User talk:Jerry/Archive 5

This user is an adminstrator

Wednesday

9

October
2024

23:31 UTC

Jerry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

EditNavigation bar

Home Home

About About

Talk Talk

Logs Logs

Index Index

Tests Tests

E-mail E-mail

“ ...delusional...kangaroo... ”

PLEASE READ!
For the sake of continuity, (and because I am incredibly lazy):

• If you leave a message on my talk page, I will respond on my talk page.
• However, if I leave a message on your talk page, please tell me here if you respond on your talk page, because I may not be watching it.

I am the user formerly known as Jerry_lavoie

To leave me a message CLICK HERE.

Or feel free to email me at: jerry@lavoie.com. Please be sure to preceed your message below with "==Section Heading==".

Please end your message with four tildes (~~~~), to append your wikisignature.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to User talk:Jerry/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

,

Anonymous comments left on this talk page are automatically signed by HagermanBot. If you do not wish to have the bot mark unsigned comments left by you, you may follow the instructions at opting out.

User Messages to Me:

Reply

It's protected until the edit warring parties have reached a compromise. Until then, you can use {{editprotected}} for any suggested changes you have. John Reaves (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I refuse to use edit protected. So if the warring parties never agree to compromise, then this article stays protected indefinately? That seems a horrible display of poor judgement or your part. I am disappointed in your decision. As editors exhibit uncivil behavior more and more of our encyclopedia will become broken if people make decisions as you have. I look forward to you changing your mind. Jerry 22:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Jerry! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome.

Thanks for the welcome - Shaionara.

User:Jamespeter19

Thank you for reverting vandalism by this user. However, please do not use the "last warning" tags unless the user has been previously warned on the talk page. They hold no merit if the user needs to be blocked and if anything, make it harder to block them, since an escalating system of warnings is required. Its a lot of asinine red tape I know but unfortunately we have to live with it for now.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

hi this is ertman92

--ratboy 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)me again how old are you

He didn't re-add it, I did. COPPA is under-13 only, so no "excessive personal information" is being divulged that could get us into legal trouble. Unless you're trying to claim that anyone under 18 can't post information about their ages, which is absurd. --tjstrf talk 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policies, and indeed my own policy for my talk page, can be more restrictive than COPPA. I cited Wikipedia:Youth protection, which does not specifically state an age, it just uses the generic term "child". The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier". Since there is no useful purpose beneficial to editing wikipedia for his age to be posted on my talk page, I do not want it there. I believe this is a reasonable decision on my part, as it only pertains to pages in my user space. Jerry 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While I concede that, with the usual WP:OWN caveats, you are allowed to alter postings on your own talk page, I don't think posting a forboding message to his talk page was particularly helpful or friendly of you. Especially not one based on his being below the age of legal majority. UN definitions dealing with Child Exploitation laws aside, the standard definition for child is "pre-pubescent". Wikipedia has no policy at all on the issue, and even the current administrative agreement of asking the very young to remove personal data and offering to delete it from history for them isn't applied to 14 year olds. --tjstrf talk 21:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There's simply no purpose for this user to post his age on my talk page. I never interacted with him before, and I do not want/ need to know that kind of personal detail, especially about a minor. As a single 30-something male US citizen, I have no business getting into conversations with 14-year old boys that start out with "Hi, I'm 14 years old"... sounds too much like a possible sting. I go well above and beyond the legal requirements of COPPA to ensure there is no reason to question anything. That is my choice, as it applies to my user space, and I stand behind it. Jerry 21:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

hi i want to talk to you--ratboy 17:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis links

Hi Jerry. Thanks for you recent edits on the C.S. Lewis article. Can I suggest in future than you think twice before using gimmicks such as link suggestion tools? Many of the links added are not terribly relevant to the article, and some are totally inaccurate. For instance, James Lewis was not the father of C.S. Lewis, yet he is linked to him in the article. Context is the most important thing when deciding on links, and this is something only a person can do. Martin 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The tool is not automated in any way. It just makes suggestions that the user then checks as "yes" "no" or "not sure". I usually actually look at the linked page, unless it seems really straight-forward from it's title. I do not consider my editing using the online linking tool to be "a gimmick". MoS:L does not provide extremely specific guidance on what to link and what not to link, so I guess it is really a matter of preference (read: opinion)as to whether certain links meet the criteria of "relevant to the article" and "that a reader would want to follow". I certainly believe that after my edits the article was better off, and that it had less than 10% of its words linked. I understand you disagree with some of the added links. Feel free to revert them. As to the specific link for James Lewis, you are correct about that one being inappropriate. Perhaps a review of my contributions will show you that I do more good than harm, and the few errors which do occur are easily corrected when pointed-out. Thanks, Jerry 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jerry, thanks for the reply. I'm sorry if my comment seemed a bit harsh; it certainly wasn't my intention to cast aspersions on your ability as an editor, nor would I ever do so. I was merely pointing out the downfalls of the system you were employing. It's not something that would particularly appeal to myself, but if you feel it improves your productivity, I can hardly disagree with that.

Anyhow, I hope you didn't take any offence at my comment, and I hope we'll see you on the C. S. Lewis article in future. When the page was up for GA candidacy, all the other regular contributors seemed to be on holiday, so I had to work on it myself to get it up to the required standard. It'd be nice to have another pair of capable hands around the place! Take care, Martin 22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Choking game

I wasnt addingnonsense to that page, i was merely adding a comment i thought should have been added. One ofmy friends died because of this stupid game, i just wanna make people aware of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.71.195 (talk • contribs)

Image:Fiu stad.jpg

Hi, I'm afraid I'm overturning your "keep" assessment of Image:Fiu stad.jpg. First, you are making a wrong claim about public domain ("2-dimensional representations of 3-dimensional works are not protected") - that's simply false; second, I'm not convinced by the fair-use claim either, because the text doesn't really say anything that would make the image necessary for understanding. If the text provided a critical discussion of the architectural details or anything like that, it would be different. Plus, it didn't have a source either. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: similar for the following:

• Image:Matt Birney MLA.jpg (as per #8 of Fair-use counterexamples)
• Image:Geoff Gallop MLA.jpg
• Image:Vodianova.jpg implausible self-made claim by uploader, and certainly not fair use by any stretch of the imagination
• Image:MacMilln.jpg - would be fair use as an illustration of the work of art as such (the artist's style etc.), but not simply for an article about the subject of the work of art
• Image:HMSBoadicea1942.jpg - no source, no fair-use rationale ("non-replaceability" alone doesn't make it fair use, it's an extra criterion that has to be fulfilled in addition to being fair use!)

...and I'm sure I could find more, as you seem to have made many such assessments. Please familiarise yourself more with the image policies, especially Wikipedia:Fair use, before you make more "non-admin closures" of this kind. Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼, 07:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, please never "close" deletion cases of images you uploaded yourself, as you did in several instances. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: image closures

Regarding the message you left on my talk page, that's a lot if information to digest all at once. It will not be possible for me to review the individual cases and study what decision I made and try to learn from the situation, as you have deleted the images. I wonder what the hurry was to delete them instead of discussing it first? If the only lesson you wanted me to learn was don't close image deletion debates at all, then that's simple... but if you wanted me to become more familiar with the procedures, then this will require more discussion. I am quite certain that the law says "a 2-dimensional representation (either rawing or photograph) of a 3-dimensional work on public display may be made and distributed without consulting the copyright holder without violating the rights of the copyright holder." The 3-dimensional work itself is copyrighted. In other words, the architect who designed the staduim would have legal protection against somebody building another stadium, but not against people making drawings and photographs of it. In addition, the law states that such 2-dimensional works are not subject to copyright, and therefore are inherantly public domain. This means that even though the architect who designed the statium can not sue me for making a drawing of his stadium, I can not claim copyright rights on such a drawing.

As for the rest, as I said I can not review the details because you deleted them. But my recollection of the ship Bodacea, was that the uploader claimed it was created by a US Government employee, and that he got it from the National archive office, where he worked? That seems like it would be fine, as well. If you are saying he has to provide some additional proof that his 60-year old photograph was really created by a US government employee, then that sounds a bit more like copyright paranoia than anything else. Perhaps you are a deletionist and don't like non-admins closing these discussions? If that is the case, then please just say so, and we can all save alot of time. If not... then please provide a copy of the image page records for the images you deleted which I closed, and put it in my user space so I can review them. Thanks, Jerry 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the "haste" is just because - well, we get so many questionable fair use images, I'm just finding I can't keep up if I don't assume "shoot first, ask questions later". (see my little essay at User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Fair use. As for the cases you question, let me see: as for the 2D/3D thing, I have the feeling you are mixing two things up: (1) A work of architecture in public view (in the US) can indeed be freely photographed without infringing on the copyright of the architect - but then the photographer has a copyright on the image; (2) the case referred to in {{pd-art}} states that when photographing a 2D work of art, the photographer may not establish copyright of their own, so the copyright on the photograph remains that of the creator of the original work of art. These two cases don't go together, and in neither case does the resulting photograph automatically become free for third parties. As for the Bodacea image, the uploader stated it was from a British, not US government source; unlike the Americans, the Brits do retain copyright on such images.

As for the process, I certainly don't mind non-admins helping to watch image usage, but I'd recommend to be more cautious with making edits that have the appearance of binding decisions as long as you're not absolutely certain you understand the policies well enough. Am I a deletionist? Well, I'm not of the fanatic anti-fair-use crowd, but I do believe "fair use" is a widely abused notion on WP; my estimate is that about 80% of our alleged fair-use images really aren't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. My involvement stemmed from the new autotagging policy which seems to have been implemented sometime in late January. The system seems to have created quite a backlog. The initial templates stated the deletion review would be concluded in 4 days... when they reached the 40-day point, I realized that the issue needed more attention. I initially consulted an admin about it and asked if it would be appropriate for me to close images that met the following conditions:

• Nobody expressed agreement that the image should be deleted (in other words the only delete !vote was the system autotag).
• The user did express some plausible fair use criteria, or one was readily apparent to me
• all of the fair use criteria of WP:FUC were met, including:
  • No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
  • The image is not used in any manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
  • The amount of copyrighted work used is as little as possible. (ie: A low-resolution image has been used instead of a high-resolution image, and or the image is cropped.)
  • The image has previously been published and this is clearly stated on the image page.
  • The image is encyclopedic and otherwise meets general Wikipedia content requirements.
  • The image meets the media-specific policy requirements.
  • The image is used in at least one article.
  • The image contributes significantly to the article(s) in which it is used
  • It is not used in a manner as to serve a purely decorative purpose.
• The image description contains:
  • Proper attribution of the source of the material/ copyright holder.
  • An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed.
  • A list of articles in which fair use of the image is asserted.

I was told it would be okay for me to do so, as long as I used the correct templates, edit summaries, and made sure due diligence was followed to ensure all of the requirements are met.

I look at the image page, its talk page, the article(s) page(s) and its(their) associated talk pages(s) and only close those discussions that had no editors express concern, and obviously met the WP:FUC, in my judgement.

I can see that from what you are saying that I confused the US Government and UK Government laws; and that the drawing of the stadium does not count as a 2-d reproduction of a 3-d sculpture. These laws are rather esoteric, so it takes some experience with the various facets to learn these things, I guess.

I think that it would just be more helpful to have a discussion with an editor making a good faith effort to clear the backlog, rather than to hastily revert his efforts, and tell him to be go learn the policies. I really did try to learn the policies, you know, and there are plenty of examples of others who have closed using the 2D/3D argument, which is where I learned it.

So where should we go from here? Should I just back off and leave this to the experts, or should I continue to be bold and help clear the backlog? Jerry 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, point taken, and sorry if I sounded condescending. I guess the main point where our judgments differed was that thing about "contributing significantly" to the content of the article. I tend to interpret that far more strictly, in light of how I understand what's said at Fair use (the WP article, not the project page), and on this page: [1]. Recommended read. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and patience. I do appreciate the feedback. By the way, I look forward to someday being an admin, so your feedback, particularly on my participation in pseudo-adminish things is very helpful. Please do continue to give advice if you see I need it in the future. Thanks, Jerry 22:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The First Cathedral

It survived. I believe you volunteered... ;-) WjBscribe 01:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. <clicks lighter> :P Jerry 01:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A little flamethrower use never hurt anyone...

Good flamethrower usage... WjBscribe 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Message from unknown user about unknown page

hi that message was not garbage i included it on the danity kane page but then later thought it would be more suited for the aubrey o day page. for proof of that story existing you can check on this website www.concreteloop.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.176.74 (talk • contribs)

Regarding Danity Kane, The edit you made says that some pictures came out (past tense) on 03APR (tomorrow). This seemed to meet the conditions for being considered a hoax. Please properly format and cite future additions to the article. Please also sign your talk page posts using 4 tilde's, ~~~~, which will append your dated wikisignature. Also it is customary to begin new threads with a header, which can be done by encapsulating your header text with double equals signs ie: ==Header Text==. Finally it is always helpful to specify the article name you are referring to by placing an internal wikilink to it in your post or in the header; editors on countervandalism recent changes patrol interact with hundreds of articles an hour. Thanks.Jerry 22:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

i did not vandalise the tough guy hardcore page

err i didnt vandalise it.

all i did was add the band Biohazard who are a seminal tough guy hardcore band and are a better example then Madball. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.214.9.213 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Regarding Toughguy hardcore, actually you added an internal link to the wikipedia article Biological hazard (the medical topic). Where you did not provide an edit summary it was not possible to determine why you had added this link. Please use caution in the future to always ;provide an edit summary and to review internal links before adding them to articles. Jerry 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Romeroadbuild.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Romeroadbuild.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Article on John Adams

You stated that I considered it a "great school". I never stated that, and the main reason here is not that it's a "great school". It requires information, the information before was just copied and pasted from some review site, it was bland and not informative at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbxg32000 (talk • contribs)

About The Road Not Taken

The poem is public domain because it was published before 1923 in the United States. Since U.S. copyright law places all works published before 1923 in the public domain, and Wikipedia is an international project, Wikipedia only recognizes this law when the work was originally published in the U.S. It is generally recognized that if a work is originally created in a country, and that declares that work as public domain, then all countries will also recognize that work as public domain. Thank you for trying to eliminate copyright violations, but in this case you have made a mistake. Jesse Viviano 06:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For evidence, see Wikipedia:Public domain. Jesse Viviano 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I still do think that the republication of a poem is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, if it does not contain any historical or critical commentary, so I intend to AfD the artticle on those grounds. I do appreciate the feedback on the copyright law as it applies to this, however. Thanks. - Jerry

Semi-automatic link addition

Hi Jerry, sorry for hacking on you again... - I reverted the links you added to Greeks. Some were doubtless good, but quite a few were, well, real howlers (funny ones, some of them). I guess that's the danger of using those semi-automatic tools. Sorry for making it a blanket revert of your whole edit, but I felt on balance it would have been quite a lot of work to identify all the bad ones in the text and removing them individually. Here's just a few that struck me as odd:

• "Reverse migration" -isn't about people but about birds
• "Almost all Greeks living in Northern Cyprus flee to the south" - it wasn't the TRNC at that time
• "a large-scale population exchange between Greece and Turkey" - correct, but could have pointed directly to the more specific Population exchange between Greece and Turkey
• "(and in western Asia Minor for a little less)," - wrong syntactic analysis, should have gone to Asia Minor, if anything
• "Classical element" - is about a completely different thing
• "Official language" - doubtful if the concept treated in the article can be applied to pre-modern societies
• "survives in small communities in Greece, New York and Israel." - text is about "communities" in the sense of groups of people; link is about "communities" as administrative units

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to see all my wikilink add edits over the last 4 months get reverted now, as you wikistalk me again. oh, well. Jerry 19:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)