Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:21, 29 September 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Wikidemon, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages, as you did in Corporate Website. Misplaced Pages is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Ronz 19:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Please do not add unreferenced negative biographical information concerning living persons to Misplaced Pages articles. Thank you.--Gamaliel 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue III - March 18, 2007

In this edition: News & Notes New look for Wine Project Page; Wine Article assessment; Operation Stub-killer; New Template for Australian Wineries; New wine stub categories proposed. Wiki-Winos This issue's feature Christopher Tanner, CCC Wine Improvement Drive - Pinot Gris plus update on last WID article Languedoc wine

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Misplaced Pages wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IV - April 1st, 2007

In this edition: News & Notes New Grape Infobox; Standard Grape article format; Wine photos; New wine stub categories created; Wine related deletion notices; and more Sub Projects Updates on Operation Stub Killer Wiki-Winos This issue's feature Steve Moulding. Wine Improvement Drive - Sauvignon blanc plus update on last WID article Pinot gris and comments on the new B Article Adoption

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Misplaced Pages wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue V - April 15, 2007

Fan Sites

Thanks for your comments here . I hadn't noticed but in the midst of the edit war on the Eagles page someone vandalised the link to the The Fastlane site - I fixed the link (well I did before it was lost in the edit war) you might change your views if you click on the right link. Thanks again for pointing it out. Kelpin 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Weatherbilllogo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Weatherbilllogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Attorney Copyright Opinions

So now that we're finally getting official copyright advice from the WMF attorney (like here), we need a place to keep track of his opinions, so he will be less inundated with inquiries and so we can use them as precedent. I'm thinking a subpage of WP:C makes sense. What do you think? Thanks! -- But|seriously|folks  18:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense. Attorneys are always a little concerned about who their client is, whether something is just an "opinion" or legal advice about a specific instance versus an off the cuff remark, etc. Something I might be happy to say in one sentence if we're just talking, could be worth three paragraphs with appropriate details, disclaimers and qualifications. So we might need that page to have some disclaimer language, and also make sure he's okay with it. Wikidemo 18:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Page is Misplaced Pages:Copyrights/MikeGodwinSays, and I'll let him know. -- But|seriously|folks  00:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. Thanks, good idea. Wikidemo 00:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Confit byaldi 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Confit byaldi 1.jpg. Misplaced Pages gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Misplaced Pages, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 03:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

WikipProject Food and Drink

Welcome to WikiProject Food and Drink, I look forward to working with you on the project. If you get a chance take a look at the Food Portal linked on our page which the Project maintains. There is a current newsletter on the main page to tell you what we are up to plus a plethora of other things, see you there soon.--Christopher Tanner, CCC 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology

Sorry for lashing out at you. After having discussed some of these issues for so long, you get convinced that some people are just out to take shortcuts. Clearing my head a bit, I don't think you are one of those people. I don't always agree with how you go about the debate, but I believe you when you say you are trying to help.

Please realize though, on sensitive issue like these, especially for issues like these, we don't just take two days to discuss things. Even if everything is in good faith, there could be steps of miscommunication, or simple matters not yet considered. -- Ned Scott 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the message. It is really heartwarming. I'm sure we'll settle down to a warm working relationship on Misplaced Pages....please feel free at any time to call me aside (best over here) and let me know I'm missing something. You'll see that I can and do change my opinion when convinced, either by a good argument or facts I hadn't considered. My own personality / weakness is that I respond a lot better to a friendly slap on the back than a frontal challenge. Take care, Wikidemo 05:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

External links

I think you're raising some valuable points, so please continue weighing in on the page and don't let yourself be shouted down. I suggest you ignore the editor to whom you left that civility warning (which he deleted, I see).--Mantanmoreland 02:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I think you meant to put this on WT:BLP. Cheers, THF 09:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was looking all over for that. I'll take the liberty of editing and cleaning it up in light of your comments so far before adding it in the right place. Wikidemo 09:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology

I have read your comment re: "civility" on my talk page; although I deleted it after reading it, I want you to know that I did read it. As I have just stated in Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons, I was logged out of Misplaced Pages after that and doing other work, but this has been on my mind, so I had just come back to post this comment here. I did not intend to upset you, although clearly you are upset. I was simply trying to respond to each one of your comments in turn in that talk page. I think all of us want the Misplaced Pages's WP:EL to be clear and to be clearly based on the other Misplaced Pages poicies that it cites, refers to, and/or links to; the same is true of the policy page in WP:BLP#Reliable sources. By logging off Misplaced Pages for an extended period of time, I am hopeful that other editors (including seasoned administrators) may be able to resolve whatever contradictions may still exist in the policy and guideline statements in WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:EL. I suggest that perhaps if you do the same (though I am not saying that you have to do so), the language may become as effective as in both the policy page (WP:BLP) and the guideline page (WP:EL), so that (especially) new Misplaced Pages editors will have clear policy statements and clear guidelines to follow. I wish you all the best in this endeavor. (I am once again logging off Misplaced Pages). --NYScholar 03:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I correct my own typographical errors in my own comments in Misplaced Pages; I do preview, but, the more tired I get, the less able I am to catch them all in "preview" mode. That was just the case again. I am an academic editor and I can't stand seeing my own typographical errors. That is my editing practice, which I mention in my archived talk pages somewhere. I do not intend to have so many edits. In the case of your changing the main subheading to which I had originally replied and after you asked for future subheadings, I tried to comply with that request; that led to a lot more edits. I hope that it is easier to follow the page now. Please add your own signature to the one place where I placed an "unsigned" template (when you have a chance) and then delete my bracket comment, which I gave you permission there to do. Thank you. --NYScholar 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not upset, more like perplexed and confused about how to deal with some very odd debating methods that go beyond anything I have seen in my time here. I do a lot of work, mostly constructive changes in the main namespace to articles that do not implicate any of these policies. I don't think I've ever added a new link to a fan page or the like and have no personal stake in this; I'm just alert to positions that would seem to overturn existing practice. I too am a stickler for precision in the language, and between that and my tendency to make lots of typos, creates a similar urge to go back and revise. I've learned the hard way that it's sometimes better to let a mistake lie than jump back in the fray. It is very sweet and thoughtful that you've made the effort to approach me personally so we can all keep things in perspective. Thanks again, Wikidemo 03:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your AfD comment

Query for you here. Cheers, SlimVirgin 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Answered. Thanks. Wikidemo 00:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin 13:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Fildelfair issues

I already blocked him. That was strange. I don't think any of us are averse to discussing these issues, so there was really no need for that complete meltdown! -- But|seriously|folks  02:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Rebellious spirit, I think. Wikidemo 02:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Listing?

Wikidemo: Have you listed yourself in the wrong spot here? Are you an administrator? Members: Administrative members. There is another list of non-admistrative members. I just happened to notice this when I followed a link on your talk page yesterday and I thought I should bring it to your attention. --NYScholar 23:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for the heads up. I migrated my listing to where it should be. So far nobody has asked me for any administrative intervention....Wikidemo 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to offend you by asking! Thanks for pleasant reply. Same caveat re: a question about your adding Maya Angelou recently to your own user page list of "Significant contributions": Wouldn't you want to list her in your "music, art, literature" column? (sorry--you popped up on my watch list bec. I had come here to post the earlier comment, and I just noticed that before logging out after coming on to do something else to another literary topic.) --NYScholar 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are quite the editor....yes, she was in the wrong column. Thanks, I moved her over. Wikidemo 07:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Smiles for you!

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

Welcome to the League of Copyeditors

I'm very sorry I haven't had a chance to welcome you earlier, I have been incredibly busy lately. We are glad to have your help. Currently, we have really cut down the backlog of articles in need of copyedit. Therefore, a major goal at this moment is to identify new articles that are in need of work. When you run across them, be sure to tag them for copyediting.

If you have any questions at all, do not hesitate to drop me a line. Trusilver 06:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI/N - Wikia

Thank you for your comments on the Wikia discussion at WP:COI/N. It would appear that many of the "sensitive" things you warned about are actually taking place under the direction of Wales and Beesley. --Dude Manchap 16:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To be clear I'm not personally taking a position that there's an actual problem, just pointing out that there's an area where people need to be careful. Even if there is a conflict, I have other fish to fry than thinking about accusations of conflicts of interest among Wikimedia board members. That kind of governance issue is not my reason for being here. I'd rather write articles and discuss policies.Wikidemo 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Understood, and as it should be. I just don't understand why Angela Beesley needs to stay involved with Wikimedia Communications and Advisory Committees, and why Davis needs to be Wikimedia's Treasurer. Can't they find other people for these posts? Wikia should keep them busy enough. Also, it would perhaps not shock you to learn that Beesley has used the WikiEN-l mailing list to announce publicly an effort of hers to co-opt rejected Misplaced Pages articles into the Wikia fold. This would be exactly the type of conflict that you would recommend we be on the lookout. --Dude Manchap 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request for undeletion - San Jose Lasers

Hi, would you kindly consider undeleting San Jose Lasers, which you deleted in September, 2005, or sending me a copy of the content? I had nothing to do with the original article so I don't know it's shortcomings but this is one of the American Basketball League (1996-1998) teams. Of those teams the majority do have their own Misplaced Pages article and this is the only one to have been deleted. The Lasers seem to be among the better known teams in the league and despite going defunct with the rest of the league in 1998 have more than 3000 google hits and 1,000+ news hits. I know these counts don't prove notability but I'm pretty sure that with a little digging I can find some reliable sources to show the team is notable, particularly in a time when there is increasing interest in women's sports, particularly women's pro basketball. As I said I have no idea what's in the now-deleted article but it would sure help to see the contents instead of trying again from scratch. Thanks, Wikidemo 18:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, knowing the contents of the deleted article will not help you; its exact contents were "San Jose Lakers" (without the quotes). In case you are interested, the deletion reason was CSD A3 ("no content whatsoever"). --cesarb 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for checking for me. Wikidemo 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question about sounds of nature

Greetings. I asked a copyright question here. Since you know a good bit about copyright law, I thought I'd specifically solicit your opinion there. Thanks, – Quadell 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent article creation

You forgot {{us-law-bio-stub}} and categories. Please keep a strong BLP watch over it, as it will surely attract trolls. THF 20:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

thx. It's a worthy addition to Misplaced Pages (IMO), and an experiment in maintaining neutrality. Wikidemo 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some useful wikilinks:

• Overlawyered
• alt.folklore.urban
• Troll (AFU), I think, works better than leaving "troll" unwikilinked, as it provides the proper context.
• conspiracist

There are two places in the article where there are ellipses used to quote outside sources, and, for the life of me, I don't understand why the text that was removed was removed, but who am I to suggest edits? THF 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ted Frank

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ted Frank, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ted Frank seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ted Frank, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 23:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed images posted by us PersonalityPhotos

We have added the following to our[REDACTED] directory as per suggestions from a number of other users.

http://www.personalityphotos.com/wikipedia/license.html

we still need to resolve how this will be tagged to images in dispute and who would do that. Obvioulsy because of a conflict of interest we cannot do so.

I apologize in the dleay of the reply, but we were involved in a number of other projects which consumed our time.

PersonalityPhotos 05:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

An interesting and sincere effort at a license to Misplaced Pages that might satisfy Misplaced Pages's need for free content. Normally Misplaced Pages wouldn't want any license other than an absolute one by GDFL. Here, the few reservations are not restrictions on use but an attempt to protect the licensor. I have to think about it more, and I'm not the one to decide, but very considerate and thoughtful. Thanks. Wikidemo 06:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Project templates belong on Talk pages, not in articles

Regarding this edit, please note that Wikiproject templates belong on Talk pages, not in the articles themselves. In the case of that article, the SFBA Project template had been on the article's talk page for a number of months already. If you have done this in other articles, please go back and either move them to the corresponding Talk pages, or remove them if the Talk pages already have the project template. Thanks, MCB 21:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. No, I put project tags on talk pages, not main space....I've added several hundred so I was probably in drone mode being sloppy. Thanks for catching that. Wikidemo 21:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability

In this post Diff at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability you made the comment - and probably 75% of the facts that ought to be cited are uncited. Fixing them all would be a task equally as great as creating the encyclopedia in the first place. Let me say, we are working on it. Come to Misplaced Pages:Unreferenced articles take a look and maybe add a couple references. Jeepday (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

IvyGate

It seems you are now the hero of IvyGate!! Thanks for the work on restoring and patching up the article ;-) -DMCer 05:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No prob. Happy to correct (most) any injustice! Wikidemo 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project Newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue VI - May 6th, 2007

Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

The next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminisce (artist) – notability?

I noticed that you just created an article on graffiti artist Reminice/Ruby Neri. I'm not entirely sure she has the notability to merit an article. I did mention her in articles I wrote on the Mission School and on her father Manuel Neri, because she was definitely worth mentioning in that context. I was reluctant, however, to create a separate article about her because I had doubts about her overall notability.

Whether she's somebody who's artistic career is notable in her own right, I'm not so sure. As a gallery artist, she's definitely no more notable than many hundreds of other artists exhibiting around Los Angeles galleries. On the other hand, 10-15 years ago, she was considered one of the top graffiti artists in San Francisco when she was active there in the early 1990s, and did play a role in genesis of the so-called "Mission School" (though she was long gone from the San Francisco art scene by the time the "Mission School" was named and described).

Anyway, I just wanted to get your opinion on this, because I'm going back and forth on AfDing the article. Peter G Werner 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think she is notable for her participation in the Mission School as "one of the top graffiti artists in San Francsico." There was a substantial, notable movement afoot, and she was one of its most important practitioners. I would compare that to, say, the San Francisco Renaissance, where every poet who was widely published or listened to, or figured into the movement, is considered notable for their own article...several dozen. Unfortunately, Neri has not achieved the same recognition for her studio work that she did for her street art. That apparent downturn (popularity-wise, at least) in her career does not make her less notable than before, it just means she did not get any more notable. Case in point, Las Ketchup sold 12 million copies of their first album, so I guess that makes them notable. Their second album, four years later, sold 10,000 units. Does that erase their notability? No, not really.

At bottom, notability goes to the question, is this something people should know about? Is this something that people want to know about? Does it add to the encyclopedic scope of Misplaced Pages. I think the answer is an emphatic yes. She is widely famous around here; most anyone who lived in town and anyone in the Mission during the period knows who she is, by her works at least. Fairly often I hear people talking about the horses that used to be all over town. She is not an island; what she did is thoroughly integrated into the culture and history of the city, and the evolution of art. It expands people's understanding of that art. Although it is a form of "low art", which is often derided, removing it would eliminate something that I think a lot of people would want to know about in a valid, encyclopedic way.

AFD would be a real problem and points out the limitations of the notability rules. Some professions don't get press as much as other professions. Whereas pop musicians, celebrutants, performance artists, etc., get all the press, graffiti artists are by nature secretive, elusive, anonymous. So we don't get the biographical profiles in major newspapers. To a large extent we know them by their tags, street names, etc. That's what I was getting at when I named the article Reminisce instead of Ruby Neri. It would be nice to find more biographical info or criticism, and if you have some links they would be great. Alas, the bio stuff is all from her recent gallery showings and doesn't even mention what she's really famous for. Wikidemo 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You make a good case about this, and I won't AfD the article. As I said, I was reluctant to create such an article when I wrote the Mission School and Manuel Neri articles, because I wasn't sure if she met the notability criteria and also conflict of interest issues (she's somebody who I used to know a long time ago).

I'll add some stuff from the books Graffiti Women and Graffito to the article so that there's a little more in the way of concrete references about her.

BTW, in terms of "Mission School" artists, there's a real need for an article on Chris Johanson, who's probably among the three best-known exponents of that school. Also, the article on Barry McGee is in serious need of cleanup. All of these are on my "to do" list, but if you're interested in the subject, have at it. Peter G Werner 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice work updating the Reminisce article. It looks really good now. All new articles should be that good. I just did the stubbiest of stubs for Chris Johanson. I'll see if I can come back to it, and hopefully it will encourage others to help out. Wikidemo 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks – I'll try and do some expansion on the Chris Johanson article some time in the next week. There's an entire half-hour documentary on him up on the KQED website, so there should be a lot that could be added based on that. Peter G Werner 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Kat Walsh's clarification

Can you point me to where the original clarification by Kat Walsh concerning individual images each having specific "fair-use rationales" is located? Thank you, Wikidemo. ... Kenosis 03:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow on the draw. The link is now on the WP:NONFREE talk page. Wikidemo 04:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL -- especially given the amount of time the whole process takes! It took you all of 54 minutes to respond! Wikidemo, thanks for the info. ... Kenosis 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007 WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter September 2007
--Christopher Tanner, CCC 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Your WP:RFPP Request for Ratatouille (film)

I moved your request to the correct section (WP:RFPP#Current requests for protection); you had accidentally placed it in the already-actioned section. For future reference, requests for page protection are placed at the top of the "Current requests for protection" section. Regards, -Jéské 05:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks so much for helping a protection request newbie. It was my first request!Wikidemo 05:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert of copy/paste move at Iso

Hello. For more information on how pages should be moved, please refer to Help:Moving a page. Ewlyahoocom 20:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Your recent comment summarized my concerns perfectly. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 20:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment on ANI

You said, "The very need for written use rationales, and the form in which they appear, has been seriously questioned,...". I made a strong attempt to resolve this issue on WT:NONFREE, in a thread you participated in. I saw no clear resolution at all from that thread; the CSD criteria still require written rationales. The lack of resolution isn't your fault, and I agree with the sentiment that certain uses may be amenable to canned rationales. But until the CSD criteria are changed, if they ever are, I find it hard to fault editors for following them when deleting images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not faulting anyone, just cautioning not to be too zealous in enforcing a controversial and possibly unnecesary policy. I think we have an undeclared truce right now. If widespread tagging and deletion of legacy images begin again that will force the issue and we'll probably have a lot of bad blood. Wikidemo 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I was planning to return to those deletion categories soon. I took a break from deletion to attempt to resolve the policy, but I believe I have failed at my attempt to do that. It seems to me that the users who favor that written rationales not be required in all cases (and I am not trying to include you in that group, as I don't know your position) stand to lose the most from a lack of progress on the policy talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I favor that something be included on each image page for each use, and I'm not sure what that something should be. It depends on the situation I guess. But until we figure it out I don't think anybody should be adding images without rationales, nor should people be deleting old whose rationales are missing or don't fit today's requirements. The go slow, constructive approach is to first decide what we want, second decide on an orderly way to get there, and only then, figure out and implement the means. Wikidemo 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Abreu 1997 cabernet.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Misplaced Pages:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments over at WP:V

• If person A says X about person B, you cannot use person A's statement to source the proposition that there is a controversy between person A and person B. You need a secondary source to cover the matter.

I found this interesting, is this your interpretation or does this have some precedent with an arbitration case or some policy or guideline? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. This very question, in broader form, seems to be the subject of an edit war on the WP:OR policy page. Nevertheless, I think my comment stands to reason. A page on which A says X is a "primary source" with respect to the fact that A actually said X. If you want to know whether or not A said B you have to go to the place where it supposedly happened, and decide for yourself... like if an archeology dig inside an old town. Did they store wheat in the town? We don't know so we'll go dig and find out for ourselves! The material on the page could be a primary source if A is just transcribing what he saw, or is some scholarly or historical figure....if A is an ancient bard who wrote a poem saying B (Oh, lo, in the town of C there is grain), then it is a primary source for reporting that there was grain in the town. Or else it could be a secondary source (a newspaper account, book, treatise, guide, etc). Or a tertiary source (an encyclopedia). We try to avoid primary sources because they don't have editorial control, consistency, fact checking, etc., or they are subject to interpretation, or specialized knowledge is needed to interpret them. We avoid tertiary sources, I think because of the "telephone game" problem. If we simply quote another encyclopedia that in turn summarizes information available in published resources, we inherit all of the shortcomings of the encyclopedia we quote.

Quoting a source's disputable statement to stand for the proposition that there is a controversy raises WP:SYNTH problems as well. Simply quoting two sources and saying they disagree is already a bit of an issue, because whether or not they disagree requires further analytic reasoning, and Misplaced Pages is supposed to quote other people's reasoning, not engage in reasoning of its own. But even if you know that two sources disagree, to imply that there is an active controversy requires introducing some other facts, like that there is an active dispute, the two sides know about each other, etc. If a politician says in a speech that town B has no grain silo, and an ancient bard wrote a poem indicating otherwise, you can see that it is a stretch for a Misplaced Pages editor to take these two disparate sources to show that there is a controversy on the subject. On the other hand, if a reputable paper reports that the politican has been fighting with academics on the issue, that is a secondary source saying there is a controversy. I hope that's not too convoluted. Wikidemo 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats an interesting take on WP:OR, and one that makes alot of sense. It seems to me that Misplaced Pages is too full of he said she said sections and material in articles, it would be nice if there existed a policy that could deal with that. Has anyone ever thought of protecting policy related articles once they are agreed upon by the community? It would make sense to do so, so as to avoid edit warring. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Question about NFC material on the wiki

The number 170,000 has been batted about, and I just spent a good deal of time trying to locate a visible class of images representing anywhere near this number. This all is just terribly organized at present. How many NFC files are there all told, or where can I determine how many such files there are, independently of what we're being told on talk pages? How many NFC files are presently untagged, or where can I determine how many such files there are at present? Of the NFC files, where are the counts of files without explicit fair-use rationales, and the files without any boilerplate rationales such as those that are just generically tagged as "copyright-fair use". This is a complete mess at the moment, with a lot of discussion about "our NFCC" and little discussion of how its to be sensibly organized so people know what they're actually referring to, IMO. Thanks, by the way, for all your attention to these issues in the past two months. ... Kenosis 02:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

currently there are ~325,000 NFC images, +- 5,000. the most up-to date counts can be found at the bottom line of this. for a complete listing of all NFC images please see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~betacommand and the links labeled FU image list followed by a number. each file there contains 5k images. β 17:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

PubMed

You seem to have accidentally made a immense deletion of links and references at PubMed in the course of fixing an internal link--I've restored it. DGG (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Not sure what happened. It's as if whatever I was saving cut off halfway through the article. Good thing you caught that. Wikidemo 07:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo adaptec.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo adaptec.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal status of copyrights in the US after 1922

I just noticed your edits to WP:NFC. A couple of observations that are, IMO, among the more important issues.

"A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed. For books, the figure was even lower: 7%. See Barbara Ringer, "Study No. 31: Renewal of Copyright" (1960) ... A good guide to investigating the copyright and renewal status of published work is Samuel Demas and Jennie L. Brogdon, "Determining Copyright Status for Preservation and Access: Defining Reasonable Effort," Library Resources and Technical Services 41:4 (October, 1997): 323-334." Peter Hirtle's chart, footnote 7. Of the total US material published between 1923 and 1963, the percentage of renewed copyrights is far lower (because most publised material was never registered to begin with), perhaps only 1%, though no one has the figures at hand yet.

Also, anything published between 1963 and 1978 that did not have an explicit claim of copyright appended to the work (e.g. "© 1975 Jimmy Photographer" or "Copyright 1982 by Danny the Drawing Artist"), is in the public domain. In addition, anything published in the US from 1978 up to March 1, 1989 that did not have an explicit claim of copyright appended to the work, and which was not registered in the US Copyright office within five years of its publication is in the public domain. In other words, only a tiny minority of the total material published in the US between 1923 and 1963 retains any copyrights today. And, some of the material published between 1963 and February 28, 1989 was never under copyright.

If the work was published overseas, though, most material from 1923 to 1937 in a European Union nation has a potential copyright claimant, except where the author was never disclosed, as is often the case with published photographs. Anything published after 1937 in EU nations should be considered to be under copyright protection. Worldwide, anything that is still under copyright in its home country is, through the URAA, under copyright in the US. ... Kenosis 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, some additional specifics about the 1978-1989 images:

• According to 17 U.S.C. §405. If a work was published without notice between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989 (the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act), then the copyright is invalid, unless:

(1) the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or

(2) registration for the work was made before, or within five years after the publication without notice, and a reasonable effort was made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered; or

(3) the notice was omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner's authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the prescribed notice.

... Kenosis 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm wondering if we should give any guidance to people on the policy page, or simply state that there are a number of different categories and simply point people in the right direction (I linked to the Cornell law compendium of these rules). There's now way we can give people a succinct list of what is copyrighted and what is not in a brief legal background, only hint at some of the issues. It's most common to just mention the 1923 date but that is such a simplification I'm concerned that people may get the wrong idea. Wikidemo 15:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I recognize it will take time. For now, I made a couple adjustments to the edits you just posted on the NFC project page. In due course, I imagine it will get sorted out much better. At the present, I'm more concerned about the lack of coordination among templates and such. Far more importantly than hand-typed rationales or even rational templates such as the "Fair-use rationale" that some are using lately, is to get the templates catalogued so that a bot can in turn catalog the images on which each of the templates is placed. This has to do with the "machine readable" requirement of the Board's resolution. IMO, all this arguing about particular images in particular articles is taking away from getting that task accomplished. ... Kenosis 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I read your changes after my last message above and they look very good and helpful. I think that by simply having the copyright tags we may satisfy the letter of the Board's requirement that the copyright status be machine readable....but if the information is low quality, what's the point? It would be very useful if the use rationale/use templates are machine readable too, not just the copyright tags. Alas, because any copyright tag now in existence probably has many thousands of transclusions, so reworking them involves deprecating the old one in favor of a new one...unless and until someone wants to go through and fix each image where it appears and fix it. When the subject comes up I think it's important to note that each image could have two or more separate copyrights with separate copyright and source information, e.g. photograph is GDFL and comes from xxxxx / sculpture appearing in photograph is modern artwork reproduced under claim of fair use and comes from yyyy museum of art. Wikidemo 15:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, as we've seen, a great deal of this information is low quality no matter how it's approached. Not only that, as I said, the template situation is a mess at the moment too. If there's virtually no backlog of untagged images, then the next sensible step would appear to be to catalog the templates so we'all can keep track of what templates are being used in how many images and what kinds of images. Without that information in a place that can be readily examined, we're spinning our wheels on a lot of this. ... Kenosis 16:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand might be the one to ask. The 170,000 figure for images without use rationales comes from him, and I know he's broken figures down before by what copyright tag was used, and was developing some capability for filtering according to whether images were used in articles within the scope of a given wikiproject (by looking for that project's templates on the article's talk page). So he may have the means and interest to gather that information. I suspect he and some of the other editors interested in image policy are looking for something good to do that actually gets them praise from the general public and not just a bunch of flak. Images could be tagged with templates or categories, not for purpose of deletion per se but for purposes of organization and analysis. One thing I may propose is that the deficient legacy images get tagged all at once with a firm but realistic deadline for organized mop-up efforts instead of a rolling 7 day deletion process. We know we're going to have to fix or delete +/- 170,000 legacly non-free images, so why not look at the other +/- 170,000 while we're at it? I'm not sure what we can do to verify that the images tagged as free are truly not copyrighted. This could all fit into a large-scale cleanup effort. Wikidemo 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll call this exchange to Betacommand's attention then. As to the notion that it's necessary to fix or delete about 170,000 images, I thought we just went over this. An explicit hand-typed rationale (the rationale for the rationale) is not required under the Board resolution, as recently clarified by Kat Walsh. In automated terms, the rationale is the template, each of which makes a statement about what class of justification is asserted for the use of the image. Seems to me, first we all need access to that information, and then it's more feasible to determine if any classes (templates) are completely wrong, what classes are partially correct partially in need of correction, what classes appear to be correct except for some images where it's wrongly applied, etc., etc. ... Kenosis 16:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The foundation resolution doesn't require explicit written rationales, but WP:NFCC does require them, and images here have to be complaint with our local policies. Betacommand, several other editors, and I have all stated we support the use templated rationales for certain uses, but the policy has yet to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we, or do we not deserve to have this information readily in hand? As to the NFCC, it's now clear that there was some leaping-before-looking going on when they were brought into their present form a number of months ago. It was just made clear by Kat Walsh that NFC files do not require an explicit custom-written rationale for each and every image use, as presently written under #10(c). (See, e.g., .) This is a major part of what is holding up the works right now. Let's get this into some knowledgeable perspective first by having the information about those claimed 170,000 images in front of us please. ... Kenosis 17:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for sure images have to comply with policy. No dispute there. I'm just saying that our enforcement program should be geared to fixing all these old images rather than deleting them. Now that we know the Foundation hasn't imposed a deadline on us, we have the time to plan out and execute a more thorough approach. That discussion will likely involve discussing possible changes to NFCC, FURG, and CSD, designing new use rationales and copyright tags, and setting up a system for approving new categories of rationales, all to best serve Misplaced Pages's goals and those of the Foundation. A few people have said that rationales should not be required at all in obvious cases, but not me. I say we should hold off on deleting the old images with obvious but unwritten rationales and try in an organized way to go back and clean them up before deleting them. The final date for having all the images either fixed or deleted may well be the same as planned, March of next year. Only we can make all sides of this more systematic, tagging, adding rationales where we can, and deleting Wikidemo 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Adder Technology

Next time please go to deletion review - your repost of the cached version violates GFDL. I have re-added the AfD notice, since you reversed the AfD close. Guy (Help!) 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How would it violate GDFL? I don't think so, and it's not worth the time to go through that much procedure on an improper speedy. Wikidemo 06:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Message about mass deletion nominations posted at AN/I

Hi,

I see you've commented on top of the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Ukrainian Americans deletion discussion about the overall issue of these mass deletion nominations. Obviously that isn't a great place for us to discuss this. Having all of these come up at once is problematic, I think, so I left a message at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents see "Mass deletion nominations for List of Americans". You may want to follow that or comment there. Noroton 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I left a comment there, all about the process. I don't have an opinion on whether these should all be deleted, just that dozens of individual nominations is unworkable. Wikidemo 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

GNL

Hi Wikidemo—Thanks for your input into this 19th-century discussion that we're having in the 21 century. Many people find it unbelievable that this imbroglio is occurring, and that two or three antagonists can hold us all to ransom with their loud shouting. Now I see that PMAnderson has slapped his usual dispute tag on it (he appears to thrive on disputation). I do hope that people will band together to ensure that this tactic does not remain a fixture on the policy page for long. It appears to be an unreasonable, almost petulant refusal to acknowledge the weight of opinion for some kind of GNL. I'm also tiring of this endles bellowing about the supposed use of this oh-so-weak GNL addition as some kind of weapon by FA reviewers. It's a diversionary tactic, pure and simple, to muddy the waters and claim lack of consensus. I do hope we all stand fast against it. Tony 15:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever thought about standing for adminship?

I mean, if you don't feel you work hard enough around here, I think you'd be an excellent candidate. I'd nominate you if you're interested. Cheers, WilyD 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but for now I need a little more experience. I'm still not familiar with all the policies. Also, I've been in some edit wars and a few incivility accusations with some administrators and other editors. I'd want to shoot for a 2-3 month period of no edit wars and no incivilities before I'm ready for admin. But maybe then. Wikidemo 21:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Hey, I was very worried about a lot of the same stuff when I stood for adminship and my fears weren't really realised. You're probably more popular and trusted than you believe. Cheers, WilyD 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of patent trolls

List of patent trolls, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of patent trolls satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of patent trolls and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of patent trolls during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester 19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Legacy images

I saw your comment on WT:NONFREE that you are planning to propose something for legacy images. How close are you to making that proposal? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BC's partly finished breakdown of current NFC template usage

BC has put together a partial breakdown off current NFC using existing templates, including most of the widely used NFC licensing templates at ]. ... Kenosis 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

On September 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edsel Ford Fong, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Daniel Case 15:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mzoli's

A tag has been placed on Mzoli's, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. CobaltBlueTony 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning regarding why this article receives such negative attention. I went after it bcause the sourcing is wretched. Find better sourcing. Why isn't there an article about it in the Afrikaner edition? That's also suspicious. We can't make it famous just because famous people go there. Otherwise the corner of Sansom St. and 7th St. in Philadelphia should be famous because lots of colonials peed all over the steps there. More attention, better preparation, should be seen especially from an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself. Write for the enemy! - CobaltBlueTony 18:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

International radio program + local paper + multiple blogs is not sourcing? Plenty of context. It is described by many sources as famous. It looks like overzealous deletion attempts.Wikidemo 18:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I put a proposal at User:CBM/NFCC Proposal‎. Please feel free to edit it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Anetode has asked a good question about other rationales at the talk page; I would like to know other people's thought about it. If I didn't undestand the proposal correctly when I wrote it up, please do let me know any way it can be improved. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I saw a comment you wrote at WT:NONFREE about incivility. I didn't think those comments in particular were over the line; just disgruntled. I can't imagine that polemics like that are convincing to most people. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a little unpleasant dealing with people accusing me of pulling stuff out of my ass (his words), not knowing anything about copyright law, not bothering to read things, etc. I should just stay out of the way of disgruntled people railing against image policy. I'll take a look at the proposal now. Wikidemo 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If everyone is mostly satisfied with User:CBM/NFCC Proposal‎, I think we should make it live while it's still relevant. Would you be willing to support the wording as it is right now? It's been sitting untouched for a few days. I also made a mockup of an image description page at User:CBM/Sandbox. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just left my last thoughts on this. Wikidemo 21:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Can you please archive your talkpage, users on dailup have problems loading this page. β 19:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I spotted two {{proposal}}s in your userspace. You should probably tell other people about them, e.g. at the village pump in order to get feedback. Cheers, >Radiant< 11:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have to look around there to take stock. I've let some stuff accumulate...

Your edits to policy and guideline pages

Wikidemo, although appreciate editor's interest in policy and guideline pages, I woulkd argue that your recent interventions there changing well-established material and text without prior discussion is not useful, is disruptive, and it is outside of process. Please discuss your ideas in talk, be patient, and allow editors to make their arguments for and against changes to these pages. In policy and guideline pages, if a change is made and is immediately reverted, the expected approach is not to revert back to your change as you are de facto disrupting established consensus. If, on the other hand, your edit sticks, pat yourself on the back for making an improvement that was within the established consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You're just being contrarian. I've seen you do this before. Copy edits and organization are not a consensus issue. What do you have against improving the wording and organization of a very messy talk page? Wikidemo 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Calling me a "contrarian" is also not helpful. What you did here] is not copyedit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You said I'm being disruptive for editing a page. I'm not. There is nothing bad faith about being contrarian, it's just a form of stubbornness. Call it gradualism, if you wish. I made my edits in little pieces so everyone can see each step of what I'm doing, and see if they approve or not. I stopped at a very early point rather than get the page to where it should be, to give people time to consider. The end point is not supposed to be any different than before, just better organized and better worded, so that it's clear exactly what policies and guidelines are being quoted and where. From there the page actually becomes useful: much clearer for the average editor to use as a guide to sourcing, and in a form where people interested in policy can make decisions on the content. Anyway, I'll take these even slower, one step at a time and you can tell me what's good and what isn't. Wikidemo 01:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Follow up - yay! (re. some more edits we both made) You and I agree halfway on something here, very small. Can we take this to the talk page for actual changes to the page? Thx, Wikidemo 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

First you call me a contrarian, then you call me stubborn. Oh well. You simply cannot make major changes, be reverted and revert again in policy pages. If you want to give people time to consider, use the talk page, that is there specifically for that reason! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

...okay, back. Sorry if my words are inappropriate and you take any offense, I'm trying to tease you gently. We run into each other a lot lately and I have nothing but respect for your work. What I'm trying to say is exactly what you're trying to say. You describe as a major change things I would describe as minor incremental style improvements...hence you're a gradualist at times where I'm less of one. The way I'm going about things is sometimes the best and fastest way to overhaul a disorganized policy/guideline page. You know the deadlock that happens on policy pages. Anyway, my objection wasn't to your watching over the wording, but rather what looked to be a blanket opposition to making any changes. I'll work at a slower speed through a few proposed edits (which you're free to revert of course) and talk page suggestions, and as a courtesy I'll do anything in bite size pieces. Wikidemo 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemo. I applaud your attempts to clean up this guideline and have a couple comments, and a suggestion that may work, though it would primarily be up to you and Jossi. No since getting into an edit war and generating bad blood when it could be avoided. How about creating a page in your Sandbox for RS, and making all of your edits there, then asking Jossi for feedback. I think that maybe your "one piece at a time" approach may be misconstrued, and Jossi may be seeing something they deem "important" as being deleted, when in fact you haven't gotten around around reinstating it yet where you feel it is more appropriate. Maybe if you could "do it all at once" (even if it takes a week or two), and then ask Jossi for comments or other suggestions, seeing all of your edits in context would be easier to see.

On a side note that both of you may care to comment on, I have already copied RS into my Sandbox at User:Wbfergus/Sandbox/Reliable Sources. However, I have also copied over the pertinent "Sources" sections from the 4 content policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as well. Presently they are include after the RS data. My idea is to see how (or even if), that 'data' could be consolidated into one place in a coherent fashion. Both of you are more than welcome to take a look and play around with it if you want. Some (much?) of what I copied from the policies may ultimately not be pertinent or relevant there, I just wanted to copy it all so it was easy to see.

You both seem to be good editors interested in improving Misplaced Pages as a whole, regardless of various disagreements at different points in time. Working in a Sandbox environment doesn't effect anything currently in place, and may ultimately be more 'time-effective", as some reverts get done so current interpretations aren't lost are diluted. After a (more or less) total rewrite, there may easily not be any disagreement if it can be shown nothing pertinent was lost or otherwise diluted in importance. Others could also comment on the 'final' product with additional tweaking before making the change to the main page.

Just an idea. wbfergus 13:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good suggestion. The point is to improve page organization and quality while leaving meaning alone (other than strengthening it by making it better). I don't have any agenda to change sourcing requirements on Misplaced Pages. When new issues come up I might have an opinion on them, but I'm definitely not trying to sway the guideline one way or another. My "one step at a time" approach worked in a few unruly places to bring people with diverse concerns together to accept a thorough page reorganization. When you go from A to D and skip the steps in between the changes can seem big, but if you show why A->B->C->D people are more accepting. But I've never done this while someone as attentive as jossi was watching over the page too. So maybe it's best just need to talk to him about my vision for how this page can be better, and see what he thinks.Wikidemo 13:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, one of my thoughts/hopes is to consolidate discussion WP:RS for WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP into more clearly defined sections for each. One effect of that would be moving, transcluding, copying, or offloading any verbiage to or from these three policy pages would be easier to discuss and implement (or not implement, as the case may be). Wikidemo 14:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that in a roundabout way, you are working similarly to what we are proposing over on the NOR page. Good luck, the ore people invloved in trying different approaches, the more likely someone comes up with something acceptable to the majority. wbfergus 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion over at WP:NOR has been so long and hard to follow that I'm mostly sitting on the sidelines waiting to see what you guys all work out. But if you do end up deciding to move content from NOR to RS, it should find as hospitable a home at RS as possible.Wikidemo 14:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, this, was a good call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm becoming you. At least I'm learning to understand the value of stability over well=meaning improvements. Ha! Wikidemo 02:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

650 California Street

I like your contribution to 650 California Street that you made about a month ago. However, could you please provide some references to the information you contributed? Thanks. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 19:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mostly done. It took a while to track down my gold mine source but it's an oral history interview transcript with the architect. It's frustrating to add citations after the fact because after a while the edits get picked up by lots and lots of[REDACTED] fork websites, and then any google search turns them up instead of the original article source. Wikidemo 09:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Great job, anyway. Thanks a lot! Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Different license tags

You said that we need to have different license tags for different types of images. I don't remember seeing that written anywhere, so I was surprised. Certainly the license has to be machine readable, but I didn't realize this implied that we had to include in this machine readable information whether image is a logo, cover, etc. All that the foundation resolution says is "Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users." As long as the license template says the image is nonfree, I think this is satisfied.

Also, our current proposal wouldn't deprecate the old tags on old images, just on images after Jan 1 2008. Presumably the old ones would eventually get converted, but for now I think NFCC#10 would be split into two parts, one for "legacy" images and one for images uploaded after 2008-1-1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the Foundation only requires that we say it's non-free. We're going beyond the Foundation's requirements here, so any way we do it is going to be compatible with the resolution. However, one thing about the rationales we're proposing is that they only apply if it's the right kind of image. So the logo rationale applies only to logos (and maybe some images tagged as "symbols"), the album cover rationale applies to album covers, etc. Like the statement of where it's source is, or the size of the image, the notation that an image is a logo is a once-per-image piece of data, not once-per-use. How we indicate that really is a down-the-road detail. If we make that implicit, we leave things hanging for images that don't fit our rationale templates or in cases where people add a additional uses to an existing image that can't be templated. I can see advantages either way. Having a field for "type of image" in the copyright tag would be a nice double-check to make sure the right rationale template is used; however, it would be an extra step at the time of upload. In terms of the legacy images, if an image is obviously compliant we can leave it alone indefinitely, until or unless someone has the patience to convert it to the new format for the sake of consistency. If a legacy image is noncompliant, or gets tagged because a bot can't find the info and someone has to review it by hand, then might as well upgrade it to the new format, which will be easier than the old one anyway.Wikidemo 01:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that answers my confusion. It's easy enough to add a parameter to the license template to say that the image is a logo, album cover, etc. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Stossel

I have a problem with some of your edits to John Stossel. In this edit you claim a BLP violation, even though the accusations appeared on CNN and it is a matter of record that the clips of the children were cut from the broadcast. On what grounds do you consider that a BLP violation? In this edit you say that Galbraith had "changed his mind." Exactly where do you see that in any source? I would submit that the reason the controversy section is lengthy is because there are very many serious controversies, and if you are concerned the article is becoming unbalanced then you ought to find well-sourced material to lengthen other sections with, as I have done. Acct4 04:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)