User talk:Mwanner/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Images

Thumbnails are preferable because they allow people to load pages quickly, and only look at full-size pictures if they want to. Speaking as someone who often uses a dial-up connection, I'm particularly aware of this; there's nothing more infuriating than having to wait as a page full of bloated images slowly loads, before you can edit it, check the references, etc. (The pop-culture articles tend to be worse; the more ephemeral and talentless the "artist", the bigger the pictures seem to to have to be.) --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 21:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Nice work!

Your edits to Mary Jemison were beautiful. I had that one on my "to do" list for a while, knowing that it needed more. You really helped shape that article up! --Jacqui M Schedler 23:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Lists of natives

If you feel that there is some good detail on any one of the half dozen or so different lists of Natives of the Americas that we have, please feel free to move it into the primary articles, but guaranteeing redundancy doesn't actually help anyone find information on Wikipedia. -Harmil 11:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


Thanks

I missed the extra on Industrial Revolution, was just about to fix it! --Pgk 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish people

Thanks for the spelling and images, Mwanner! Its a big help and is appreciated! Fergananim 00:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Skyline Drive

Something has happened to the image you placed in the Skyline Drive article. Could we get it back? Vaoverland 11:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Spectacular photo. Vaoverland 12:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Mwanner you are a moron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.1.88.226 (talk • contribs).

John A. Roebling

Thanks for the additions to the Roebling biography. Not sure if you're a Knoch grad or not, but Goldinger's book is the most complete recording of Saxonburg history that I've read, and I had him as a Geography teacher a long time ago. Thanks a lot for incorporating it into the article. - McCart42 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Newbie Mistake

You do not revert when someone has made several more additions. The people I removed do not fit in with the Irish ethnicity, they are majority non-Irish and are not notable for Irish ancestry. The list is a list of Notable people of Irish decent. Although those people are notable, they are not notable as far as Irish ancestry goes, and do not belong on the selected list. If you want a list of anyone with any Irish blood in them, then the list would be very long. The list is meant though not to be just of any blood, but people are are apart of the Irish ethnicity, which is what the page is about. The list you want to create does not fit in with what the page is about. So allow my new additions which do fit in to remain, and keep out those I removed which do not belong. Thank you. 64.108.199.247 04:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

bird illustrations

I haven't tagged any images "unknown" for months. When I did so, I always contacted the user. Thanks though. – Quadell (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks, source is 1905, on line at [1] jimfbleak 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Shortening the New York History summary

Hi, Mwanner,

I watched with amusement as various editors struggled with {{See|New York History]] for quite a few days. It was introduced quite a while ago, apparently as an effort to take a big chunk of information out of the New York article, and put it into an individual article.

The root problem with {{See|New York History]] was simply that the left curly braces were not matched with corresponding right curly braces. A series of editors didn't understand the original intent. In any case, my view is that a link that says "See such-and-such" isn't as useful as {{main|New York History}}, which generates

Main article: New York History
,

followed by a short summary of the article in question. A short summary. That's the hard part.

I struggled and strained to reduce the size of that article, which, by the way, is in need of some sprucing up. (More about that later.) Finally, I got the "summary" down to under 300 words. It really would be better if the summary were in the 100 to 200 word range, but it gets harder and harder as it gets smaller.

Then I saw you had made it "shorter", so I took a look at it to see what violence had been done to it. Whew! I was pleasantly surprised to see that you made it quite a bit better, if only 15 words shorter. Your problem, which is the same one I faced, was in balancing the need to provide useful information, such as that the Indian refugees went to Canada, with the need for brevity. I'm a little worried about POV in the article, too, since the summary goes on at some length regarding the shabby treatment of the Indians at the hands of the American colonists.

Now that the summary has been written, its true service to Wikipedia begins: all new efforts to provide detailed amplification of the fine points of New York State history can be very usefully added to the "History" article, with perhaps a word or two in the summary. The existence of the pair of resources (summary and full article) ensures that the "urban sprawl" of articles won't be a problem, at least for this part of this one article.

Which brings me to the sprucing-up. In the New York History article, there is are decidedly unwikilike things, such as "this is a stub to be filled in later" or words to that effect, and some HTML-gone-awry here and there. Plenty of work for all of us!

--GraemeMcRaetalk 17:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Vandalism of Battle of the Little Bighorn

OK, why did you feel that, given your other positive contributions, that it was a good idea to vandalize attle of the Little Bighorn? N0YKG 14:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As the Edit summary said, it was an "rv v". I don't have a real clear recollection, but I think it was one of those times that the edit histories get out of synch, so you don't get the one you're trying to rv to, but one near it? Anyway, thanks for fixing it. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


Catskill Forest Preserve

There's really no need for a separate article on the state lands within the Catskill Park; it can be best dealt with by a merge as I've suggested on the article itself. Daniel Case 17:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm impressed.
Actually, I have also been thinking that what we do need in that vein is a Forest Preserve (New York) article which would encompass both the Adirondacks and the Catskills and explain Article 14 (and possibly its amendment history) and what it means. It would certainly eliminate the duplication of that history/explanation in the Adirondack State Park and Catskill State Park articles.
While we're at it, let's move both those to "Catskill Park" and "Adirondack Park." "State" is not part of their official names, whatever some mapmakers think. They are not state parks and not run like them. Daniel Case 02:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, on both counts. I never liked the "state park" in the two titles. I'll leave both tasks to you, if that's OK? You might want to consider leaving a brief thumbnail of the Forest Preserve story in both articles with a Main Article-type link.
Have fun. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mentioned your name on Jimbo Wales Talk Page

I just wanted to let you know, out of courtesy, that I mentioned you name on Jimbo Wales Talk, as the author of a(n) (in)famous part of the existing copyright page.

I originally incorrectly thought Splash was the author.

Here is the link: Fair use for TEXT--what is the policy?

Preview

Mea culpa! Will do that more! Trollderella 20:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up about Fair Use link

I'm not sure if you're watching Wikipedia Talk:Copyright problems, but I've been doing some work on this stuff and I'm proposing an addition of a Fair Use link to the sentence that started all this, as well as a proposed rewrite of the WP Fair Use policy. Let me know if you see any problems (other than the one User:howcheng presents, below, which opens up another small can of worms (sigh). TIA, --Mwanner | Talk 15:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I will watch the copyright page closer...Actually I havent watched the page much because your arguments were so well argued, I decided that I had lost in some key points, honestly! Thanks for the heads up and great suggestion!--Travb 15:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Native Americans

Yes, definitely, the substantive disambiguation still needs to be done. The piping is just a first step to get the links more organized. --Russ Blau (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Skipanon River

Mwanner,

Can you cite the copyvio sources of the Skipanon River article that User:71.111.146.208 copied from? It makes it easier when dealing with such matters.

WikiDon 17:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that when he comes back the messages that we left will scare him off? I always hope that they will come back and see it as a challenge to fix it, but some of them run away instead. WikiDon 19:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Mwanner,

Not running, just a bit puzzled and hoping for a cite on any "copyvio". Text that was not mine came from non-copyrighted sources.

1) State of Oregon ODFW and DEQ reports (no copyrights listed, paid for and published with public monies, re-printed with no copyright listings in Oregonian and other local newspapers all the time).

2) Lewis & Clark journal entires. Created in 1805 (200 years ago) and reprinted in the 1820's. A bit out of even the new copyright time periods.

3) Oregon Pioneer interviews from the turn of the 19th century, in public domain.

4) OSPRIG public press release - no copyright (http://ospirg.org/OR.asp?id2=17753&id3=OR), reprinted in newspapers. If copyrighted, OSPRIG would love data to be re-printed.

5) Skipanon Watershed report text. As land owner and part of the Skipanon Watershed, I can assure you these are okay to use.

Please re-set wiki to my work unless there is a problem I do not understand (being my first wiki).

LH - 4 November 2005


Mwanner,

You wrote:

OK. You're right about #2 and #3, no problem. But you might have to do some legwork (well, email work) to get to keep the rest. Under current copyright law, any published text is automatically copyrighted, and no copyright notice is required. An author has to take an active step to avoid copyright-- explicitly placing the work in the public domain, or licencing it under a GFDL or equivalent licence. So for sources #1, #4 and #5, you would need to get something in writing from them releasing the text for use on Wikipedia and reuse by any of our mirror sites. My guess is, you'd have mixed results at best. I need to do some hunting to find just what you would need-- I'll try to get to it tomorrow.

I've checked on #1 with an attorney, sadly not a copyright attorney, for now he states published state reports in Oregon do not normally carry a "reprint permission needed" requirement. I will check further. On #4, I can contact them (or wait until they hit me up for my yearly donation). #5, I've contacted another member of the Skipanon Watershed group, two yeses should carry the vote.

But, understand, it is the language that you have used from these sources that is a problem (as per above), but the facts aren't. If you rewrite the material in your own words, you're home free-- no copyright issues at all. That's what I would recommend-- you'd probably end up with a better article, and you'd be bound to learn something in doing it (and improve your writing skills while you're at it). But either approach is OK. I'll get you more info tomorrow.

Thank you. Yes, I can see for plainly copyrighted texts a rewrite of the factual material is the way to go. If any of these don't "clear", that'll be the way.

Meanwhile, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ and if you want more, any of the articles in Category:Copyright law. Or better still, ignore all that and start the rewrite.

I did check those... ouch! I do _not_ want to get into that mix of what's-right-what's-wrong-what-we-don't-know! Fair use, international, etc. etc. I'll let those more invested in Wikipedia fight, er, sort that out.

Cheers! (and I'm sorry to jump all over your first major effort here. Don't feel bad-- a lot of us have made the assumptions you're making when we started out here.) -- Mwanner | Talk 03:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was a bit iffy. I've been online for three decades, so there's no jumping over or flaming bothers me these days. But I can see if I was a newbie and saw the work pulled (or for them just "gone") without some better notes of explanation, or even pointers to notes, it may have been my first - and last - bit of Wikiing. As WikiDon stated, "...some of them run away instead." That said, if it wasn't for your and others efforts in maintaining Wikipedia, it wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today. Thanks!

Now off to find the NPR interview about Wikipedia my attorney just told me he heard.

LH --71.111.146.208 11:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

John Wayne

A little trigger happy there were you? Did you read what I wrote at User talk:69.172.48.138? WikiDon 19:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:American World War II veterans

Should we split this category to a Category:Living American World War II veterans? -St|eve 19:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean because it's kinda large? The Living/Dead split has a couple of disadvantages-- 1. the opposite of the category you propose above doesn't have a real charming ring to it: Category:Dead American World War II veterans and, 2. we'd have to remember to change the category every time we find out that one has died (though granted, you'd have to edit in the dod anyway).
I think it might be better to divide it by military branch. It's not an area I work in a lot though. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Page protection of Wikipedia:Copyrights

Hi. I notice that you were the last person to edit Wikipedia:Copyrights before it was protected. Any idea who protected it or why? How to get it unprotected? I ask because I am the second person to ask (on the Talk page) for a link from Wikipedia:Copyrights to Wikipedia:Fair use. The first was back in mid-September, mine yesterday. There has been no response to either. Where does one take a question like this? Why doesn't the Talk page cover the decision to protect the page? Why doesn't the edit history even show the protection going on (and who did it)?

Sorry to lay all this in your lap. I'd be happy to take it elsewhere if I could figure out where to go with it.

TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 02:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I was not the last person to edit Wikipedia:Copyrights before it was protected.
I was the last person to edit Wikipedia:Copyrights after it was protected.
That page has been protected for so long it doesn't even show in the current protection log (which AFAIK was introduced around 2004). Of course, if you want the rationale for the protection, it is, as expected, at Wikipedia:Protected page (listed as permanently protected for legal reasons).
If you need to change a permanently protected page like that one, the best course of action would be to contact an administrator (or post to the noticeboard). Which is exactly what you did without noticing ?. I added the link to the "See also" section; I'm wary of touching the text itself.
--cesarb 03:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Alexander McGillivray

Howdy. The image you added to Alexander McGillivray is probably not him. The man in that portrait is usually identified as Hopoithle Mico (or Hoboithle Mico), a Creek leader often a political adversary of McGillivray. (The image is identified as Hopoithle Mico in Tecumseh by John Sugden and A Spirited Resistance by Gregory Dowd). ((online example)) I suspect the website where you got the image mistook "Hoboithle Mico" for McGillivray's supposed Creek name. I've never seen a portrait of McGillivray; unfortunately there may not be any. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 15:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

User 198.70.42.52

You deleted my report of User:198.70.42.52 at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Just curious-- why? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 23:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The vandal had stopped many hours ago see contributions. You are supposed to list them here when they are currently committing the act. Maybe the edit-summary I used threw you off; I should have explained (but I used the roll back button). Sorry, wont happen again. Orane (t) (c) (@) 23:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Alcoholism

Did you mean to add the phrase "raja lovesshagan in india" back to the alcoholism page? Also, what is your rational for changing the CAGE section? Osmodiar 03:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


Catskill Escarpment

It should be capitalized ... that's the commonly-used term for the chain of mountains running from Overlook in the south to Windham High Peak in the north, where they rise suddenly from the valley floor. I do intend to write a separate article on this at some point. Daniel Case 17:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


Find a Grave

Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articlessee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave_famous_people

RustySpear 20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

CA Hwy code

I don't have a problem with the Wikisource... but it gives me an excuse to get a such account... now about articles... does California State Route 1 look okay? Since now the State Law section is redundant... and next week I'd be happy to help with the work. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

We don't have to have the state law section now... as long as we change the routebox template link. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)

Well it looks good now but I havent had the time to fully examine it. I'm interested in putting the whole hwy code on Wikisource... but anyway... it might just be easier to have your template and trash the one I created. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant the entire State Highways code... not just a section but the whole thing... but I can do it sometime next week or so... the templates are good but now we have to fix Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways to have the new templates. Sorry about the delay, I've been on vacation this last week. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh shoot... just remembered... what about the routes that have only a portion in the Scenic Highway system? (for example) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused... what is the difference between my version of the templates and yours now? Also I would lean towards making the arguments for the Interstate and U.S. Highway shields. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah.. I;d say throw mine out and put yours in place for simplicity. Most people don't want to remeber a whole bunch of codes and stuff. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok... sorry didn't catch that... I've been tired lately. Also it would be helpful if you could fix the Wikiproject page to have the templates... Thanks... sometime over the weekend or so I'll be able to help you with the templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it probably should. It's redundant anyway since we have I-15. However we're keeping the article for historical reasons. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Um I hate to mention this... but in all of the new sections you've put up the section number is incorrect... it's not 304 for each one, it's 300+ the article route- for example, CA-187 would be section 487. (I've done the exceptions to the rule already). Once I finish what I'm doing I can help you fix those though. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Verifying that I didn't mess anything up by adding {{{sec}}} to the Alt templates... it doesn't do anything to the link but it displays the section correctly... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Between the both of us we fixed all of the state law sections... except for the wrong section numbers on 1-126 and ... I also want to add routeboxes and wikiproject templates and stubs and categories to the ones that don't have them... but yeah. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In regards to 86S... it is a temporary route and will become the 86... but otherwise... I fixed both scenic templates to have all the articles use the same image. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

1136 Broadway

'tis done, or at least as soon as the incredibly slow Wiki wakes up to my request. I was reverting all vandalism by a bad user and didn't even notice that that was an orphaned talk page. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Dashes

I usually convert dashes to mdashs just because it makes it clear what kind of dash it is without any guesswork. Also, I was under the impression (perhaps false) that some browsers wouldn't represent them correctly in the editor window. The Manual of Style (dashes) page does not seem to show preference either way. --Fastfission 23:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point. It always seems odd that both render in the edit window as a hyphen but display differently when saved. Thanks. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


South Carolina

There's no need to take such a tone with me. If you look above your post, I am the one who told Akhenaton to discuss it on the Talk page, as my Talk page wasn't the most appropriate place to discuss the change. I'm dropping the issue, I was simply hesitant to remove the link being as my own POV is extremely againt the opinions put forth by the Christian Exodus organization, and I didn't want to have the link removed without some sense of consensus. I am an Administrator, and I assure you I know what I'm doing around here. Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Clemson University and University of South Carolina

I've been getting into some discussion with an anonymous user on both of these articles, and would appreciate some involvement from other editors. If you'd care to help, do check out the Talk pages for both. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 07:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing Signpost articles

In general, we don't have a problem with people making additional edits to the articles, even if they're not included in the byline. It's a wiki, we collaborate on the articles, and more people are welcome to help. In this case, I reverted your changes simply because that story is from last Monday's issue (most readers won't be coming back to it), and this item will definitely be covered in the upcoming issue. If you want to help with those articles, check out the Signpost's newsroom. --Michael Snow 01:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Like he said.  :) We welcome contributions to the newspaper in general, either full articles or contributions to existing ones; I usually do the "In the news" section, and I personally welcome any help you care to give. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other for a list of current stories we're working on at any given time. Thanks! — Catherine\talk 21:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It is hard to keep up! I've added the AP bit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-12-05/In the news; I ended up taking out your paragraph on the New York Times since it's covered in Michael's extensive article on the subject. But feel free to add your links or anything else to the 12-05 news article... — Catherine\talk 00:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you could help me with something if you have time -- I usually do a Google News search on "according to Wikipedia" and list the citing newspapers at the bottom of "In the news". I'm running out of computer time, though, and the paper's late as it is. Could you list at least three or four there for me? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-28/In the news for details from last week. If not, thanks anyway... — Catherine\talk 00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I probably will not be able to contribute much to the December 26 issue of "in the news"; if by any chance your holiday will be less hectic than mine, please feel free to add to the article. If not, no worries, and have a great holiday season! — Catherine\talk 20:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Bob Newman

I'll take a look. It definitely needs some help. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Scotland

Thanks for the support on the racism article re "Paki Bashing". It does go on. I have seen it at first hand. Naturally most decent and fair minded Scots would be appalled that this is happening in their country. But it really has to be mentioned until the problem goes away. I could of course have added more references to support this. However, I didn't want to labor the point. Thanks again. Wallie 21:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Doc Holliday Photo Problem

Yes, I know that that photo of the dark-haired man you used is on file in Denver as Doc Holliday. A different photo (see the collar) from the same photo session with the same man actually hangs in the Cochise County Courthouse in Tombstone, and is also labeled Holliday. But I think very probably, it isn't.

The only authentic closeup we have of Holliday is the one in Karen Tanner's book Doc Holliday: A Family Portrait. A standing picture we have of poor quality from 1879 shows he's still the same man by then (still light-haired, as Wyatt says). More importantly, the two closeups we have are of men with different ears.

See my note on the Doc Holliday discussion page. It behooves us to get a no-question photo of the real J. Holliday on Holliday's wiki page! You can leave the other one in, but include a caption that due to the ears, some do not consider it authentic. You can then let the reader judge. Thanks! Sbharris 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on the Holliday photo. I didn't even know images could have their own talk pages. I'll modify this one and see if I can come up with a source for the photos in the Tanner book. Sbharris 01:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem

Thanks for your note, but no worries. It's sorted now, and I believe s/he's unblocked. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Great blue heron

I was passing this way and the image of the heron look beautiful ! Tintin 15:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright/Fair use

I don't want to propose new text here because the old text was in the most part quite suitable, although I've done some minor tweaking. WAS 4.250's changes are quite bad, and technically inaccurate -- removing the discussion of copyright infringement is very bad, since you really need some knowlege of copyright infringement to keep fair use rules in context. The "codification" argument looks like semantics, but it's not; the Supreme Court was regularly said that fair use doctrine exists independently from the statutory texts that mention it, which means that Congress has no power to define its extent (i.e, "codify" it). Discussion gets murky because Congress, which does have the power to limit whatever rights of copyright holders it creates by statute, can create a larger "fair use" exception than exists in common law. Monicasdude 17:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

blanking by 24.147.103.146

Per SCZenz's request, I have listed the blanking/copyright events involving 24.147.103.146 (and later 204.169.116.1 at WP:AN/I. If theres anything i've missed about these events please feel free to add. Thanks again for your help. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 00:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:24.147.103.146

About the Bernie McLaughlin article. I don't think we should let this anonymous user get away with accusing articles that have been re-written as being copyright violations and then having the page with a warning on it for how knows long! The H. Paul Rico page which I have re-written still has this copyright violation information.

There is something wrong with this persons behavior. If they truly represent Howie Carr then let them identify themselves and get on with it otherwise this person is just a vandal because his accusations are no longer valid. Dwain 16:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that many of the articles were verbatim or close to verbatim from other websites. We should put the other anon on note for stealing these articles as well. I started the Jimmy Flynn article and posted the photograph, that is how I got involved in this mess because I was accused of "stealing" a copyrighted image. I am not the author of the other articles. I did however try to rewrite a couple in order to remove any infringement.
Personally, I believe this character is now trying to play up the fact that he is Carr form his last contribution on the Carr talk page, but I think that is just this guys ego trying to make out that he is Carr. I don't believe it, in fact, he may be trying to remove articles on the Irish gangsters and used the copyvios and supposed vios as a good excuse to remove them. Just a thought. Dwain 17:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I have put the anon on warning, several times, although it is quite hard becaus he uses 5 or 6 different IPs at what appears to be a school computer lab. I agree with 24.147.103.146 that the Bernie Mclaughlin article does appear to be a bit too close to the original, perhaps we can make it a bit more fact based and be done with it. In general user 24.147.103.146 has been responding to reason since coming off his previous block. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 17:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I have tried to find sources other than Carr's sites for the Bernie McLaughlin article without much success, though someone clearly has. I added the Carr site to the /temp article as an ==Ext link==, for honesty sake (in fact, maybe it should be ==Sources==, instead). I have to say, though, that our article now strikes me as a not a copyvio-- it's more than half again as long as Carr's, and has some facts not found on his page. What's more, if you compare different versions contributed by 216.20.1.211/2/3/4/5 (who started this article in the first place) you'll see different facts on different reconstructions after copyvio notices. It's all pretty strange. Who do you suppose 216.20.1.21x is? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (from User Talk:Lanoitarus)

  • I agree that it should be listed under sources. I think the fundamental problem is that a few sentences are still EXTREMELY close. I will try to rewrite it completely when i have time this evening, which should solve the problems. As for who 216.20.1.21x, perhaps it is Whitey himself, back from hiding to terrorize wikipedia =D -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 20:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You may be interested in this page Bernard "Bernie" McLaughlin/Temp, which is in violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. I'm not clear on the entire incident, so you may want to bring this to the attention of another sysop. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, you could be right on this one. Anyway, it's a long time since I've been working in WP:CP, I afraid you'll have to seek a third opinon. What is important is to make sure it's rewritten from scratch, and only facts are carried over. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 13:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What I did was to delete the article and then restore the revisions that preceded the copying. Sorry about the confusion, the notice on the article directed me to a different copyright problems subpage than the one on which it was listed. I'll take a look at the temp page to see whether it can be salvaged or should be deleted. --Michael Snow 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest more can be found on these individuals using their whole names for instance Bernard McLaughlin got me to this site [2].
The guy is a menace. Once we have been alerted that someone posted copyrighted paragraphs and we are dealing with it that should be the end. But this guy persists so. I think if he is representing Carr that he should identify himself as doing so. If he is not then he should now stop menacing this website. I've written Howie Carr at his WRKO e-mail address howiecarr (AT) wrko (DOT) com. I don't expect a reply, but I am tired of being accused of being a thief for posting a picture months ago!!! Dwain 20:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Menace? Is that what you call protecting years of hard work? Try sending your email to capncarr (AT) comcast (DOT) net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs).
Added anti spam measures to the above listed email addresses. A lot of bots harvest wikipedia for addresses to spam. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

 Thank you for voting for me at my RFA, which closed with a 24/1/1 outcome. I will do my best in the position I now am in. Thanks again, and see you around Wikipedia!

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Bugs Moran

I agree that the actions of the anon are quite frustrating, but I think in this case the removal of the image was correct. WP:C guidelines say that if a image is not clearly PD or fair use (this isnt as far as i can tell) and appears on a commercial site (it does, on several), we should assume it is copyrighted and remove it. So yeah, its frustrating, but in this case it does appear to be the right thing. Hopefully we can find a fair use version. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 15:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Are things that are not as you see them nonsense? I live on the campus so I feel I have the right to change things !

American dippers

FYI There were two photos you posted on the American Dipper page. The one entitled "group of dippers" was actually a different bird called a Brewer's Blackbird. I have made a correction.

DuPont

I see where you were one of the editors to insert (reinsert) "criticsms" in the Dupont article (02:03, August 28, 2005 Mwanner (restore bulk of criticisms, slight copyedit). Such items require accurate sourcing, and prioper context. I removed the bulk of these unfounded/out of context assertions, including conspiracy theory bullshit that has no place in an encyclopedia, as per my comments at Talk:DuPont. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is certainly not balanced as you claim it should be, not even remotely close to that. If you (or others) have serious intent to create credible articles, then do as you state and ensure "balance." It is not "contributing" by inserting only real or alleged "criticsm". There are, many, mamy, many, such crap articles at Wikipedia. You may have lived in Wilmington, but it means little and Wikipedia:No original research means "No personal opinions" as were there. Some insertion about about North carolina "leeks" is pure crap untol it is placed in precise context with Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And please don't tell me what edits you will "let stand". I spelled out the reasons for my deletions fully in accordance with Wikipedia:Policy. You, or anyone else are free to add, reinsert etc. them in the same Policy manner - and when you do, you have an obligation to provide balance. This article as it stood (still) is a disgrace. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Your references are non-scientific. They are all either personal websites Wikipedia:No original research) and activist groups which don't provide scientific facts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and sources must be unimpeachable -- lobby or special interest groups are not acceptable as a Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia policy requires: "Cite peer-reviewed scientific journals." And in Court cases, you need to provide a Court and court case number for referencing and the judgment details - Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia) does not quote allegations in frivolous cases. Also, one case you refer to was thrown out of court as being without foundation but the link to the article doesn't work on the Activist Group page you linked to. As to CFC's, what is the purpose of quoting this? Did DuPont deliberately create a product to harm the environment? Did they conspire to hide facts so they could sell them? They did not - ever. DuPont was one company of many around the world who made a product that later turned out "might" be harmful to the ozone layer. So what? Scientists haven't even agreed on that, or the effects, unlike say Thalidomide, which was withdrawn from sale after it was discovered to cause severe birth defects because it inhibits angiogenesis. There are millions of products that we later learned caused harm (or might have) but an encyclopedia doesn't devote its content to these unless the company knowingly created a harmful product and hid the facts - a criminal act. DuPont is in fact one of the best corporate citizens in American history with family members and corporate personnel demonstrating a history of the highest integrity. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 12:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

As well, comments taken out of context and without citing the verifiable source are not acceptable.

  • "On April 27, 1992 DuPont announced that "we will stop selling CFC's as soon as possible," but only in the "US and other developed countries."

- Ted Wilkes 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


jingoism alert

Heads up.

Hey, there is a very agressive jingoist who deleted a large portion of your DuPont criticism contributions (I notice that you have defended this page before from similar attacks)--there is now no criticism section. I am having problems with this jingoist myself, and decided to investigate his recent edits.Travb 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Stop issuing ridiculous threats, I ain't vandalizing. 00:14, December 22, 2005 User:128.42.7.170

User:70.81.117.175

[from user talk:Mzajac]

User:70.81.117.175, who you've blocked previously for changing stats erroneously is back at it[3]. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. Please add any other examples of clear vandalism to my list on the user's talk page. —Michael Z. 2005-12-22 16:40 Z

Thanks

Slapped the anon with a six month block. --Golbez 18:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry m8 but your nothing more than censorship.

I've written three articles now only to have them removed by people like you. Factual items all relavent which i could provide sources for, but all my efforts have been wasted.

I wont bother any more (something tells me this will suit you just fine) and wont be recommending wikipedia to anyone in my academic circles at university any longer since your nothing more than a fascist censor.

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/w/a/User_talk%7EMwanner_Archive_2_50ac.html"