User talk:Accotink2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

I would like to apologize to Spanglej, Sadads, Binksternet, TJRC, Kumioko. my intent was not to create work but provide a demonstration to MRG, VW. These three concepts, while reasonable alone are together asinine:

VW, i note you are claiming some copyright vios: [11]; [12]; [13]; [14] these seem marginal, I'm sure there are worse among the 10,000 edits; in any event, do those ends justify your means? MRG, i note you deleted Donald D. Engen, but not Cristián Samper, any reason, analysis, or rather admins Prerogative? Accotink2 talk 16:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Why some are speedily deleted, but not others[edit]

Cristián Samper does not meet the criterion WP:CSD#G5; Donald D. Engen did. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"substantial edits by others", good point. let's bury the hatchet, let me scrub the backlog with your approval, the lists are clearly PD facts. VW argues that an abridged list is "creative", but this can't be so: the telephone book excludes unlisted numbers; rather it must be the "uncreative" facts in the list. Accotink2 talk 17:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I've never wanted to have a hatchet. It was always my goal to keep you as a productive contributor without the violations of our copyright policies. You have just repeatedly indicated that you find the standard of not copying content impossible to uphold. I would, frankly, love to have your help cleaning up any content concerns that may remain, but you have repeatedly minimized the problem and persisted in spite of multiple conversations about it. I have not had time to review any of your more recent edits, but from what you say it seems that you have continued copying content even under this sock account. If you want to negotiate an unblock, you should make an unblock request at your primary user talk page. You should disclose and explain the block evasion, since that is a separate issue, but also should offer some plausible assurance that you do indeed get it and that you can and will meet the policies that prohibit pasting from other sources. Another administrator should review that request. I would not personally be comfortable unblocking you, given especially your sock puppetry.
An abridged list can indeed be creative; it depends on the selection criteria for the abridgment. But I have no interest in engaging you in the kinds of circular conversations we ran into in the past. As you're very well aware, we have a lot of work to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Feist v. Rural: " If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data."...."but, if you rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, you might still be found to have infringed the author's copyright in the choice of recipes and their "coordination" and "presentation", even if you used different words; however, the West decisions below suggest that this is unlikely unless there is some significant creativity carried over from the original presentation." as was changed here [15]
have it your way. Accotink2 talk 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I have no interest in engaging you in the kinds of circular conversations we ran into in the past. After having explained to you, for instance, that we do not accept content on the basis that our site is noncommercial and why we don't, I see that you still asserted that as a defense in your last comment to User:Dcoetzee. For that reason, I'm afraid it feels like a waste of my time to try to engage you in conversation. So far as I can see, the issue is not that you don't understand our policies, but that you disagree with them and hence choose to ignore them. Let me know if you want to talk about the procedure for requesting unblock. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
no, i don't disagree with policy, but your method of enforcing it: copyright is a serious problem, and you are making it worse. by "impossible": i mean that Zero Defects is an impossible standard: it is a slogan and fad, even sham and delusion. your backlog increases because of your inability to compromise. (what comment at Dcoetzee?) why should i submit to running the gauntlet when i have pin the tail on the donkey? Accotink2 talk 19:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So, then, your attitude is unchanged, and an unblock would be inappropriate. Many contributors seem to manage to contribute content to Wikipedia without pasting anything. Your last comment to Dcoetzee remains quite visible on your primary user talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
this attitude rhetoric is a Fear appeal, or Effort-Justification Paradigm. i will work with good faith editors, and listen to reason, not arguments from authority. if you require checkers speeches, then you select for Richard Nixon. it's hard to "do the right thing", when you plant the bullseye on your backside. since a reasonable person might well conclude that any attempt at an unlock is futile, why bother? the referral is in bad faith, given your unchanged "no trust".
the comment to Dcoetzee was an explanation that policy is more stringent than the law, making it harder to comply. non-compliance is not "lack of understanding", nor "disagreement with policy". your projection of motives is bad faith. the issue is profoundly gray, and not amenable to Binary opposition analysis. Dialectical behavior therapy may be appropriate.
in your scorched earth, you have reverted blp referencing, reflinks use [16], and new user welcomes User talk:SBotti; User talk:Dbarker0522; User talk:Grtznrspldng; User talk:Dfin425; User talk:Ksuez; User talk:Pdodds; User talk:Hyschube; User talk:Oscarsanderosn; User talk:OrbitEccentric; User talk:DanCabrera; User talk:Agoodman.76 - thereby undermining the credibility of CCI. if i were to scrub your backlog, would you revert? i will enjoy your response to your dilemma. Accotink2 talk 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday![edit]

10mark k.svg
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

  • Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
  • Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
  • Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
  • Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.


Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Office of Special Investigations (United States Department of Justice)[edit]

interesting!