Will Beback (talk | contribs) →Talk pages: reply |
Will Beback (talk | contribs) →Talk pages: exp |
||
Line 160: | Line 160: | ||
::Not supported by the source? |
::Not supported by the source? |
||
::*''In conversation, Ms. Geller habitually refers to herself as a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” — all one word in her pronunciation — which hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona. ''[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html] |
::*''In conversation, Ms. Geller habitually refers to herself as a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” — all one word in her pronunciation — which hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona. ''[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10geller.html] |
||
::Please stop edit warring over my talk page entry. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 01: |
::Please stop edit warring over my talk page entry. Your injection makes the text unreadable and there's no reason why "..." would not suffice, even if there were a BLP violation, which I contend there was not. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:42, 4 January 2011
User:Giftiger wunsch/Shared topboxes User:Giftiger wunsch/Talk header
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Tutnum2.jpg)
If you left a message and it's no longer here, it's probably in one of my talk archives.
Hello, Giftiger. I've noticed that you reverted my edit at Template:UAA/doc. The reason that I attempted to transclude the editnotice at the top of the UAA page is so that it could conserve wikicoding as well as save time. You see, this would allow one page to be updated in concurrence with the other, and alleviates the frustation of having to jump back and forth between the two whenever one of them is changed. Could you please clarify your edit as well in more detail? I'm afraid I didn't understand it much. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you were trying to do, and I think you may be confusing the response template with the UAA guidelines. You replaced the documentation for the former with a transclusion of the latter. The template documentation explains how to use the UAA responses, such as
Wait until the user edits. and
Not a blatant violation of the username policy.; the UAA header, showing the guidelines for posting to UAA, is irrelevant to this page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then perhaps some of the documentation (especially the table) could be alternately transcluded onto the editnotice page instead? Either way, it would ease some of the work associated with it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still not at all following your reasoning; there's no link between the edit notice for UAA and the UAA response template documentation. None whatsoever. The documentation for the template is to help UAA regulars use the response template, the edit notice at UAA is to inform users of which reports to bring to UAA and where to bring other reports. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, look, both of them exist to help whoever uses the template on the UAA page to comment with the specific params involved, right? You can see that they both contain this wikitable:
- I'm still not at all following your reasoning; there's no link between the edit notice for UAA and the UAA response template documentation. None whatsoever. The documentation for the template is to help UAA regulars use the response template, the edit notice at UAA is to inform users of which reports to bring to UAA and where to bring other reports. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Then perhaps some of the documentation (especially the table) could be alternately transcluded onto the editnotice page instead? Either way, it would ease some of the work associated with it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Result Shorthand Longhand Wait until the user edits.
: {{UAA|wt}}
~~~~: {{UAA|wait}}
~~~~Being discussed with the user.
: {{UAA|d}}
~~~~: {{UAA|disc}}
~~~~drfcn : {{UAA|dr}}
~~~~: {{UAA|drfcn}}
~~~~rfcu : {{UAA|cu}}
~~~~: {{UAA|rfcu}}
~~~~Keep monitoring the user, until their username is more clear.
: {{UAA|m}}
~~~~: {{UAA|mon}}
~~~~spam N/A : {{UAA|spam}}
~~~~aiv : {{UAA|v}}
~~~~: {{UAA|aiv}}
~~~~ani : {{UAA|a}}
~~~~: {{UAA|ani}}
~~~~rpp : {{UAA|r}}
~~~~: {{UAA|rpp}}
~~~~ssp : {{UAA|sp}}
~~~~: {{UAA|ssp}}
~~~~Not a blatant violation of the username policy. Consider filing a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
: {{UAA|ci}}
~~~~: {{UAA|coi}}
~~~~Not a blatant violation of the username policy.
: {{UAA|not}}
~~~~: {{UAA|notexist}}
~~~~notb : {{UAA|b}}
~~~~: {{UAA|notb}}
~~~~nb talk : {{UAA|t}}
~~~~: {{UAA|talk}}
~~~~Stale: This account has not been used in the last 2–3 weeks.
: {{UAA|e}}
~~~~: {{UAA|stale}}
~~~~Comment:
: {{UAA|c}}
~~~~: {{UAA|com}}
~~~~Note:
: {{UAA|n}}
~~~~: {{UAA|note}}
~~~~Question:
: {{UAA|q}}
~~~~: {{UAA|question}}
~~~~merge : {{UAA|me}}
~~~~: {{UAA|merge}}
~~~~
- but each time a param on one of the pages is updated, the other would have to be updated as well. So I suggest that we contain the entire table into a single page that would automatically update both pages at the same time. Can you see the problem? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't noticed (I recall seeing it before, but forgot it was there) that the documentation table is collapsed and included in the edit notice. I see what you were trying to do now; I'll fix it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've moved the table alone to a seperate page at Template:UAA/doc/table so that it may be seperately transcluded into both Template:UAA/doc and Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention; the latter is protected, but I've added a protected edit request to the talk page and that should be done shortly. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I hadn't noticed (I recall seeing it before, but forgot it was there) that the documentation table is collapsed and included in the edit notice. I see what you were trying to do now; I'll fix it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- but each time a param on one of the pages is updated, the other would have to be updated as well. So I suggest that we contain the entire table into a single page that would automatically update both pages at the same time. Can you see the problem? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Cineworld
Hello.
Can you stick a caption on pic no.2 along the lines of 'The cinema was rebranded as Cineworld in 2005' or somesuch? Perhaps even swap the pics, as the image in the top pic shows it as a UGC? I would do it but lack the technical expertise. I tried to do it, but f*cked it up. Thanks. --78.101.62.79 (talk) 11:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Done GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Cheers buddy. Teamwork. That article is never going to win any prizes but how much better is it now? --213.130.122.198 (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I have a query there about your {{editprotected}} request when you have a moment, but there's no rush. Happy new year, mate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- I've replied; thanks, and a happy new year to you too. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
UAA
Hey Gifitiger, happy new year, mate. You might have just noticed that I blocked Iiic 2006 (talk · contribs) and I just wanted to explain the rationale for my decision. Basically, I know that some admins do (or have in the past) decline UAA reports where the username is an organisation's initials, but I find it quite a stretch of the imagination that they would pluck those four letters in that order out of thin air and then, equally randomly, create an article on an organisation that happened to have those initials. It may seem inconsistent with my decision on Schdirector01 (talk · contribs), but the addition of "director" to that username clearly indicated that the account belongs to the director of SCH, an individual, rather than SCH the organisation. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah as I mentioned in one of my comments on the report, this seems to be an area where some admins block and some don't; really I think the username policy needs some alterations and some fresh consensus to decide how certain types of reports should be dealt with. I believe the rationale for those who don't block usernames like Iiic is that since it's an acronym which the company doesn't use for itself, no one is likely to know what it stands for by looking at the username, so the username itself isn't promotional; it may be that the user represents the company however, which would be a violation regardless. The fact that they're spamming the company certainly makes that more likely, anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well if they edited an article on bananas, we'd probably have no idea what "Iiic" stood for, so I wouldn't block for that, but they made it quite clear what it stood for. I suppose the policy could use some improvement, but I think the usernames that really need to be blocked are and those that aren't a violation of anything are dismissed. I think there'll always be a grey area in between where there'll be (hopefully amicable) disagreement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I suspect so; I've noticed a few times that reports have been marked as non-vios and removed from UAA, and later picked up by User:Cirt and blocked; since that sort of block is at the discretion of an admin I've left it to Cirt to decide, but I think the issue of some admins blocking and some dismissing the same sort of report means that we do need to have a bit of renewed discussion on the username policy to try to make its enforcement a little more consistent. As you say, there's quite a large grey area on many usernames; perhaps RFCN should be used more often. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well if they edited an article on bananas, we'd probably have no idea what "Iiic" stood for, so I wouldn't block for that, but they made it quite clear what it stood for. I suppose the policy could use some improvement, but I think the usernames that really need to be blocked are and those that aren't a violation of anything are dismissed. I think there'll always be a grey area in between where there'll be (hopefully amicable) disagreement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Copyright violation
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Quoting eight words of a poem as part of a conversation does not constitute copyright violation (particularly not when the poem is from 1854 and the copyright has lapsed). Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was not eight words, from what I could see it was 6 entire lines, except that the user had made a series of grammatical mistakes in its reproduction. It was certainly close enough to constitute unattributed reproduction of the work. I wasn't aware that the copyright had expired however; the fact that the content was found on the internet and was not declared to be public domain or have a license compatible with wikipedia's is enough to assume that it's a copyright violation until proven otherwise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, it is longer than eight words (I missed the other lines in the diff somehow). In the future you should consider doing a bit of cursory research into the copyright status of a passage of text before deciding to censor it (it took me less than 60 seconds to determine the poem's public domain status). If it sounds "old" it's probably out of copyright, and you will almost certainly be able to verify that with some easy Googling. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- A poem is a poem, I can't judge the age of it by reading a passage; if material is found on a website without it being declared as being public domain or licensed as CC-BY-SA or similar, we have to assume its reproduction would be a copyright violation unless shown not to be the case. In any case the usual presumption would be that the author retains copyright, and the work would have to be at least 80 years old for this copyright to have expired; apparently that is the case so your revert was valid, but with copyright issues it's best to err on the side of caution. In any case the material's been determined to be public domain and reinstated, so problem solved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you so against the idea of doing quick searches in the future to prevent mistakes? You don't need to err on the side of anything if you consult the vast database at your fingertips and apply a little common sense before editing other people's comments. If it only takes seconds to check then you really are obliged to do so before slapping a big copyvio notice on somebody's innocent message. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I did the required research. Once finding the poem on a website which declares itself to be copyrighted, I rightly redacted what appeared to be a blatant copyright violation. The fact that you found material contradicting the first website doesn't mean I was incorrect to remove it based on the information I found on the link I provided. As I said, we err on the side of caution. You should also have provided your source demonstrating that it's public domain when reverting it, but let's not go into that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you so against the idea of doing quick searches in the future to prevent mistakes? You don't need to err on the side of anything if you consult the vast database at your fingertips and apply a little common sense before editing other people's comments. If it only takes seconds to check then you really are obliged to do so before slapping a big copyvio notice on somebody's innocent message. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- A poem is a poem, I can't judge the age of it by reading a passage; if material is found on a website without it being declared as being public domain or licensed as CC-BY-SA or similar, we have to assume its reproduction would be a copyright violation unless shown not to be the case. In any case the usual presumption would be that the author retains copyright, and the work would have to be at least 80 years old for this copyright to have expired; apparently that is the case so your revert was valid, but with copyright issues it's best to err on the side of caution. In any case the material's been determined to be public domain and reinstated, so problem solved. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're right, it is longer than eight words (I missed the other lines in the diff somehow). In the future you should consider doing a bit of cursory research into the copyright status of a passage of text before deciding to censor it (it took me less than 60 seconds to determine the poem's public domain status). If it sounds "old" it's probably out of copyright, and you will almost certainly be able to verify that with some easy Googling. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
IP adding non-commercial cats
Hi Wunsch, Would you happen to know any other edits the IP made today, that were either false or bad otherwise, apart from the one you shown on ANI? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm? I think you've got the wrong person; User:Moxy filed the report, I merely informed the user of the discussion. I was made aware of the IP due to a report filed on AIV, and had a quick look: I didn't see anything I could classify as vandalism, though it did seem an unusually large-scale addition of categories; it's possible that every one of these channels really are advert-free, however, and that it was all done in good faith. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hm, I'm not sure (at all). I'll see what I can find, but I might have made a bit off a mess here. I'll ask the AIV reporting editor. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Talk pages
Is quoting the title of a Commonweal article a BLP violation? I don't think so. In any case, it's just your opinion, which is why I added "purported". If you don't want people changing your text then don't change theirs. Will Beback talk 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- You didn't quote the title, you made a contentious claim about a living person which wasn't supported by the source; BLP violations aren't allowed anywhere, including talk pages. And if you continue to modify my comments without cause, I'll be taking your behaviour to ANI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not supported by the source?
- In conversation, Ms. Geller habitually refers to herself as a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” — all one word in her pronunciation — which hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona. [1]
- Please stop edit warring over my talk page entry. Your injection makes the text unreadable and there's no reason why "..." would not suffice, even if there were a BLP violation, which I contend there was not. Will Beback talk 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not supported by the source?