For those of you foolish enough to use Wikipedia as a source, you
should check out the bells and whistles on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Cite , when it's up and working.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Cite?page=Red_Sox
The projects could still use a good Wikicite project, to collage
citation information about non-WP content... to provide that kind of
comprehensive multi-format citation detail about every cite used in/by
an article, and offer editors a place to comment on the citations
(quality, reliability, disambiguation with better-known cites)
themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite
++SJ
I deleted the one of these in question.
I apologise for the inconvenience.
I appreciate that there is potentially a problem in communicating
changes of
policy (in this case with respect to out treatment of non free
content; unlike
some I dont think the position with respect to free content will
chnage, not
without a fork). I am not sure what is the best way of communicating
policy
(and procedure) changes; although there are many things that go on
without
notifying potentially interested parties (eg AfD) it is hard to work
out a
notification method that isnt spam. However as history is preserved
it is not
normally an issue, nothing is lost. Just some bitrot normally.
In this case however Anthere has lost some (non free) photos that I
cannot find
on the mirrors; I only have an old image dump of commons not of en
[BTW is
there a set of old archive image dumps that are not public?]. She
does not
have any other copy of the deleted images (redlink jpegs on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anthere/PictAlgerie). If anyone has an
image dump from the last few years they should be there, and it would
be much
appreciated if they could be emailed to Anthere (or if there is a
more out
of date mirror that I havent found).
Justinc
> > This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly
> > what Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat
> > them around the head with a cluebat until they realise he
> > means it, then gently suggest they behave with suggestions of
> > how to. It's sometimes more work than it seems like it should
> > be, but can work if the idjit is cluifiable at all.
>
> Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
>
> Peter (Skyring)
Our whole process of "dispute resolution" needs an overhaul. It's
slipped down to relativism:
We are viewing each dispute in a moral vacuum, with both parties
considered to have equal standing. This can never work.
IF one party is strongly upholding our civility or accuracy standards
(or making a plea for Neutrality on a Controversial Topic), while the
other insists on being uncivil, adding inaccurate information, or using
the article to push their point of view (POV)
THEN
* it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
* it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other party being
"wrong"
Let's change our procedures so that there's a way to enforce civility
and accuracy as key values of our community - and stamp out bias too!
Ed Poor
I have installed Latin-2 encoding, Arial Unicode MS, and Aruniupd.exe, and yet I cannot read many of the Croatian, Slovenian, Slovak, and Romanian characters on the wiki pages describing their languages and grammars. [Ð, Ç, Š, etc.]. I run Windows ME and Internet Explorer 5.5. I'd greatly appreciate some advice. Thanks.
Larry
Hey Mike Finucane,
I agree with you, but there is a way on the English-language Wiki to accomplish most of what you are trying to do. The two templates together of "Fair Use" and "Permission Granted" offer a more limited usage. Check out these two images, and read the notice text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chip.jpg <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chip.jpg>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Genealogy_of_Antisemitic_White_Supremacy… <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Genealogy_of_Antisemitic_White_Supremacy…>
Not ideal, but the second tag states " In addition to being usable under fair use, the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties."
So start by putting up relatively low resolution (96 dpi) images for computer display, and then add the two tags.
In theory, this allows use by folks who reproduce Wikipedia as a package (non-profit or for-profit), but would not allow people to lift your images alone for commercial purposes. At least that's how I interpret it.
Others can chime in and say how they think it works. There is still much disagreement over this.
-Cberlet (aka Chip Berlet)
In reply to Mark Gallagher:
"That's *not* what it's based on. Please take more care before jumping
to conclusions in the future...I don't know why the GFDL always allows
commercial use. Presumably it's part of the whole ideological
"copyleft is beautiful" bizzo. I've taken
great pains to avoid understanding how the Free Software Movement people
think, and I cherish my ignorance in this regard.
Given that the entire issue centers on just why commercial use is
allowed, with all respect, I'm not sure how youre helping me on this
one.
Regards, Mike
I was going to enrich Wikipedia with a whole bunch of my images, but
quite frankly, i dont want someone getting rich off my work.
As such, I was intending to add creative commons no commercial use tags.
Then I come across this note from you:
"All images which are for non-commercial only use and by permission only
> are not acceptable for Wikipedia and _will be deleted_. We have
> tolerated them for some time..."
Well fear not; you wont have to tolerate any of my images.
I'm going to have to re-evaluate contributing to wikipedia if its based
on providing source material for commercial companies.
Feel free to explain WHY you have this policy; but I have to say your
explanation above wasnt very tactful or conducive to goodwill on my
part.
What is the definitive source to read about which image licenses are
compatible with the GFDL?
Or perhaps a GFDL text with non-GFDL images added doesn't count as
derivative work?
Thanks,
nyenyec
There are many places where it is necessary to include code within a
template which will construct a link from a talk-page to the associated
non-talk-page and vice versa, and the code to make this work in any given
situation until recently required a whole slew of tightly-bound templates.
It also seems to have been done in several different ways, and this
duplication of effort is not necessarily helpful.
I have created prototype templates to perform these useful functions which
use the {{switch}} template, newly developed to take advantage of recent
upgrades in the template syntax. The resulting code is much simpler.
The prototypes are at [[User:Phil Boswell/ARTICLESPACE]] and [[User:Phil
Boswell/TALKSPACE]]. The latter should always give the {{NAMESPACE}} for the
talk page for where it is placed; the former works in the opposite
direction.
Please could as many people as possible insert them into various places in
as many namespaces as possible (temporarily using the Preview function
obviously :-) and let me know if I've mucked anything up.
Please also take a look at my code and place any helpful criticisms you
might have on the appropriate talk-page.
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]
There are some regular writers on Wikipedia who knowingly engage in
personal attacks and deletions (even of links) of anyone who explains the
connection between Edward Bellamy and his cousin Francis Bellamy (author of
the pledge of allegiance) and National Socialism. Some of the worst
falsifiers on Wikipedia are Stormie, Lupo, and Matt Crypto. They were
challenged to respond to the facts that they suppressed or to concede, and
they each conceded that the facts that they suppress are correct and that
they delete those facts because they do not want Wikipedia readers to know
the truth. They constantly spam their own point of view in their diatribes
in which they try to cover up for Nazism. It is behavior that breaks
Wikipedia's rules. What kind of people cover-up for Nazis and that horrid
ideology?
Many regular writers on Wikipedia are intellectually dishonest and they
regurgitate the top media cover-ups. They cover up many historic photos of
the Pledge of Allegiance http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html that reveal its
original straight-arm salute. They cover up the fact that the author of the
Pledge of Allegiance (Francis Bellamy), and his cousin and cohort (Edward
Bellamy), were National Socialists and supported the "Nationalism" movement,
the "Nationalist" magazine, the "Nationalist Educational Association," their
dogma of "military socialism," and Edward inspired the "Nationalist Party."
They cover up the Pledge's straight-arm salute as the origin
http://rexcurry.net/pledge1.html of the salute of the National Socialist
German Workers' Party (Nazis). As part of the cover up, they perpetuate the
myth http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html that the straight-arm salute was
from ancient Rome. They cover up discoveries by the historian Rex Curry.
The Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched outward toward
the flag. Historic photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html and
at http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html showing the evolution of the
gesture. Due to the way that both gestures were used, the military salute
led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html is an extended military
salute. A mnemonic device is the swastika ("Hakenkreuz" in German).
Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, it was also used sometimes by
German National Socialists to represent "S" letters for their "socialism."
Hitler altered his own signature
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html to use the same stylized
"S" letter for "socialist." Wikipedia's fibbers cover up for the swastika
http://rexcurry.net/swastikanews.html and its use as a sick socialist
symbol. Wikipedia's dissemblers cover up for the National Socialist German
Worker's Party http://rexcurry.net/swastikamedia.html by overuse of the
hackneyed shorthand "Nazi." Many Wikipedia posters are propagandists in
that there was no "Nazi Party" because it was actually the "National
Socialist German Workers' Party" and the party members did not call
themselves "Nazis" nor the "Nazi Party." The term "Nazi" developed from
slang using the first syllable in the German pronunciation of the "National
Socialist German Workers' Party." In that sense, the author of the Pledge
of Allegiance was a "Nazi" too, in that the term means "National Socialist."
The term "Nazi" is also used to hide the National Socialist dogma behind the
Pledge of Allegiance, its original gesture, and the National Socialist
German Workers' Party.
Wikipedia's cons use the term "Nazi" and the misnomer "Nazi Party" to
cover-up the horrors of socialism. Wikipedia's falsifiers cover up the the
socialist trio of atrocities and and their socialist Wholecaust (of which
the Holocaust was a part): 62 million people were slaughtered under the
former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 35 million were slaughtered
under the Peoples' Republic of China; 21 million were slaughtered under the
National Socialist German Workers' Party. They cover up the fact that
socialists helped start WWII with the National Socialist German Workers'
Party and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics together
http://rexcurry.net/socialistwar.html as allies in 1939. They cover up for
and are deniers of the socialist Wholecaust,
http://rexcurry.net/mediacoverup.html of which the monstrous Holocaust was a
part.
Liars on Wikipedia repeat common lies http://rexcurry.net/mediapledge.html
of the media. http://rexcurry.net/socialistmedia.html
Wikipedia should not be cited for support because it is no different than
quoting various anonymous sources who have no knowledge of the topic
http://rexcurry.net/wikipedialies.html or who have fibs to spread about the
topic.
The Wikipedia article for the "Roman salute" used to be complete
disinformation, deliberately maintained by phonies who tried to perpetuate
myths. Here is an excerpt of what Wikipedia used to carry: "The Roman
salute is a closed finger, flat-palm-down hand raised at an angle (usually
45 degrees) and was used by the Roman Republic. It was also the historical
civilian salute of the United States, from 1787?-1934?, known since 1892 as
the Bellamy salute. It was also the historical salute among armies of the
Middle East and South America. When the Nazi party of Germany adopted the
Roman salute from the Italian fascists." Wikipedia liars also used the
painting "The Oath of the Horatii" http://rexcurry.net/pledgehoratii.html as
absurd support for a Roman connection. The foregoing is all incorrect and
of course without any attribution nor support on the Wikipedia page because
there is no support. It is not a Roman salute
Similar criticisms apply to the Wikipedia pages on Francis Bellamy, Edward
Bellamy and the Pledge of Allegiance.
Recently, someone who posts to Wikipedia wised up and improved the "Roman
salute" article some, while other pledge related articles are as bad as
ever.
Wikipedia falsifiers use the misnomer "public schools" when they mean
"government schools" and they both cover-up the Bellamys' desire to promote
a government takeover of education, a desire to end all of the better
alternatives, and to impose socialism (and what the Bellamys called
"military socialism") within government schools. The Bellamys loved the
military and wanted all of society to ape the military. Those points also
help explain why Francis Bellamy enjoyed starting the pledge with a military
salute.
