Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the policy, technical, or proposals pages, or – for assistance – at the help desk, rather than here, if at all appropriate. For general knowledge questions, please use the reference desk.

« Archives, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

Any way of keeping an eye on new user without confrontation?

I'd prefer not to post my query here, but this new user is a single purpose account being explicitly used to opine as to the lack of NPOV on article talk pages. While this wouldn't normally bother me, he's out to bait someone and I non-admin WP:OOPSed by querying him on his trying to get someone else to develop some hearsay on his behalf. Yes, I am stupid and, yes, I've trout slapped myself already.

It doesn't exactly fit the 'vandal' profile for reporting, but the number of edits he's making on talk pages in order to make a redundant point and, now, to call me out - which I won't respond to - on a page that is rife with traffic at the moment is disruptive: see from here to here (1 initial + 3 edits), and here to here (5 edits in total). I'm not sure whether he's just a sad soul trolling just to engage with someone, or whether he's spamming for self-promotion (his own project?). Is there any method by which to keep an eye on his activities in order to prevent another outbreak of disruptive use of a talk page as a forum? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for this. You're having a minor dispute and bringing it here seems to accomplish nothing and can only serve to escalate the issue. You are already aware of how to watch users using "Special:Contributions", so it seems to me that you aren't really looking for a way to "keep an eye on a user without confrontation" but canvassing for support against this user. This user has basically only edited two talk pages more than a few times. He/she does seem to try to explain their point of view. The best you can do is stay neutral, engage in good faith discussion, and calmly explain policy and guidelines as needed. Doesn't mean you have to agree with their point of view at all. If this user irks you personally, maybe your best bet is to just ignore them. Should their editing become truly problematic, there are already channels to address that. For example, you can start at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or proceed to use some of the resources at {{Noticeboard links}}. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for being disruptive, Jason Quinn. Yes, it certainly does read as canvassing, even if I wasn't consciously aware of it at the time. I realised it was best not to continue antagonising him and have refrained from doing so. Thanks for the slap. It's deserved. Skulking off to put on my dunce cap now. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Casals

There is currently a request for comments on Talk:Pablo Casals in which some users might wish to participate. The issue involves Casals' first name on pages that link to Pablo Casals. Full information is provided on the talk page. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Location of articles for creation

Why are articles for creation under the Wikipedia talk namespace? I'd think that there'd be a breakdown between the article being drafted, under the Wikipedia namespace, and discussion of the article, under Wikipedia talk.—Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Unregistered users can only create pages in talk namespaces –- at least before the new draft namespace was made. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps it would be better to have a subsection/alternate_page for unregistered users to make Article for Creation submissions rather than employing a solution which by default limits everyone. It seems that the spirit of community and consensus would be better served if the AfC format were changed to readily allow multi-party input. i.e. It would be nice to have a standard primary-and-talk page setup to allow open discussion and more detailed transparent review. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy inclusion?

Is there a way to facilitate a 'speedy inclusion'? Regarding Draft talk:Abby Martin#Additional coverage. It seems that administrative support is needed to free up the article name in mainspace. A reworked version of the article Abby Martin—with improved referencing—was declined 28 Feb. 2014 with little or no specific explanation. Then just days later Ms. Martin was featured in articles by both NBC and the Huffington Post.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Resolved. There is now a page at Abby Martin (journalist). --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought...

It seems like there are a lot of pages on Wikipedia titled "criticisms of..." and no pages entitled "affirmations of...". I'm just saying... Eatmark (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Eatmark

• Excellent thought. Thank you. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

please help with RfC about syrian people

please if you are interested in Syrians people participate in the RfC atTalk:Syrian people--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

the conflict was resolved, thanks any way--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Input wanted: orphan works

This Monday and Tuesday, the U. S. Copyright Office is holding a workshop on orphan works and mass digitization. Orphan works are works for which the copyright has not yet expired, but the rightsholder is unknown or uncontactable, and the work is thus unavailable for reuse. The workshop is for the Copyright Office to get perspectives on potential legislation to legalize the reuse of orphan works under certain conditions.

The president of Wikimedia District of Columbia, James Hare, is on one of the panels for this workshop, and we're looking for specific examples of how the unavailability of orphan works on Wikimedia projects hurts our educational mission. So if you've wanted to use a work in the past but couldn't because the author or rightholder was unknown, reply here and tell us your story, and we might retell it to the Copyright Office. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is above and beyond the issue of people using digital images online without crediting the source, right? As in, images where the copyright holder of a work cannot be determined even through print media? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That is correct. One example might be a photograph found in an archive that contains no metadata about the photographer and publication status. Another might be a book published by a company that has long gone out of business, so that the identity of the current rightsholder (if any) is unknown. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really. Generally even if you know the author getting permission is enough of a pain that people don't tend to bother. "reuse of orphan works under certain conditions" wont amount to a free license so is of no use to us anyway. It might help libraries and museums a little but to be honest I suspect the only groups that will really gain are book publishers and TV channels.©Geni (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

A clear definition of an orphan work would at least enable "fair use" I think. Sometimes a routine photograph is plainly of no great value but would be useful to illustrate an article, except that a diligent search finds no living copyright owner. Such photos are in the possession of family members, museums, or were printed in newspapers that went out of business long ago. -- econterms (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Such an image wouldn't be free and we already allow a level of fair use. Oh and for family members copyright inherits. As for newspapers their residual assets including copyrights tend to be purchased by someone (usually surviving papers) who isn't going to react well to you claiming that their works count as orphan works.©Geni (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

500,000

Depending which numbers you follow, sometime in the past week or so I became the tenth Wikipedian to pass 500,000 edits. I believe I am entitled to some kind of key or something. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)