Maybe it would be a good idea to point test edits away from [[Wikipedia:Introduction]] and to the sandbox? Adding test edits to the page can easily result in a newcomer removing the introduction, and although thats easily reverted, some potential new contributors might end up reading a bunch of tests instead of the introduction. As the page a lot of newcomers see first, a link to the sandbox and protection might be a good idea, as its a common vandal target.
Acting in contravention to the posted policy blocked my Ip address
(82.152.46.201) having interpreted an attempt to add a link from a new
page Evidence-Based-healthcare which I made and which should exist, to
the existing and arguably less well-named one called Evidence-based
_medicine as "vandalism" and pointed me at an article called Patent
Nonsense then decided my comment to him that this was silly and
correcting the link would have been more sensible (I had been called
away to actually do some of the subject material, so hadn't re-edited it
to work) was a personal attack.
Looking at his profile I see he is young, so may grow in wisdom and
tolerance, but also is very interested in wiki vandalism.
The IP address concerned shows a history of a considerable number of
edits to the wiki, available at a click AFAICS, all of which are mine
and all bar one are useful. (I mistook a disambiguation page for an
article once, and added text - a sensible and helpful administrator
pointed this out.)
The wiki invites me to remark on this, to this list, so I am.
--
Adrian Midgley <amidgley2(a)defoam.net>
Once again, sorry for not preserving the thread -- I had my delivery
settings messed up. I hope it's fixed now.
Anyway. When the party in question decided to insult me, they also
removed a warning from their talk page about some old edit. Creating
an article to put a POV statement about where a page should be,
removing a prior warning, and insulting me after being warned is
enough for me to block. I had assumed good faith up to the point at
which they decided to start with personal attacks.
It seems that this one came to me instead of Chet?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Ticket#: 124547] [Fwd: Wikipedia, purported copyright violatio
[...]
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 00:17:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: Wikipedia information team <info-en(a)wikimedia.org>
Organization: Wikimedia Foundation
To: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
References: <428CE6F5.8010704(a)wikia.com>
Dear Chet Staley,
Thank you for your mail.
> Maybe this is the proper forum, maybe not, but there seems to be quite a
> bit of confusion about an article I wrote for my website (copyright by
> default) and reformatted to conform to Wiki and submitted to Wiki. It
> is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuni_language .
>
> The article has been placed on the non-compliance page for possible
> copyright violation, which is non-sensical since I”m both the copyright
> holder and the contributor. I have rebutted the complaint at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems and my
> position is further explicated at
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-compliant_site_coordination
I see this has been resolved on the copyright side of things. The copyvio
notice has been removed, and your permission noted on the talk page.
On the copyleft side of the problem, you may want to list the site at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/GFDL_Compliance and
its related pages. This is another area used by contributors interested in
chasing up licencing issues.
I see this has been resolved on the copyright side of things. The copyvio
notice has been removed, and your permission noted on the talk page.
On the copyleft side of the problem, you may want to list the site at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/GFDL_Compliance and
its related pages. This is another area used by contributors interested in
chasing up licensing issues.
If you would like to bring the problem to the attention of a wider group of
contributors, the Wikimedia mailing lists may be the best place:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_list
In particular the main Wikipedia list, or the list relating to the English
version may be of use to you:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-lhttp://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Regards,
Lisa Carter
Wikimedia support team
--
Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org
OK, I took a week off to clear my head, let everything calm down, and see what happened with this... apparently not much here, though there is a good discussion on the village pump that I'd like to contribute to.... and I don't feel like having to create a sock puppet just to be able to communicate. That's not right.
I ask anyone with the power to do so: Please remove the block. Tony Sideway initiated it. Mr. Tony Sideway, I believe that you are trying to work for the good of Wikipedia, but blocking me accomplishes nothing good and only makes things worse. You've said yourself that I haven't done anything wrong.
As for Matt, aka Morven: I'm not a special case, unless you consider knowing copyright law to be a special case. :-) You want to test your copyright knowledge with me, bring it on. Send in every lawyer, scholar, and diplomat you can find, and I'll talk to them all in civil manner. But it will not matter in the end: The GFDL simply cannot apply to quotes. No license can change the law. Therefore, if I or you or anyone quotes something on Wikipedia, it is not GFDLed. I'm sorry if that shakes your faith in the GFDL, but that's the way it is. You can make whatever license you want, but you can't change U.S. copyright law.
My words are my own. And so are yours, unless you willfully choose otherwise. Get used to it.
- Pioneer-12
I think that old Broadway musical had it about right:
"If you'd come today, you would have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication."
If we have to change that to 4 BCE (Before the Christian Era), it would
mess up the lyrics.
Who cares whether it's Before Christ or Before Christian Era, anyway?
This is like the center/centre controversy, which only goes to show that
the British and the Americans are one people separated by a common
language.
Facetiously yours,
Uncle Ed
P.S. Homer's Iliad was not really written by Homer but by another blind
Greek poet of the same name.
--- Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> That's my own intuition, but I have trouble figuring out how to actually
> distinguish between what we do now and that eventuality. I'm not
> altogether *sure* it's a bad idea either, especially if things can be
> broken down into useful chunks. For example, [[George Washington at
> blah]] or [[Controversy over the color of George Washington's
> slippers]]. I mean, if we collated all our Pokemon-related pages
> (pardon the obvious example), we probably have a small books' worth of
> material written on Pokemon already...
I think that is fine, so long as the 300+ pages you talk about are organized as
a set of verifiable encyclopedia articles covering their own sub topics and not
as parts of a hypertext book (or, heaven forbid, all on a single page). We can
have a great deal of detail so long as we do not overwhelm readers with too
much detail at any given point through the use of summaries where appropriate
and links to articles that cover a sub topic in more detail. So by navigational
choices readers should be able to zoom to the level of detail they need.
Many need quick overviews, most need a mid-level of detail, and some need a
good deal of detail on particular aspects of a topic. Serving all those
different user types is the goal of summary style.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
--- Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> I suspect our efforts are more likely to head in this direction at least
> for now, as the efforts to produce WikiReaders already show. I don't
> know if this path will lead us to the encyclopedia model of the past, or
> if we should encourage people to reconceive of the full encyclopedia as
> a collection of individual specialist encyclopedias.
That is in fact what Wikipedia already is. But the larger context is that those
component encyclopedias must also fit in the general encyclopedia framework.
Thus we have many different readerships to serve all at once. Use of summary
style helps us accomplish this by allowing people to zoom to the level of
detail they need while not forcing too much detail on those who need a more
condensed version.
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I recently uploaded the two old Wikipedia logos to place them on the
History of Wikipedia article. However, I am unsure how to tag the
images, because of their unclear copyright status (one of them
definitely pre-dates the Wikimedia Foundation). Furthermore, I do not
know who created the initial one, all I know is it was created for
Nupedia and instead used on Wikipedia. The two images are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_logo_Nupedia.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_logo_The_Cunctator.png
I don't want to tag the images because of their unclear copyright
status, but I don't want them to be deleted for not being tagged. Can
someone clarify if the Wikimedia Foundation owns the copyrights to
both of these images? If so, wouldn't it be appropriate to create a
new image copyright tag for *copyrighted* images of the Wikimedia
Foundation? Surely the free-images-only provision does not extend to
site logos etc.
~Mark Ryan
The BC/AD/BCE/CE debate has kicked up a bit of fuss recently,
including revert wars and an RFAr. In an effort to stem future
problems I've created a vote to amend the Manual of Style to reflect
the controversy of the use of these eras.
Please take a [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras]]
and see what you think.
Direct URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers…
~~~~ Violet/Riga
