Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> "Ask yourself is THIS the person you want as President of
> these United States [...] ? Do we want this man who is so
> clearly influenced by Europeans as our Commander-in-Chief,
> especially at such a time as this? "
>
> priceless.
Let's not get sidetracked into a fascinating political discussion. We all have passionate feelings about the upcoming US presidential election.
For the next 90 days, could we please use the ENERGY from these discussions as stimulation to devote ourselves to write more accurate and more comprehensive articles about the candidates and issues?
Ed Poor
Unofficial Head Coach
Wikipedia Writers Guild
I am having some trouble with one of our new contributors,
Jayjg. Jayjg is an ultra-Orthodox Jewish contributor, who
until recently has gotten along fine with most people. His
knowledge about many aspects of Judaism has added needed
data and perspective to a number of our articles. We both
have worked together very well on many articles; it is
always good to bring in more knowledgeable editors.
However, about two weeks ago I started having trouble with
him on a Talk page for the WikiProject on Judaism articles.
We were not disagreeing over what to put in an article.
Rather, whenever topics on theology arose, he seemed unable
to understand many of my statements, and began imputing
positions to me that I did not have and refuting positions
which I never held.
I repeatedly tried to clarify the situation, but Jayjg kept
on acting as if every statement made contained some sort of
hidden attack on his religion. He even criticised me on
many points that we *agreed* on; that really made me
nervous. Despite this, we still got along fine with edits
on all other articles. I regarded him as a useful Wikipedia
contributor.
However in recent days his ultra-Orthodox bias against all
other forms of Judaism have overwhelmed his common sense;
Jayjg has passed from partisan bickering into vandalism: He
is effectively committing fraud by making up statements by
"the leadership of Reform Judaism", making them out to be
anti-Semites who hate Orthodox Jews.
Now, if this were true, I would not have a problem with
mentioning the actual quotes made, the context in which
these quotes were made, and the response to them. However,
the article he links to doesn't back up his story. (In
fact, it contains no quotes from the original speech at
all, and no quotes which support his story!)
In fact, I personally have corresponded with some of the
Reform rabbis Jayjg is hysterical about, and I have read
their actual statements. The text which Jayjg keeps
inserting is some sort of paranoid fantasy about the
leadership of Reform Judaism slandering Orthodox Jews, in
general, as being as evil as terrorists like Osama bin
Ladin. Yet in point of fact, no such statement was ever
made.
The actual documented events show quite the opposite: a
number of Ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Israel issued a number
of angry pronouncements against all of Reform Judaism, on
repeated occasions, and this led to violence against Reform
Jews, death threats, and harassment. In response to this,
one single Reform rabbi wrote that those particular people
who engaged in such behaviour were like Jewish versions of
Islamic fundamentalists who encouraged violence; those
particular people were twisting their faith to promote
hatred, and did not represent mainstream Judaism. Nowhere
was there any attack on Orthodox Judaism in general, or
even on Ultra-Orthodox Judaism; rather, the author was
asking that attacks on _Reform_ Jews end!
Bizarrely, Jayjg has reversed the sequence of events, has
faked statements, and has attributed his fake statements to
the general Reform leadership! He keeps reverting the
article to remove real quotes from the rabbi in question,
and keeps deleting all discussion of the events (in all
sections of the article) that would lead to understanding
this in its historical context.
Readers should understand that many people in Jayjg's sect
of Judaism believe that any form of Orthodox or
non-Orthodox Judaism (other than their own, of course) is
dangerous and dishonest. Perhaps he feels that he has
somehow read between the lines and "uncovered" the true
beliefs of Reform Jews; perhaps he was taught this by his
teachers, and cannot believe that they misled him. If so,
then perhaps we can talk to him privately over how to write
NPOV articles, the crucial need for historical context, and
the sacred need for accurate quoting!
But until then, we cannot allow him to effectively
vandalize this article. We can't make up statements and
beliefs, and criticise people and movements for these
non-existent beliefs.
See this article:
[[Relationship between segments of Judaism]]
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> It seems very clear to me, a recent observer, that it has come to a
> point whereby such discourse would be a waste of people's time Anthony
As soon as someone brought it to my attention that people considered this
listing to be trolling I agreed to have it removed. What wasted people's
time was blocking me.
> If Anthony should, for any reason, make a provocative edit (that is, an
> edit which is "trolling", "disruptive", and/or "antisocial" as
> interpreted by an admin) or engage in an edit war, an admin, may at his
> discretion, block Anthony for a period of 24 hours,
> _not_subject_to_the_normal_warnings_and_protections_afforded_other_users
> .. (my emphasis)
> Christiaan
I agreed to this completely voluntarily. Please, save your comments for
when you know what you're talking about, not when you're a recent observer
who knows virtually none of the facts.
Anthony
To quoth the Copyright FAQ ([[Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ]]) that Jamesday and I
prepared:
Taking a work in the public domain and modifying it creates a new copyright
on the work. For instance, Orson Scott Card's Homecoming series is a
re-telling of the book of Mormon. The books in that series are copyrighted.
However, the new work must be different from the original in order for a new
copyright to apply, as the court ruled in Bridgeman Art Library v Corel
Corporation (http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/36_FSupp2d_191.htm).
The Bridgeman Art Library had made photographic reproductions of famous
works of art from museums around the world (works already in the public
domain.) The Corel Corporation used those reproductions for an educational
CD-ROM without paying Bridgeman. Bridgeman claimed copyright infringement.
The Court ruled that reproductions of images in the public domain are not
protected by copyright if the reproductions are slavish or lacking in
originality. In their opinion, the Court noted: "There is little doubt that
many photographs, probably the overwhelming majority, reflect at least the
modest amount of originality required for copyright protection.... But
'slavish copying', although doubtless requiring technical skill and effort,
does not qualify." [1]
--Mark
> I object solely on the grounds that it is not the arbcom's
> responsibility to create policy.
Previously we ruled that Wik must not revert without giving a valid reason. In this case,
we may rule that certain admins must not block without giving a valid reason.
I am curious as to why people would object to the latter ruling on a matter of principle,
when I did not hear similar objections in the earlier case of Wik. Perhaps someone
could explain the difference to me?
Thanks
-Martin
Let's sum it up and stop flapping our gums:
1. When you block a user, try to explain why. The best explanation
would be to cite the appropriate section of the Wikipedia:Blocking
policy.
* Example: "being a dastardly villain, see blocking policy #86"
2. Blocks made without an appropriate policy reference, may be
reversed -- but when you un-block someone, kindly leave a note at
the original blocking admin's page, and say something like: "I
unblocked Snidely Whiplash because you forgot to cite the (being
a dastardly villain) section of the blocking policy."
What could be more clear or simple?
Ed Poor
First Elected Bureaucrat <-- and proud OF it
On
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights/archive2#Adaptati
ons_of_public_domain_images , [[User:JamesDay]] argues that photographs
and scans of public domain materials (which these portraits surely would
be, given their age), with no creative work applied, do not grant
copyright to the photographer/scanner. But (a) he was talking about US
law, not British law, and (b) he might be wrong anyway, IANAL. :-)
David Carson
Senior Analyst/Programmer
Nine Network Australia
ph (02) 9965 2557
fax (02) 9965 2982
-----Original Message-----
From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales
Sent: Wednesday, 4 August 2004 14:38
To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org; wikien-l(a)wikimedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] [bhorrocks(a)npg.org.uk: National Portrait Gallery
images on Wikipedia website]
It would please me greatly to be able to respond that their claims are
preposterous. Shall we research this carefully?
----- Forwarded message from Bernard Horrocks <bhorrocks(a)npg.org.uk>
-----
From: "Bernard Horrocks" <bhorrocks(a)npg.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 14:23:33 +0100
To: <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Subject: National Portrait Gallery images on Wikipedia website
Dear Sir,
We notice you have a number of images on your website (e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare;
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_Denmark ) which are of portraits in
the collection of the National Portrait Gallery, London.<?xml:namespace
prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
As we do not appear to have licensed copies of these portraits for use
on your website, we wondered whether you would let us know the source
from which you obtained the reproductions.
All photographs, scans, text and other material on the National Portrait
Gallery's website are protected by international copyright laws.
Unauthorised reproduction of such content may be an infringement of such
laws.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter.
Yours sincerely,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bernard Horrocks
Copyright Officer
National Portrait Gallery St Martin's Place London WC2H OHE
Direct T +44 (0) 20 7312 2442 F +44 (0) 20 7312 2464 www.npg.org.uk
<http://www.npg.org.uk/>
click here <http://www.patronmailuk.com/bnmailweb/PatronSetup?oid=29>
to register for the Gallery's e-newsletter
This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----- End forwarded message -----
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail communication may be confidential. You should only read, disclose, re-transmit, copy, distribute, act in reliance on or commercialise the information if you are authorised to do so. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail communication, please immediately notify the sender by e-mail and then destroy any electronic or paper copy of this message.
Any views expressed in this e-mail communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of TCN. TCN does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free of errors, virus or interference.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick wrote:
> Since I was involved in the redirecting and reverting, I was not
> allowed to protect the page, much as I would have liked to.
So ask somebody else to do it, then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
You've made requests there before, so I know you know how to find it.
Protecting the page would have been far better than escalating the
dispute straight to blocking, which is a pretty extreme solution.
--Michael Snow
Rick wrote:
> This is a pretty good indication that our [[John Kerry]] article needs
> SERIOUS NPOVing, since it's being praised by the Bush people:
I took a glance through the John Kerry article and thought it was
pretty good. I'm no expert on Kerry's background, so of course it is
possible that there are errors I didn't detect, but on the whole it
seemed to be a balanced assessment of the man and his career. The
Bush people may find it shocking that Kerry spent some time in France
as a youth and had a friend who became a leader of the Green Party,
but people who aren't totally dumbass Republicans will probably greet
that kind of revelation with big yawns.
I thought the description of his time in Vietnam was particularly
good. It gave a detailed but matter-of-fact description of the
battles in which he fought and the injuries that he experienced. The
article doesn't seem to be trying to build him up as a hero (which is
his campaign has been doing) or trash him for not having been injured
more severely (which is what the dumbass Republicans have been trying
to do).
I did sense some spottiness in the article's reporting on his career
in the U.S. Senate, but this didn't seem to stem from any particular
POV.
--Sheldon Rampton
Hi! I was blocked severely and unfairly by user RickK. I need to be
unblocked. He also blocked my father, because there was some name changing war between
them.
I dont think of RickK as an administrator, rather he thinks he is a DICtator,
which is a shame because I share a lot of respect for all wikipedians, and
wonderful friendships with some of them. RickK , as far as I know, didnt even
bring the subject of blocking us to Village Pump or other discussion fields
before blocking us. Administrative abuse of powers, maybe?
I need to be unblocked so that I can return to be a good wikipedia
contributor, as does my dad, user Marine 69-71.
Thank you and Godbless!
Sincerely yours,
User:AntonioMartin