On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:18, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
As the nomination says, there’s no FOP in France, so pictures of modern buildings in France can’t go on Commons without clear permission… I’m not sure whether that should be an embarrassment for Commons or for the MEPs… ;-)
Thanks, Mike
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:11, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
All join in now, ... Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Catego...
You have to be glad that MEPs are not that-likely to click through to images with deletion templates, and then onto this embarrassment.
Can someone reason with these Commoners? Please?
-- Brian McNeil. Wikinewsie.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
This is just silly.
However, being an eternal optimist (stop sniggering at the back) we now have a concrete example for the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU to use when demonstrating why there is a clear need for reform to Freedom of Panorama legislation...
On 10 February 2014 16:19, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.ukwrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:18, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
As the nomination says, there's no FOP in France, so pictures of modern
buildings in France can't go on Commons without clear permission... I'm not sure whether that should be an embarrassment for Commons or for the MEPs... ;-)
Thanks, Mike
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:11, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
All join in now, ... Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Catego...
You have to be glad that MEPs are not that-likely to click through to
images with deletion templates, and then onto this embarrassment.
Can someone reason with these Commoners? Please?
-- Brian McNeil. Wikinewsie.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 10 February 2014 16:24, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
This is just silly.
However, being an eternal optimist (stop sniggering at the back) we now have a concrete example for the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU to use when demonstrating why there is a clear need for reform to Freedom of Panorama legislation...
EU reform to Freedom of Panorama legislation strikes me as a remarkably bad idea from a UK perspective. If the french want to limit photos of their buildings that is their problem.
"EU reform to Freedom of Panorama legislation strikes me as a remarkably bad idea from a UK perspective. If the french want to limit photos of their buildings that is their problem."
The case that the FKAGEU is making is for harmonisation of Freedom of Panorama across the EU at the most free level possible. This would include opening Freedom of Panorama in countries such as France. Which is a good thing.
Stevie
On 10 February 2014 16:27, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 February 2014 16:24, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
This is just silly.
However, being an eternal optimist (stop sniggering at the back) we now have a concrete example for the Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU to use when demonstrating why there is a clear need for reform to Freedom of Panorama legislation...
EU reform to Freedom of Panorama legislation strikes me as a remarkably bad idea from a UK perspective. If the french want to limit photos of their buildings that is their problem.
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 10 February 2014 16:31, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
"EU reform to Freedom of Panorama legislation strikes me as a remarkably bad idea from a UK perspective. If the french want to limit photos of their buildings that is their problem."
The case that the FKAGEU is making is for harmonisation of Freedom of Panorama across the EU at the most free level possible. This would include opening Freedom of Panorama in countries such as France. Which is a good thing.
And historically it has gone the other way and we ended up with 70 year copyright terms. Through in the moral rights issues in France and I'd say the risk isn't worth taking.
On 2014-02-10 16:19, Michael Peel wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:18, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:11, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
All join in now, ... Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Catego...
You have to be glad that MEPs are not that-likely to click through to images with deletion templates, and then onto this embarrassment.
As the nomination says, there’s no FOP in France, so pictures of modern buildings in France can’t go on Commons without clear permission… I’m not sure whether that should be an embarrassment for Commons or for the MEPs… ;-)
I have here, still pinned to my jacket, a bright-yellow press accreditation card from the EU Parliament. That, quite clearly, and within the guidelines issued to us, covers permission to film, take photos, etc, etc both inside and outside the European Parliament.
Since the argument for deletion is being based upon French law, it's only the French MEPs who should be *seriously* embarrassed. Although, I am tempted to send this on to Christian Engström as yet-another-stick with which to beat them up about copyright.
Could they be uploaded to Wikipedia, instead of Commons?
Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 10 February 2014 16:27, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
On 2014-02-10 16:19, Michael Peel wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:18, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:11, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
All join in now, ... Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk. Head -> Desk.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_ requests/Files_in_Category:European_Parliament,_Strasbourg
You have to be glad that MEPs are not that-likely to click through to
images with deletion templates, and then onto this embarrassment.
As the nomination says, there's no FOP in France, so pictures
of modern buildings in France can't go on Commons without clear permission... I'm not sure whether that should be an embarrassment for Commons or for the MEPs... ;-)
I have here, still pinned to my jacket, a bright-yellow press accreditation card from the EU Parliament. That, quite clearly, and within the guidelines issued to us, covers permission to film, take photos, etc, etc both inside and outside the European Parliament.
Since the argument for deletion is being based upon French law, it's only the French MEPs who should be *seriously* embarrassed. Although, I am tempted to send this on to Christian Engström as yet-another-stick with which to beat them up about copyright.
-- Brian McNeil
Wikinewsie.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:27, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
I have here, still pinned to my jacket, a bright-yellow press accreditation card from the EU Parliament. That, quite clearly, and within the guidelines issued to us, covers permission to film, take photos, etc, etc both inside and outside the European Parliament.
Send a copy of it to OTRS?
Thanks, Mike
I wonder if the immunity of the European Union would preclude any French court from actually limiting the right of the building to be photographed with the Parliament's permission... ?
Best regards, Bence
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Michael Peel <michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk
wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:27, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
I have here, still pinned to my jacket, a bright-yellow press
accreditation card from the EU Parliament. That, quite clearly, and within the guidelines issued to us, covers permission to film, take photos, etc, etc both inside and outside the European Parliament.
Send a copy of it to OTRS?
Thanks, Mike
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 2014-02-10 16:29, Michael Peel wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:27, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
I have here, still pinned to my jacket, a bright-yellow press accreditation card from the EU Parliament. That, quite clearly, and within the guidelines issued to us, covers permission to film, take photos, etc, etc both inside and outside the European Parliament.
Send a copy of it to OTRS?
And I'd probably get a telling off for scanning and/or photographing that. :P
I think I'll leave the Germans and Austrians to get good-and-angry at them.
This is a prime example of the sort of things causing editor decline; along with the sort of asshattery which saw Andy Mabbett threatened with a block (on BLP grounds) for creating a one-line stub about an MEP.
This is a prime example of the sort of things causing editor decline; along with the sort of asshattery which saw Andy Mabbett threatened with a block (on BLP grounds) for creating a one-line stub about an MEP.
Given that politicians are a prime target for BLP trolls, it wasn’t unreasonable to ask him to actually get it right IMO.
Sadly it can never just be a discussion; someone has to get the tone a bit wrong, Andy has an outburst at them, the rest is history.
Lack of FOP sucks!!!
Tom
On 10 February 2014 18:27, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
This is a prime example of the sort of things causing editor decline; along with the sort of asshattery which saw Andy Mabbett threatened with a block (on BLP grounds) for creating a one-line stub about an MEP.
Given that politicians are a prime target for BLP trolls, it wasn't unreasonable to ask him to actually get it right IMO.
I did. HTH.
Sadly it can never just be a discussion; someone has to get the tone a bit wrong, Andy has an outburst at them, the rest is history.
There was no "outburst"; unless you mean the one where the admin who wanted to block me compared my saying "X is an MEP" to someone saying "John Smith has a massive penis". But nice try at an ad hominem smear.
I think we could all be less arsey at each other. But, that’s just my general rant every time a spat happens.
But on the wider point; it’s important to make sure BLPs are well sourced BECAUSE people failing to do so in the past has created a massive backlog of BLPs without any sourcing. Creating more is compounding the problem, and sets a really bad example for newbies.
It’s a pain, and it takes more time, but is important to do because long term we will reap the rewards.
Creating lots of stubs with minimal or no sourcing is bound to leave some without improvement for some time. Right now you and others have your eye on them, and that’s good, but what about in 5 years time? The reason the requirement was brought in for all BLPs to require a RS was to help address this important problem.
I understand what you’re saying about the construction tags being off-putting to newbies; but the problem is that without it, you’re going to get either a BLP-Prod or a maintenance template (which is totally valid) - and I’d say that would be even more of putting. Saying SOFIXIT to such arguments does’t work in this case because you’re working on a project so know which sources to use.
Perhaps the solution is to have a project specific under construction template, with better wording than currently.
But the bottom line, as someone who spent a significant portion of their early wiki-career dealing with BLP crud, is that the rules are in place, in this case, for a specific and very valid reason. It only takes 30 seconds or so to comply with them, and it makes everyone’s lives a lot easier :)
As a final point; when you’re a prominent figure in the training world of Wikipedia, it’s definitely a good idea to make sure everything you add is sourced as soon as possible. It’s about setting an example :)
Do those arguments hold any sway? Cheers,
Tom
Sent with Airmail
On 10 February 2014 at 19:22:55, Andy Mabbett (andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk) wrote:
On 10 February 2014 18:27, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
This is a prime example of the sort of things causing editor decline; along with the sort of asshattery which saw Andy Mabbett threatened with a block (on BLP grounds) for creating a one-line stub about an MEP.
Given that politicians are a prime target for BLP trolls, it wasn't unreasonable to ask him to actually get it right IMO.
I did. HTH.
Sadly it can never just be a discussion; someone has to get the tone a bit wrong, Andy has an outburst at them, the rest is history.
There was no "outburst"; unless you mean the one where the admin who wanted to block me compared my saying "X is an MEP" to someone saying "John Smith has a massive penis". But nice try at an ad hominem smear.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 10 February 2014 19:42, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
I think we could all be less arsey at each other.
Stop as soon as you feel like it.
Creating lots of stubs with minimal or no sourcing
Who did that?
I understand what you're saying about the construction tags being off-putting to newbies
No you don't; I said no such thing.
Saying SOFIXIT
Who said that?
the rules are in place
Feel free to point to any "rules" that you think I broke.
On 10 February 2014 20:35, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: ...
Feel free to point to any "rules" that you think I broke.
Don't offer any more cookies Andy, you don't want him on a sugar rush.
Fae
Creating lots of stubs with minimal or no sourcing
Who did that? Well there’s a list of some on AN/I - It’s not the end of the world sort of list, but still enough to warrant a reminder. Especially as there are quite of lot of MEP’s...
I understand what you're saying about the construction tags being off-putting to newbies
No you don't; I said no such thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=...
Saying SOFIXIT
Who said that? No one; I was heading off a common response to that point. Sorry for being unclear :)
the rules are in place
Feel free to point to any "rules" that you think I broke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies...
As of April 3, 2010, a new proposed deletion process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010, to have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it can be proposed for deletion.
People are offering reasonable advice in response to this (just as some people are being unpleasant). From my perspective; I’ve had to deal with the cleanup of articles such as this 5 years down the road - so this is not some random out-to-get-you sort of comment. It does make life a LOT easier just to do the work up front :)
What are your thoughts on all this? Do you disagree? Do you have an alternative perspective? Do you have any sort of reflection?
Tom
On 10 February 2014 20:57, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
[your quoting is broken]
Creating lots of stubs with minimal or no sourcing
Who did that?
Well there's a list of some on AN/I - It's not the end of the world sort of list, but still enough to warrant a reminder.
You've gone from "lots" to "some". The answer to my question therefore appears to be "no-one". Any particular reason for your inaccurate hyperbole?
Especially as there are quite of lot of MEP's...
Irrelevant.
tags being off-putting to newbies
No you don't; I said no such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=...
Confirming that I said no such thing. Any reason for your inaccurate statement?
the rules are in place
Feel free to point to any "rules" that you think I broke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies...
So no rules broken, then.
or it can be proposed for deletion.
none of the articles in question was proposed for deletion.
Also, you missed the bit about "the article may be deleted *after ten days*" (my emphasis)
What are your thoughts on all this? Do you disagree? Do you have an alternative perspective? Do you have any sort of reflection?
Yes; people should stop making false statements, tilting at windmills, issuing empty treats and - as I pointed out earlier - being dickish.
Well then I won't argue with you further, although I do disagree. :) have a good evening!
Tom On 10 Feb 2014 21:56, "Andy Mabbett" andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 10 February 2014 20:57, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
[your quoting is broken]
Creating lots of stubs with minimal or no sourcing
Who did that?
Well there's a list of some on AN/I - It's not the end of the world sort
of
list, but still enough to warrant a reminder.
You've gone from "lots" to "some". The answer to my question therefore appears to be "no-one". Any particular reason for your inaccurate hyperbole?
Especially as there are quite of lot of MEP's...
Irrelevant.
tags being off-putting to newbies
No you don't; I said no such thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pigsonthewing&diff=...
Confirming that I said no such thing. Any reason for your inaccurate statement?
the rules are in place
Feel free to point to any "rules" that you think I broke.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Proposed_deletion_of_biographies...
So no rules broken, then.
or it can be proposed for deletion.
none of the articles in question was proposed for deletion.
Also, you missed the bit about "the article may be deleted *after ten days*" (my emphasis)
What are your thoughts on all this? Do you disagree? Do you have an alternative perspective? Do you have any sort of reflection?
Yes; people should stop making false statements, tilting at windmills, issuing empty treats and - as I pointed out earlier - being dickish.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: https://wikimedia.org.uk
On 10 February 2014 16:29, Michael Peel michael.peel@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 10 Feb 2014, at 16:27, brian.mcneil@wikinewsie.org wrote:
I have here, still pinned to my jacket, a bright-yellow press accreditation card from the EU Parliament. That, quite clearly, and within the guidelines issued to us, covers permission to film, take photos, etc, etc both inside and outside the European Parliament.
Send a copy of it to OTRS?
No, please don't, I can give you the answer here rather than on OTRS. A right of the press to report is fine, this does not mean that the resulting photographs can be published as PD/CC-BY and ignore copyright for creative works they happen to reproduce.
If you want to change the law in France, then give some money to WMFR's lobbying projects, they do rather a good job of it.
Fae
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org