Wikipedians may not like to hear this but there is a growing suspicion that the multiple-banned DW is back, this time calling himself Joe Canuck.
------------------------------- The following message was left on Camembert's talk page by 'Joe'. (Below it is Cam's reply, explaining the question he had asked!)
I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians is out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect, whoever or whatever you are. Joe Canuck 17:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (And very proud of it)
What in the name of somebody's god are you on about? I never said anything about Canadians. I asked if you were DW. --Camembert (by the way, I'm a piece of cheese)
'Joe' removed Camembert's question from his talk page with the summary - (removing abuse )
-------------------------------
Martin (MyRedDice) posed the following question to 'Joe'.
Hi again. I suggest that if you want to discuss images, copyright, and the DMCA, then you try wikipedia talk:image use policy/copyright. In the meantime, please cite the sources of your photos, as is good encyclopedic style. Martin 18:12 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
'Joe' did not reply, just deleted the question from his talk page with the summary: (removing smart ass remarks and question already answered)
--------------------------------
When Oliver Pereira asked 'Joe' a question regarding uploaded images he was responsible for, he received the following threats and diatribe. (I considered editing it but I think it is better read in full)
Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I don't understand your concern or your authority? The images I uploaded, contained no copyright declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact requirements to enable me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built into the software to protect Wikipedia from liability copyright infringement in accordance with the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of others who did not add the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so why did you not question each of them but have chosen to question mine? That is in fact an act of discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start looking through the hundreds of other photos placed here prior to mine before you choose to discriminate against me. Second, as you seem to be unaware of certain parts of the law, but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a requirement of uploading photos to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on the internet etc. fall under the fair use provisions unless identified with copyright and owner source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created the software to allow it, and created the required tick box for legal protection and their insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo placed here by me had any copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright" should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all circumstances, FIA and others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia uses these photos in quality biographies - it is called free advertising for them and promotes their sport. Just, please do quality biographies from scratch like mine. Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with photos. Want more? Joe Canuck 14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
-------------------------
Joe Canuck has been editing many of the same pages as DW and his past minions. He has been similarly arrogant and rude, not to mention in true DW style mentioning legal threats (ie, That is in fact an act of discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place this open site in jeopardy.). Most puzzlingly of all, as a brand new user, why did he react the way he did when Camembert asked whether he was DW. If he /was/ a new user, he should not have known who DW was to start off with.
So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that he is a multiple banned user given to legal threats, how should we act? Michael is an arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening type of individual who tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael is also multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?
JT
_________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
At 04:12 16/06/2003 +0100, JT wrote:
So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that he is a multiple banned user given to legal threats, how should we act? Michael is an arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening type of individual who tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael is also multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?
DW is different to Michael in one other respect: he adds quite useful content. Sometimes he writes about something that he doesn't seem to quite understand and makes silly omissions (not mentioning Stravinsky on [[Sergei Diaghilev]], for example), but I think we all do that from time to time (I know I do). His content is, on the whole, useful. It's just his monumental arrogance and aggressive manner that's a problem.
What we should do about him, I honestly don't know, but I'm fairly content to let him do his thing whilever he's not threatening people. I edited some of his articles for style yesterday shortly after he made them, and he didn't jump on me for meddling with his work as he has other users before, so perhaps there's some improvement there (then again, maybe he merely considered it beneath him to talk to me, seeing as I'd somehow insulted the whole of Canada by asking who he was....)
Lee (camembert)
--- james duffy jtdirl@hotmail.com wrote:
Wikipedians may not like to hear this but there is a growing suspicion that the multiple-banned DW is back, this time calling himself Joe Canuck.
The following message was left on Camembert's talk page by 'Joe'. (Below it is Cam's reply, explaining the question he had asked!)
I should not reply to your bigoted comment about Canadians, it only encourages people like you. We do not all drink beer and drive our snownmobiles while drunk. Your smart-ass remarks making fun of Canadians is out of place here, but it certainly speaks volumes for your intellect, whoever or whatever you are. Joe Canuck 17:08 15 Jun 2003 (UTC) (And very proud of it)
What in the name of somebody's god are you on about? I never said anything about Canadians. I asked if you were DW. --Camembert (by the way, I'm a piece of cheese)
'Joe' removed Camembert's question from his talk page with the summary - (removing abuse )
Martin (MyRedDice) posed the following question to 'Joe'.
Hi again. I suggest that if you want to discuss images, copyright, and the DMCA, then you try wikipedia talk:image use policy/copyright. In the meantime, please cite the sources of your photos, as is good encyclopedic style. Martin 18:12 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
'Joe' did not reply, just deleted the question from his talk page with the summary: (removing smart ass remarks and question already answered)
When Oliver Pereira asked 'Joe' a question regarding uploaded images he was responsible for, he received the following threats and diatribe. (I considered editing it but I think it is better read in full)
Thank you for your note on copyright images, but I don't understand your concern or your authority? The images I uploaded, contained no copyright declaration. Note however, that I followed the exact requirements to enable me to place a photo into Wikipedia that are built into the software to protect Wikipedia from liability copyright infringement in accordance with the DMCA. I note there are hundreds and hundreds of others who did not add the extra voluntary note when uploading photos, so why did you not question each of them but have chosen to question mine? That is in fact an act of discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place this open site in jeopardy. I suggest you start looking through the hundreds of other photos placed here prior to mine before you choose to discriminate against me. Second, as you seem to be unaware of certain parts of the law, but I recognize that being a lawyer is not a requirement of uploading photos to Wikipedia, images of public figures already on the internet etc. fall under the fair use provisions unless identified with copyright and owner source. Wikipedia wants photos, because they created the software to allow it, and created the required tick box for legal protection and their insurers. Photos add value to articles. No photo placed here by me had any copyright claim of any nature. And, I am not required by law, nor is Wikipedia by the DMCA, to check out if a photo not labeled as "copyright" should be. That borders on the absurd. And, in all circumstances, FIA and others, are very appreciative when an encyclopedia uses these photos in quality biographies - it is called free advertising for them and promotes their sport. Just, please do quality biographies from scratch like mine. Margaret Smith Court - Maureen Connolly - with photos. Want more? Joe Canuck 14:47 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Joe Canuck has been editing many of the same pages as DW and his past minions. He has been similarly arrogant and rude, not to mention in true DW style mentioning legal threats (ie, That is in fact an act of discrimination, an act which can have real legal ramifications for Wikipedia, not photo copyright violations for which Wikipedia has absolutely no liability of any kind. Discriminate against me or anyone and you place this open site in jeopardy.). Most puzzlingly of all, as a brand new user, why did he react the way he did when Camembert asked whether he was DW. If he /was/ a new user, he should not have known who DW was to start off with.
So if Joe is indeed the latest DW incarnation, given that he is a multiple banned user given to legal threats, how should we act? Michael is an arrogant crude kid. DW is a far more threatening type of individual who tries to intimidate wikipedians with threats of court cases. He like Michael is also multiple banned. How should we respond to his latest visitation?
JT
Yes, he probably is DW.
I have a soft spot for DW. Aside from the fact that he gives empty threats of legal action, he's a great contributer. He's also somewhat nice when not accused of something. One time he complimented my knowledge of Jackquard looms after I made a minor NPOV edit (terrible article there right now). I think, for him, we should use the soft-security removal of pictures from his articles, and besides that, ignore him.
But I guess we shouldn't be inconsistant. I don't really know what we should do. I'll go talk to him. -LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com