Peter Mackay wrote:
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of David Gerard
>> That's pretty much what I'm asking for ;-) Preferably people
>> less inclined than me to call a spade a fucking shovel.
>Don't ask people to do this. Tell them. I think that a lot of people who ask
>for power shouldn't have it. Where would we be if juries were made up of
>those who held their hands up to do it?
You underestimate my diplomatic powers when I try. "This user is a
_native_ speaker of _Bullshit_." We have ways of *asking nicely*.
However, anyone reading this who's been on Wikipedia more than six
months and is flabbergasted at the levels of STUPID surrounding the
entire {{user pedophile}} incident should consider themselves a hot
draft prospect ...
- d.
According to our [[WP:IUP|Image use policy]]:
"''According to the image use policy: "Also note that in the United States, reproductions of two-dimensional artwork which is in the public domain because of age do not generate a new copyright — for example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa would not be considered copyrighted (see Bridgeman v. Corel). Scans of images alone do not generate new copyrights — they merely inherit the copyright status of the image they are reproducing.''"
Does this mean that images taken from coin auction catalogs (whether paper or online) could be uploaded under a {{tl|Money-US}} license? As an example of what I'm talking about, see this:
[http://www.coinfacts.com/nickels/shield_nickels/1866_nickel_obv.jpg]
This and similar images are clearly either scans or straight-on photos, with essentially no creative work involved. Since they are large, high-resolution pictures, they would be very useful on Wikipedia. Can they be used in compliance with copyright law and Wikipedia policy?
- [[User:Crotalus horridus]]
Just to let people know, Sam Korn and Morven, two members of the
Arbitration Committee, have just been given the checkuser privilege.
More on CheckUser can be found at:
--> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CheckUser
Chris
--
Chris Jenkinson
chris(a)starglade.org
"Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
I got blocked and I live in an apartment with brother and he is a Wikipedia, but I like to say Wikipedia vandalizer. He is the one who got blocked we just share a computer,
so could you guys unblock me please. Thank You.
Truly, BDR_23
February 3, 2006
3:52 PM
My IP address is 24.118.74.124.
[[WP:AN]] currently contains this announcement:
"The userbox Template:User pedophile [...] is a great way of
identifying those users who consider themselves to be pedophiles. I
plan on indefinitely blocking any user who includes this template.
I've already blocked the only user to include this template [...]
Wikipedia has no obligation to permit deviants to edit. If a someone
has sexual thoughts about children, keep it to yourself and stay off
Wikipedia. I can't even imagine the PR nightmare that the Wikimedia
Foundation would face if articles were being written by
self-identified pedophiles."
I can just tell this one's going to be a fun argument to watch.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
It seems quite apparent that the charge of "vandalism" is being used as
way of imposing ideological conformity. It only takes two "editors" to do
this.
For instance to call Fidel Castro a mere student "activist", after he had
killed several times at the University of Havana, is simply POV. And then
to block a person for merely changing "activist" to "lethal activist" is
absurd and shows political bias. I suggest that the two editors who did
this be demoted or chastized....
A friend of the Jigue
Hall Monitor seems to have blocked 69.39.68.109 for 48 hours for a 3RR violation
However this IP is used by a good number of Christian Net subscribers, who were not involved.
Also it seems that Hall Monitor has not checked back at 69.39.68.109's discussion page to hear his side.
As one who accesses the Net through Christian Net and who has been contacted by original the blocked individual, I am requesting this block be removed; as the individual has assured me that he has now read the Wikipedia guidless for edits, and misunderstood the expected and established policy by the board of editors which is overseeing edits, AND WILL not engage in what Wikipedia terms vandalism again.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo
---------------------------------
Brings words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
Phil Boswell wrote:
>IIRC this also happened when SnowSpinner "deprecated" {{if}} by replacing
>the functional (but horrible, don't get the idea I fail to agree with that
>:-) code with a notice saying that this template had been deprecated and
>should be replaced.
>I recall reports that it took about 15 minutes to recover, but I can't
>remember whether this was for the DB lock, or for all uses to be replaced. I
>do know it was surprisingly fast, even for those of us who had been
>expressing scepticism that any one template could hold the DB to ransom :-)
It should be noted that he did check in #wikimedia-tech first to make
sure the devs wouldn't hunt him down and kill him!
- d.
On 2/4/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'm not avoiding your points, I don't buy your logic. Yes, guns are an
> > > > extreme comparison and, I think, a poor analogy. The thought of
> > > > holding a funeral for the loss of a Wikipedia image is pretty
> > > > entertaining, though.
> > > >
> > >
> > > How long a database lock do you view as acceptable?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're talking about -- you're going to have to help me here..
>
> It is fairly trivial for an admin to trigger a database lock. Depending
> on what they do exactly it could be quite a long one.
Can you explain what you mean by "database lock"? Or point me to a
reference? I'm happy to RTFM.
