contributions/Timwi]] loads relatively
> > quickly. However, if you choose a namespace in which I have very little
> > contributions (e.g. Image talk, Category talk), it takes ages to appear.
>
> Aye, that's why this feature was removed.
>
> If somebody put it back, they should be shot.

The log for SpecialContributions.php makes interesting reading.

Rob Church


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

body:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:

>On 5/20/06, Steve Summit <scs at eskimo.com> wrote:
>
>
>A more interesting question is whether or not fair use is
>Constitutionally required.  From my research on this it seems to be
>that it is, but this doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated in
>any US Supreme Court rulings.  See
>http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0003.html
>
This case becomes all the more interesting because the people with the
fair use argument lost, and yet it will help establish a firmer footing
for fair use.  The argument was only about fair use in an indirect
manner; it dealt with the legality of devices designed to circumvent
copy-protection devices on CDs.  In other words it was not about fair
use, but about devices that would facilitate fair use.

The ruling was at the District Appeals Court level, and is thus not
binding in other districts.  A different outcome for a similar case in a
different district is conceivable.

>>Now, despite my seeming rhetoric, I am not trying to claim that
>>the copyright-is-wrong activists are wrong, nor am I suggesting
>>that Anthony DiPierro is a "copyright-is-wrong" activist.
>>(I have no idea how Anthony DiPierro feels about copyright,
>>but some of his arguments *sound* like the arguments of those
>>activists, which is why I bring all this up.)
>>
>>
>FWIW, I *am* a "copyright-is-wrong" activist, though I don't believe
>that my arguments I've been making in this thread rely on that.
>
>I'm also a big believer that there are many instances in Wikipedia
>where the doctrine of fair use is abused in a way which is unhelpful.
>It is my opinion that explicitly licensed (to everyone) and/or
>undisputably public domain content should be preferred, not for the
>sake of the legal principles themselves but so that the content can be
>distributed in as many jurisdictions as possible without any fear of
>legal reprecussions.  However, I have come to recognize the fact that
>it is impossible to create a quality encyclopedia which is legal to
>distribute in all jurisdictions of the world.
>
That seems like a fair analysis, and I will be the first to say that
fair use claims should be done prudently.  I think too that at some
point The Foundation will need to resolve the ambiguity of whether it's
a publisher or an ISP.  These different models carry different implications.

Ec


from_name: Steve Bennett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

body:
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
> In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph
> to
> which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally
> indefensible, even if it is a very small sin and you will get away with
> it.

This whole conversation is getting a bit silly. But I don't agree with your
statement that releasing a copyrighted image into PD (insofar as that's
actually possible) is necessarily morally wrong. Would my mother care if I
published her photo of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is
not necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually values that
copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that violating it is
actually wrong.

Obviously this only applies to trivial cases, like the one we're discussing.

Steve


subject: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

references:
<85h$2lPYBOcEFwPy@cartref.demon.co.uk>
	<85h$2lPYBOcEFwPy-wfA80NnNzEcG2Il/BtU0GPXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org>
	<069f01c67d22$3a1802d0$6400a8c0@Tiny>

body:
In message <069f01c67d22$3a1802d0$6400a8c0 at Tiny>, Peter Mackay
<peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> writes
>> From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org] On
>>Behalf Of Arwel Parry
>>
>> I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling
>> copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright
>> holder is inherently indeterminable.
>>
>> For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary
>> school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it
>> reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under
>> GFDL, or PD
>> or whatever, as:
>> - I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
>> children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
>> - my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
>> shilling or two),
>> - it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of
>> the portrait
>> survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files,
>> - the photographer is unlikely to still be in business,
>> - I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use
>> of the photo
>> (except on grounds of artistic taste!)
>>
>> Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in
>> Wikipedia under
>> any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the
>> theoretical
>> copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of
>> tracing effort?
>
>In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to
>which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally
>indefensible, even if it is a very small sin and you will get away with it.
>But fair use to illustrate a user page seems reasonable to me.

But the problem with that is that we have no remotely appropriate fair
use entry in the licensing field on the upload page! I wonder how long
an image tagged "Found the image somewhere" would survive...!

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/