> The blocking itself was totally inline with policy - I saw it, and
> asked on IRC if an impartial admin would look at it to see if it
> was provacative (which, according to the agreement, is grounds
> to block him)
> --Mark
I don't dispute that I cannot prove that my purpose for making that edit was
not to troll, so yes, the block itself didn't violate policy. However, just
as I could have done something other than list the page on VfD (such as
speak to Mark first), Fennec could have done something other than block me
(such as speak to me first). Just because you *can* block me doesn't mean
you should.
Anyway, hopefully this thread is nearing a close.
Anthony
Hi:I believe my father and I have been unfairly and severely blocked by user
RickK, can someone pleaseunblock us?
Thanks and God bless!
Sincerely yours,
AntonioMartin
"Crap, and I was just about to reply. Such an honest offer can't possibly be a scam!"
Hmmm, so I saved someone! Great....
Seriously, I wanted to see if this TRUST e-mail ended up in my
e-mail address becuase it was listed here - it's the only
place where it is displayed.
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
>
> "What is 'inconceivable'?"
"What did the lady mean to say when she said 'That's impossible, I'm
impregnable?'"
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
> The user-space article in question is definitely on-topic for an
> article in that space; it's about en.wikipedia (in specific, pictures
> of a real-world meet of wikipedians). Do you seriously believe that
> articles, photo galleries etc. of Wikipedian meets are not (or should
> not be) allowed on the english wikipedia in the user space?
Yes.
> Copyright problems OTHER than violations are also on-topic for
> [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems]] - that's exactly why the name got
> moved, IIRC. So that's where you bring up issues with image
> licensing.
That's news to me. I remember having a listing deleted because it was a
licensing issue other than a copyright violation, although I believe that
was before the name change.
> I am absolutely sure, Anthony, that you listed this on VfD knowing
> everyone would disagree. Thus, I believe you did it for the purpose
> of "making a point"; ie. trolling.
Well, you're simply wrong.
> -Morven
> I for one congratulate the mediation committee in their success in
reaching an
> agreement on this case, that has allowed Raul654 to rapidly and robustly
deal with the
> issue, pending further discussion. I hope that mediation will continue to
resolve many
> similar issues without resorting to arbitration.
> -Martin
The mediation committee had nothing to do with the agreement. Raul and I
came to the agreement ourselves on IRC. (And as was pointed out, Raul
didn't make the block.)
Danny, who is a member of the mediation committee, did facilitate an
agreement in this particular case (of the most recent block). I agreed (on
IRC) that in hindsight I should have handled the issue in a way other than
listing the page on VfD. I also agreed that Danny could remove the
nomination. Raul agreed to unblock me in light of this and upon Danny
removing the nomination.
Raul and I then spoke about the issue of the copyright of the images. His
concern was that it might not be legal for him to release the images under
the GFDL, as there are people depicted in the images who have a right to
privacy. While I disagree with him on this legal issue, I understand this
concern, so I'm not going to press the issue any further.
As for whether or not this page of images violates what Wikipedia is not, I
still feel that it does, but as there is a concensus against me I won't
press that issue any further either. In addition, as I've already said, I'm
not going to be listing pages created by admins on VfD, or pages created by
any longstanding user without speaking with them first.
Anthony
Hi all,
I've got a newbie question:
Can I send attachments to this list?
I have a BIG issue I would like to raise.
It's best presented in a table with weblinks (it gets very confusing otherwise),
to I created a (small!) HTML file with the respective links, etc.
Can I send that little index.html to this list?
Would it come across to actual list recipients?
If not, would it be ok if I temporarily posted it at my web site and sent a link
to this mailing list (I'd prefer not to do that if I can avoid that)?
Thanks and regards,
Jens Ropers
(User:Ropers)
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> I'd hardly classify doing what the Arbitration Committee has
> neglected for months to do as "heroism" but whatever.
As I understand it, Heph is criticising us for not banning Lir already. Heph decided that
we'd been negligent in failing to ban Lir in late January, and decided again on 3 July, in
both cases blocking Lir.
Meanwhile, the first time that Lir has been the subject of a request for arbitration was on
5 July. I was never good at arithmetic, but I do understand that five is greater than
three, and in the conventional calendar July is after January. I must express my regret
to Hephaestos that the arbitration committee is unable as yet to make decisions in
negative time.
Thank you for your feedback.
-Martin
> This page is a bit of information and photos from the Boston meeting of
> Wikipedians. It is obviously in violation of nothing. What were you
> thinking?
> Fred
> The 'legitimate' reason for the complaint, I gather, is that the
> images are marked copyrighted and explicitly deny the right to
> redistribute outside Wikipedia. However, VfD is not the place to take
> this. That issue is with the copyright status of the images, not the
> appropriateness of the page. The page itself is about Wikipedia and
> is in a User: namespace, so there are no problems there whatsoever.
> -Morven
I referenced the violations right in my email. [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia
is not]] #15, and
[[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] ("If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you
thereby license it
to the public under the GFDL"). The appropriate place to bring up a
violation of what Wikipedia is not is on VfD. As for the violation of
Wikipedia:Copyrights, there really isn't an appropriate place to bring it
up. It's not a copyright violation, so the copyright problems page isn't
appropriate. And the image is still used on a page, so images for deletion
isn't appropriate either.
> Similarly, I once received a message on my talk page saying, "Do you
> mind not going and vfding other peoples articles." What are these people
> thinking? That you're supposed to list only your own articles?
> Timwi
Perhaps the problem is that the page was created by an admin (and that's
what "other people" was supposed to mean). I'm going to take that as my
lesson. Don't list pages created by admins on VfD. Maybe I'll even extend
it to not listing pages created by longstanding Wikipedians on VfD, at least
not without discussing it with them first.
In hindsight I guess I could have started by asking Raul to license the
images under the GFDL and to move the page to meta or his personal homepage
or somewhere more appropriate than en. I highly doubt this would have
worked, but at that point I guess I could have brought the issue up here. I
can't get blocked from en.Wikpedia for bringing up issues on this mailing
list, can I?
Again, I'm not saying the block was against the rules. I don't really care
about the block. My issues are with the page being on Wikipedia, with the
images not being licensed to anyone other than Wikipedia, and with the
rudeness of the admin who blocked me without discussing things with me
first.
> Forgive me for not getting this, but why not just let
> it languish on VfD? It's clearly not going to get
> deleted.
>Mark
Last time I checked it still is on VfD. And yes, it's clearly not going to
get deleted, so I'd remove the nomination except for the fact that I'm
blocked.
Anthony
I find this amazing.
Raul creates a page, [[User:Raul654/Boston]], in blatant violation of
[[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]] (see #15). The page consists of a bit
of text and a number of images all of which violate [[Wikipedia:Copyright]]
("If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the
public under the GFDL"). I list the page on [[wp:VfD]], stating that it
violates "Wikipedia is not a file repository", and I get blocked.
Yes, perhaps it was technically not against the rules for me to be blocked
(at least not provably so). But give me a break, this is just ridiculous.
Anthony
Anthony and I discussed this on IRC (along with Danny to help).
Anthony agreed that the VFD listing should be removed (he says that
looking back on it, he should have done something less disruptive),
and I have unblocked him. The blocking itself was totally inline with
policy - I saw it, and asked on IRC if an impartial admin would look
at it to see if it was provacative (which, according to the agreement,
is grounds to block him) Fennec did, thought it was provacative,
and blocked him.
About the copyright status of the images on the page - I informed
Anthony that I own the copyright on the pictures, and I have no problem
releasing them under the GFDL. However, I didn't think it prudent to do
this without getting permission from the people in those pictures, and I
didn't feel like hunting down the 20-odd people in order to do so.
So I split the difference, and made them Wikipedia-only.
--Mark