User talk:Mozzerati

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


This page has been blanked; for old comments please see

Contents

[edit] question on my RfA

Hi Mozzerati,

Thank you for posting an additional question on my RfA - I was extremely slow on the uptake and only realised it was there yesterday! I have been quite disappointed that the few opposing votes I have had do not seem to have read or appreciate the sentiments I have expressed on my user page... but hey - perhaps they haven't even looked!

Anyway, thanks again, and all the best. DJR (Talk) 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers to my questions on your RFA. They help me much, but still leave me a bit uneasy. I'd like your response to this: a) If we do break the copyright law accidentally, it may be important to show that we do our best to follow it. If asked about this; what could you point to to show that, in general, you try ensure we stay within the spirit of copyright law even if we had somehow failed to exactly follow the letter. b) if a new article contained only copyrighted material from an identified source, why would you not delete it? Mozzerati 12:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

a) Depending on the situation, the justification for violation varies. For example, the use of a copyrighted, non-fair use image has to be deleted, even if it was uploaded assuming good faith. However, WP:COPY clearly lays out Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights and their possible infringement, the most important quote being "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". This once again links back to what I said previously regarding the evolutionary nature of copyright - although its content is protected, its ideas are still be free to be developed in order to enhance knowledge for all.

b) If a new article contained only copyrighted material, then I would seek to reformulate it as suggested above (from WP:COPY). There is no reason to delete the article outright if you can simply take some time out to read to copyrighted work, re-write it in your own words, and then remove the original. All knowledge grows from this basis, and Wikipedia is no different. Of course, if the content is unique and cannot be altered significantly enough to avoid the problem, then it has to be deleted. However, the latter is extremely rare.

hi agin.. Thanks for your answer again, though it still didn't completely clarify for me what I was trying to ask. In WP:COPY part of the procedure for copyright is specifically handing on to WP:CP. For pages which are, and always have been, plain copyright violations the procedure there is to delete then rewrite. I'm still not sure from your responses whether that is what you mean by rewriting. Is that the procedure you do / would / could in future follow? If the new version of the page is not a "derivative" of the copyright page, then there is no reason to keep it in the history. Why not just delete the old version and keep the rewrite? Mozzerati 13:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I apologise for not making myself clearer, but that is exactly what I would do. If the copied text is small I would do it myself and make a note on the article's talk page, but if it is a significant violation then I would take the issue to WP:CP. I completely agree - there is no reason to keep the copyrighted work in the history if a new, reformulated version exists. I was not aware of the procedure of deleting first, then re-writing, but as this is the case then I see no reason to do otherwise. DJR (Talk) 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my new/final RfA

Hi Mozzerati!

First and foremost, I must express my thanks for your support during my first RfA. Due to a highly disturbing surge in opposing votes after the submission closed, it has been resubmitted. Unfortunately, it looks as though are large number of opposing voters have appeared and I would be extremely surprised if my new RfA passed... which is fairly disheartening considering that I was around 1 hour from succeeding last time!

In any case - it has been an interesting experience - one thing I can take from it is that someone with a clear thought process should learn to control the focus of their views. As I am wholly unable to pretend I do not have a clear POV, I doubt I will apply for adminship again. It seems fairly clear from this second submission that I am better off sticking to what I do best! Especially considering that I am "not yet a wikipedian"!

Anyway, many warm thanks for your support, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you ever need my assistance for anything in particular.

Regards, DJR (Talk) 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tawkerbot2

Thank you very much for drawing that bug to my attention. It normally would ignore copyvio notices, however, a recent change was made that bypassed the copyvio check under certain circumstances. I've corrected it. Sorry about that. Any other feedback you have is very much appreciated. All the best. joshbuddytalk 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] How to find Knut Gunnarsson Helland

When I search for Knut Gunnarsson Helland the search engine comes up with 0 result. But it is there. The address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Gunnarson_Helland

How come?

Frode Inge Helland

[edit] DirectShow peer review

I wanted to thank for your insanely helpful peer review of DirectShow! I've put it up for peer review again, so if you could comment again that would be great! Just another star in the night T | @ | C 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mauthausen PR

Hi there! Could you possibly take a look at my recent article on Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp? It's by no means finished, but I believe it could benefit from some peer review by a native speaker. Cheers. //Halibutt 03:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sure, I'm done with the changes anyway. I've spent the best part of the last four days on it and I get an impression that I can't do much more for now... Thanks for letting me know and sorry for the edit conflicts :) BTW, in the future you might want to use the {{inuse}} tag, most people honour it. //Halibutt 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for your hard work. In the meantime I asked for a peer review of the article. Hopefully more people will take a look and improve the article. As to the diff - the missing part is the picture. I added it back, no problem whatsoever. //Halibutt 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Just in case you wondered, the work on the article is almost finished and I plan to nominate it for FA any time soon. //Halibutt 14:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC started on Merecat

I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. SincerelyHolland Nomen Nescio 18:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking down one of your sources

I am revising the article One weekend a month, two weeks a year, to which you made substantial contributions, by converting its bare external links to proper citations and checking them as well. In that process, I found a problem with the following text and link:

It has been claimed that the change in expectations on the National Guard is a deliberate change in policy by military planners in response to the Vietnam War.[1]

First, this should be rephrased to "avoid weasel words" by citing who claims this, so I tried to follow the link to the specified page from The Week. However, that link is apparently broken. Without the article title or any specific quote with which to search, I cannot locate a proper source. (This is precisely why bare links are bad, and proper citations are necessary. With an article title and/or quote, they can be re-found and re-sourced if the link is broken.) I would appreciate it if you could recall any information that would help establish this claim. Otherwise, we should probably delete it from the article. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Great to see someone else actually going around fact checking. This is what we really need. I just found the reference for you. I did this using the The Way Back Machine. It's very worth checking this and the google cache when you find a broken link. Having found an old copy, you will then be able to use google to search for a phrase from the article and normally find the new location. This often helps in retaining important information. Anyway, I even put in a bit more specific related facts. There was actually a specific legal change of control with the removal of the governor's veto on deployments in the 1980s. I added a mention to the main United States National Guard article. The current title of this article, One weekend a month, two weeks a year doesn't mean much to anyone not from the USA. Maybe a merge with National Guard or renaming and expansion to something exciting like "Deployment policy of the U.S. National Guard"?
By the way, I'm a well known opponent of direct links and I partly agree with your "fix it or delete" policy, but please remember that people who provide such links are still in the best 10% (as verified by the University of Bartonia :-) of contributors. They are actually providing verifiable material where others don't. I feel we should try encourage and look after them. Please be gentle and try to help them see the benefits of proper referenced links with encouragement.
All the best. Mozzerati 15:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize if I seemed too brusque about replacing the Week link (no pun intended) with a {{citation neeeded}} notice, or if you were (not unreasonably!) offended by the use of the phrase "weasel words". (I cringe every time I use that explanatory link. I wish it had a less offensive title, but some of the WP policy pages are a bit, shall we say, undiplomatic.)
As far as fix-or-delete, I try not to take such action unless I commit to (A) leaving a request for more info from the original editor; (B) monitoring the article for updates; and (C) making a time-delay note in my organizer to ensure I don't forget that I've started something that needs finishing. I'm glad to see in this case that you were able to resolve the problem quickly. And thanks for the tip on the Wayback Machine! I've seen it, but never actually tried to use it to find a broken URL. I'll check there first in the future to avoid putting more of a burden on other conscientious editors.
On the content/merge issue, I don't think I'll get involved, as I'm sure you and other concerned editors will do just fine without my input. This was part of my"drive-by" reference formatting and checking work, so I don't want to get bogged down in larger issues on my victim articles. (I once worked as a university library aide, shelving books. I was the worst employee because I couldn't help skimming through all the books I was shelving. ☺) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging Unshielded twisted pair and Foiled twisted pair into Twisted pair

I've proposed that two articles be merged into the Twisted pair article. However, you were the one who originally seperated them out into their own articles. These articles have more or less remained as stubs and aren't likely to expand further into full articles. Before going forward with a merger, we'd like to know your opinion. Post it to the Twisted pair talk page. ~ N. Harmon 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Photo Matching Service

Thought you might want to know about this, it has the same goals as Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography, but is better organized. --Gphototalk 18:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2.75G

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article 2.75G, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. PaulC/T+ 18:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/z/User_talk%7EMozzerati_7777.html"