--- james duffy <jtdirl(a)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