I recently did some vandalism on Wikipedia, and made some racially insensitive remarks. I must note that not only was I in a very childish mood, of which I will not attempt to excuse myself, but was also mildly intoxicated. I assure you it will not happen again.
I must also note that on my note of blocking it says I was warned. No such thing ever happened, and I would surely like to see an explanation for it.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
I see that this is already listed on [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]],
and I hope that the resolution will be prompt.
----- Forwarded message from Phil Franks <freax(a)arrakis.es> -----
From: Phil Franks <freax(a)arrakis.es>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 18:31:58 +0200
To: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Subject: Copyright Violation at Wikipedia
To:
Jimmy Wales, President
Wikimedia Foundation
3911 Harrisburg St. NE
St. Petersburg, FL 33703
Dear Sir,
I'm writing to you regarding the unauthorized use
of one of my copyright images.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Zappa.jpg
My original image is embedded with the Digimarc
digital watermark, see http://digimarc.com
I declare and state, in good faith, that as
copyright owner, I have not authorized this use
of my copyright image.
I state under penalty of perjury that I am the
sole legal owner of the image and all rights
thereto, and therefore request, in compliance
with the DMCA, now that you have been made aware
of the infringement, that you take all necessary
steps without delay to ensure that this use
ceases, and that your subscriber desist from any
future infringement of my copyright.
Faithfully,
Phil Franks
--
This email and any files transmitted with it are
confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. This communication may contain
material protected by attorney-client privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient or the
person responsible for delivering the email to
the intended recipient, be advised that you have
received this email in error and that any use,
dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying
of this email is strictly prohibited.
Phil Franks <mailto:freax@arrakis.es>
URL:http://www.ibiblio.org/mal/MO/philm/
--
Phil Franks
Bungalow #100,
Pasaje Berlin 4,
Haygon 2,
03009,
Alicante,
Spain.
Phone: (+34) 965 181187
Mobile: (+34) 676 214842
----- End forwarded message -----
>I see no reason to stay clean any more when people are allowing this guy to do whatever he feels like doing.
Rick you are too emotionally involved in this matter. That's completely understandable, but it is clouding your good judgement. Loads of people are trying to stop him from doing whatever he feels like. If you don't stay clean you make it harder to punish Wik. Why would you want that?
Theresa
Hi,
when the site is down we currently get this error message:
Sorry! The wiki is experiencing some technical difficulties,
and cannot contact the database server.
In the interest of user interface design, please could someone change
this to
Wikipedia is currently experiencing technical difficulties.
Please try again later. We apologise for the inconvenience.
Thanks!
Timwi
On this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedia_articles_based_upo…
we have a link to
http://www.questia.com/
Questia has offered to pay us $12 per signup through that link, but we
would have to change the link to a tracking url.
I almost just went ahead told them no, but then I thought, hmm, maybe
we should talk about this. It's not likely to generate any
significant revenue -- that's a pretty obscure page I think -- so it's
really more a question of the general principle here.
I guess the problem I have with it is that the text of that page is
pure editorial content, and should remain that way. It's different
even from the book sources page in that respect. Putting a paid link
on a page can be perfectly fine to do, but not unless clearly marked
as such. But starting down the path of embedding paid links with
disclaimers all over wikipedia is a pretty huge _stylistic_ change if
nothing else, and I'm not really comfortable with it.
Linking to booksellers and having a mix of paid and unpaid links on
that page is not likely to give rise to doubts about our neutrality.
But linking for money *within* the content of actual articles, not in
the margin or whatever, that sounds pretty bad to me.
I think I would be a lot more comfortable with a link in the margin, a
link to their search engine for the topic of the page, with us getting
paid, with a disclaimer. That would be *outside* the editorial
content of the article itself.
(I am not proposing that we do that, I am just saying that it would be
different.)
--Jimbo
David Gerard wrote:
>I want to do some Wikipedia articles based on Disinfopedia articles.
>They're GFDL. But what is the proper way to carry over authorship
>information? Cut'n'paste the Disinfopedia page history (they use
>MediaWiki too) to the Talk page? Acknowledgement link at the bottom
>of the page, as we use for FOLDOC or Jargon File-based articles?
When I use material from the Wikipedia in the Disinfopedia, I put in
a line of attribution at the bottom of the article. For example,
Disinfopedia's [[Richard A. Clarke]] article includes the following
line at the bottom, with links back to Wikipedia article:
>Note: A version of this article also appears in the Wikipedia.
If you want to do something similar when moving Disinfopedia material
into the Wikipedia, it would be appreciated but isn't obligatory.
It's not like we're in a position to sue over it.
--Sheldon Rampton
One more (sorry I should have checked this earlier but was getting timeouts)
>Maybe if people stopped unblocking the anons, that would be a start.
I've just checked to block log. No one is unblocking the anons. Well Guanaco unblocked several range blocks, one because it was done incorrectly, the other because you put (idiot) as the reason. If this IP was Wik you should say so. Incidentally for the user who clearly was wik he reblocked with a clearer reason in the summary box.
Like a said in my other post. We are all trying to block Wik. Let's bee cool, calm, and professional as we do it.
Theresa
>One thing that could be done, that hasn't been done to the degree that
>I would like, is for Cantus/Quagga to just *drop it*. Repeatedly
>doing stuff back to Wik as punishment for what Wik has done is wrong
>and juvenile.
I completely agree. It doesn't even punish Wik. It punishes the rest of
us who are trying to sort things out. I also think that if we present a
united front (and I'm talking to Rick here), block every IP Wik uses to
try and violate the ban AND delete any page that quaggo makes in order
to bait Wik, then Wik will get bored and go away.
Theresa
