User talk:Morven/archive5

Archives: 1 2 3 4

---

Archived again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case

Hello, I see that you're listed as an active arbitrator in the Falun Gong arbitration case. We are eagerly waiting for the motion to close, but you have not indicated your stance to any of the proposed decisions. May I kindly request you to participate in the case? Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Minolta X-GM Edits

The pictures I added have copyright information and have much better lighting, and I added a different angle of the camera as well, there are now three photos, compare to the original two you had, I realize that you feel your work is superior in some way to mine, but why not go with the better.

Cheers,

Alex.joukovski 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Alex.joukovski

Camera template

Greetings,

After seeing User:Morven/WikiProject Cameras, I was wondering whether you would happen to know is we have a template for analog reflex, rangefinders, etc. ? I have found myself doing a few "oldies" recently, and I feel that there might be a need for such an infobox.

Thank you very much in any case. Rama 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong arbitration case

Hello, I see that you're listed as an active arbitrator in the Falun Gong arbitration case. We are eagerly waiting for the motion to close, but you have not indicated your stance to any of the proposed decisions. May I kindly request you to participate in the case? Thanks. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Rosetta Stone/Porl King edits

Yes I know I should, and myself and close friend are working on sourcing these/clarifying facts, but they are not to hand as source books/publications which include further clear biographical information are packed away/at his house (and it's 430am in the UK) and later history is mostly only obtainable from online sources - some of which are not archived unfortunately -mailing lists/usenet and personal experience.

Whatever can be found to verify as much of the facts as possible will be provided as soon as it comes to hand - however scrutiny of the pre-edited versions suggested that inconsistencies, and hearsay had crept into the article, thus giving it even less credibility than I expect was intended. Mention of the poll to reform the band for live gigs was removed as I am quite sure the initial intent was not a serious proposition on the part of Porl, as all other information provided by him regarding the band indicates he has no intent of reforming, and his sense of humour would suggest that this is entirely true.

Clarifications made are mostly minor and no less referenced than those which they have succeeded - removing the unverifiable hearsay as to the causative factors of the band's split seem consistent with policy on living people's biographies to exclude any potentially libellous comments, dates narrowed down from vague to more specific from both band/porl king's own web presences and ticket stubs/CD covers.

References to Dream Disciples activity timeline is admittedly directly from the band and archived in Yahoo newsgroup for the Dream Disciples and also on my mail server!

Photographs are something I am also working on obtaining - and they will of course be approved before submission as freely useable and not in violation of copyright.

It's just something that caught my eye the other day and has been bugging me since - "work in progress" I guess - and if preferred, temporary return to the original text would be perfectly acceptable though I don't feel it is any more verifiable or accurate.

Godgirl 03:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Godgirl

Yes I agree entirely - and unfortunately with any topic that includes what would be considered a "subcultural" as opposed to "mainstream" element, such a alternative music and independent music, verified published material in the form of official biographies, archived press and documented events are difficult to obtain without bias especially for post-internet age bands where a lot of the promotion/press/information is in the form of webpages/mailing lists/newsgroups which are not necessarily permanent - currently there is no official page for the band at all, as all previous sites have lost their hosting, the proposed new site is yet to be created - hence my reluctance to keep in anything which is definitely unsubstantiated or questionable but also my desire to clarify what I am aware is errorenous and seek to find what source material I can for conferring better quality to the entries.

I do intend for it to happen, pretty much as I'm sure the original Rosetta article as initially published and edited by Andrew Oakley probably was, but when a few contetious or errorenous edits have crept in, it is quite difficult to disclaim them entirely - removing the entire article doesn't serve anyone favours either, however, as it seems to be a primary reference point for those few current sites which are referring back to band history!

Godgirl 04:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Godgirl

Decline vote

In declining to hear my appeal, you wrote that you "see no reason to revisit the existing conditions". This is, however, not very helpful to me; if you feel I am still doing something wrong I need to know what it is. I am getting the impression from all these votes without reasons that the arbitrators acknowledge my reasoning, and therefore aren't engaging with it, but at the same time there's just too much bad blood or a very hardened bad impression of me that is leading you, as a group, to reject the appeal. If this is the case, you can see how exasperating it must be for me, when the ArbCom will not hear my appeal no matter what I do. If it's not, please help me to understand the reason(s) for the rejection. Everyking 03:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From a fan

Morven, I am the fellow who shares your passion for the B-36. You can reach me at jj5498@gmail.com.132.181.160.42 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

A long time ago, you wrote, in reference to the use of promotional photos on Wikipedia, "All the picture has to be is sufficiently free. We will accept any sufficiently free license. 'Non-commercial use only', 'no modifications permitted', or 'use on Wikipedia only' are not sufficiently free licenses for our purpose." I'm trying to wrap my head around the policy regarding photos of living people and am having trouble. Here's my question: whats wrong with a "no modifications permitted" license on an image of a person for inclusion in Wikipedia? One could readily imagine that a celebrity would NOT be willing to release a photograph of him or herself completely to the public domain for people to draw Groucho Marx glasses on or paste the face onto a porno photo, but would be willing to license a picture to be used for any purpose so long as it isn't altered. I understand the desire to have a free encyclopedia. But do we need to be able to modify an image in order to use it in the encyclopedia? Thanks for any insights you can provide. Crypticfirefly 03:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Heatedissuepuppet userblock

Thanks for you comment on the AN/I regarding the above user. You may be interested to see the next stage, AKA, the perfect example of "attack the user, not the article" [1] Cheers! Sparkzilla 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Nice car.

Shirdi Sai Baba and Kkrystian

User:Kkrystian cannot recognize reputable sources on the subject

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sai Baba of Shirdi [2]
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Kkrystian

Andries 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wyss

I don't know the backstory, but I would point out that User:Gwen Gale has acknowledged in e-mail to me to have formerly used the Wyss account. Also, per the case, probation was indefinite. Thatcher131 01:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I missed the line in the case Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed, Wyss's probation shall automatically end. I wonder if that can be fairly applied if she was editing from a hidden account, so that no one knew there was an enforceable remedy against any disruptive or edit-warring type behavior. However it appears from the letter of the law that I should unblock. Thatcher131 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Album cover images in discographies -- fair use?

Greetings, Morven. There is currently a dispute about whether or not including images of album covers in discography articles is allowed under the fair use guidelines. Some editors are removing the album cover images from the discography articles. Other editors feel that the images are allowed under fair use.

(1) What is your opinion on whether or not the album cover images are fair use in discography articles?

(2) Do you think this is an appropriate question for the arbitration committee?

Here is a discussion of this question on the talk page of a discography article. Here's one on a user talk page. I posted this question two days ago on the Village Pump here, but only one person has replied so far. Here is a lengthier discussion, on the administrators' noticeboard, of a different but somewhat similar question, whether screenshots are allowed in articles about all the episodes of a television show. To see an example of a discography before its images were removed, click here.

If you reply here I'll check back and see what you wrote. Thanks in advance. — Mudwater 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a complicated question, and not really one the arbitration committee is set up for. We generally arbitrate user behavior, rather than making or determining content policy. The arbcom on occasion has gone outside this, on issues to do with fundamental site policy, but it's not really our role.

That said, I have some personal feelings and opinions, of course! What follows is my quick opinion and should in no way be interpreted as anything binding:

It is Wikipedia policy to produce an encyclopedia that is free in all senses of the word. However, it's impossible to be absolute about this; producing a useful reference work about the real world means touching on topics that are legally protected in certain ways: by copyright, by trademark, by rights of publicity, moral rights of authors, etc etc etc. Unless we decide to not cover any topic that may be covered by these laws, we must determine how to produce a work that is both sufficiently free and sufficiently comprehensive.

For works covered by copyright, that means fair use under US law. We make fair use of copyrighted works all the time, including in text. We have rules on that, of course. For text used in an encyclopedic work, the rules of fair use are generally pretty simple and understood pretty well by everyone.

It's more complicated with images in terms of the law, and Wikipedia's policy on when we can use fair use for images is more complicated as well. This is partly because it's so damn tempting to use images under fair use. In text, it's nowhere near as tempting to use copyrighted material and claim fair use. For images, because they're much harder to acquire (among other reasons), and because it's very desirable for many editors to want to decorate articles and make them look better/flashier.

Many Wikipedia editions ban fair use images altogether; the English-language one has not, possibly partly because of the United States' fairly open fair use law. The rules have generally come down to forbidding them except when there's good reason; the article needs them (rather than simply looks prettier with them) and no free image could be made that could fill the same need.

Images in TV show episode lists have been controversial, but it does appear that the argument against them is carrying the day. Since no still image from an episode is uniquely identifying for that episode, for instance, the argument that an image is needed for identification is poor; similarly, in a list, there is insufficient discussion or mention of the image to justify it under that argument.

The case is, I believe, a little stronger for album covers in a discography, especially in the sense of identification. The images are instantly recognizable and are strongly associated with the album. However, there is no greater argument that there is any point or description in the text that needs the image to be complete, because a discography is generally an un-annotated list and does not discuss the cover art.

I think it also depends on several other factors:

1. Is the discography simply a list of links to articles on each album? If the discography is the sum and total of Wikipedia's coverage of that album, I think the argument is a little stronger.
2. Does the article go beyond being simply a discography? Is it more like a merged 'super-article' discussing several articles, all of which haven't enough text to really justify an individual article?
3. Is there is any mention of the cover art in the text?

In the end, the arbcom will simply make you all be civil when discussing and arguing whether this should be allowed under the fundamental tenets of our fair use policy. Better to simply make a good argument. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. If it's all right with you, I'd like to copy this dialog onto the talk pages of one or two discography articles. — Mudwater 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free, so long as this is not put forward as any kind of official arbcom position ;) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this dialog to Talk:Grateful Dead discography#Removal of album cover images. Thanks again for the discussion, I appreciate it. — Mudwater 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor RfAr editing suggestion

I saw the new remedy proposal you posted in the Hkelkar2 case. I think your proposal might be a little more clear with a couple of words added. How about: "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any of the other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves." Regards, Newyorkbrad 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 04:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re: User:71.112.115.55

I am writing to express deepest thanks for helping in this situation. I turned to ArbCom because I was getting desperate, in a "It's him or me" kind of way (I didn't raise that because I didn't want to seem like I was trying to force things to go my way). I have been absolutely puzzled by this trolling; not because of the trolling, per se, but because of its longevity and absolute obsession with me. I suppose it's always unnerving when a person exhibits unstable behavior directed at a person, but this has been odd behavior directed at me since March. Scribe has been a great help, and he has a lot of gratitude from me. But I was feeling the short blocks were not getting the IP to change their behavior, but focus it to WP:GAME policies and guidelines in more and more clever ways. As User:Thatcher131 pointed to a problem I was already encountering when trying to deal with each new IP manifestation of this User, that when I reported it to an admin, "Unfortunately, many admins who watch there will be unaware that this is an ongoing problem, and will react by suggesting that this is a content dispute that should be addressed by talking about it, or that it is not serious enough vandalism to block without first going through the warning levels." Exactly. What I needed I received, which was an unequivocal statement that this User is now banned, and a diff to show that regardless of what this User attempts to do, no matter the clever manner or gaming of policies and guidelines that make their trolling and vandalization not apparent, I can point to a conclusive judgment on them. This happened to day, when an admin e-mailed me about my reverting the IP's comments on my FA candidacy for Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (what the IP used as an example of my vandalizing on their talk page). This well-meaning admin wrote in an e-mail that my removal of this IP criticizing me and my "lies" as "Consider the act that the IP points to as vandalism by you. I hate to say it, but it looks like .... vandalism by you." I kept coming across this, and it was very frustrating, which is why I took so much time to reconstruct their relentless behavior in one location. So, I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, for your help and understanding. This unbalanced behavior has been odd to witness, and to have myself be the focal point of it. It was also becoming too time-consuming and too frustrating when I have a lot of other things I want to contribute and work on with the website. I am also flattered by the admin suggestion; unfortunately, I don't think I have the best temperment for such a position (I don't know how you guys do it) and I relish focusing on using my creativity to improve the site. But I also have an artistic temperment. That said, Wikipedia's guidelines of behavior have not only improved my editing and relating on this website, but also in my own life. I find myself telling other people to "assume good faith" often ("Don't assume he didn't call you because he is playing games with you, assume good faith--maybe he's just really busy, or maybe someone died...you never know.") That's Wikipedia. Dave --David Shankbone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Taj Pic at WP:FPC

Are you the Morven featured in the blog about Getty Museum? If so, could you weigh in on a similar problem we are having on the featured picture candidate at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Tajfromriver1860bourne2.JPG. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends (FoF for short)

Dear Morven,

The Fellowship of Friends is a spiritual school. The wiki article about them has gone through two mediations and the current article has issues which could only be solved by someone with the arbitration authority. The editors (which admitted to be members of the fellowship) have currently removed the following info which I listed below based on the argument that “it is irrelevant to the wikipedia's article”:

• That it costs every member 10% of their income to join the fof (mentioned on their own website as well as in a LA article and two books)
• That Robert Burton’s (top leader of the organization) annual salary is estimated to be $250 000 (mentioned in a LA article and two books)
• The fact that Robert Burton has written in his book that “the Fellowship is the greatest school in history”
• That cult-buster Steven Hassan has labeled it as a cult because of the control that the fof has over its members.
• That a Fourth Way writer and student, William Patrick Paterson, has written that the fellowship doesn’t operate as a “true fourth way school” and "uses advertising means to succeed". Note that fof website on their front page of their website writes that "The Fellowship of Friends is a true Fourth Way school based on the teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky". In this case what Paterson says is irrelevant because even the fof website is not allowed to be used here because it doesn't support the email that one of the editors received (where it says that fof is different from the school represented by Gurdjieff and Ouspensky).
• That Robert Burton and the fellowship have been sued for sexual abusement and brainwashing by former members. According to the sources "the cases were settled out of court with undisclosed outcomes". Another source says that "The Fellowship of Friends' president stated in a newspaper article that one suit was dismissed and two others were settled by the organization's insurance companies to save the costs of litigation". This has been deleted under the claim that "because you can't prove what the president claimed is wrong, the cases were dismissed, irrelevant, and discredit a living person."
• That these sex scandals have prompted many members to leave. (mentioned in a LA article and two books)

Other things which are wrong here and can't be solved:

• An email is being used as a reference here, while the fof website is considered outdated only at places where it doesn't support the email (Even tough the website is constantly changed and modified)
• Criticism as a separate one section is not allowed to be on the article. When it’s added, someone says let’s incorporate it into the article as suggested by the mediator [3] [4], and then someone says “not relevant to the section” (this time the same editor[5])– this is ridiculous and every time criticism is deleted in this way
• Other than the last sentence, the entire article is based on the fof sources. While the sources criticizing them are not allowed to used as sources for information – they are considered trash, old or irrelevant.

I have written this same thing (here) and am asked you (and another wiki arbitrator) to please take a look at this section and state which of these points are relevant and should be in the article and what is really irrelevant. The last time I wrote something about "this article not working out", I was told by an editor that "You (Aeuio) are not working out" and nothing happened. Aeuio 20:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal Arbitration

I wanted to know when you would start working on the Paranormal arbitration. I also wanted to request that when you do, you add [[6]] and [[7]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[8]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [[9]] and [[10]]. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:British Rail Type 5

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:British Rail Type 5, by Megapixie (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:British Rail Type 5 fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

A3 - No content for the last 3 years.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:British Rail Type 5, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template:British Rail Type 5 itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

GPS cameras

I was reading the mailing list (which I'm not subscribed to), and noticed your comment about GPS cameras: "I suspect the next generation after that, in 2 years or so, will have an inbuilt wireless transceiver and possibly even built-in GPS" - which is good for geographical co-ordinates. Why stop there, though? :-) I was talking to someone about this, and we agreed that altitude would also be a good thing to record, along with the direction the camera was pointing in. Would an in-built gyroscope tell the camera whether it was pointing north or south, or up or down? Air temperature and relative humidity might be going a bit too far... Carcharoth 23:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that some GPS units can derive heading as well as location. I'm not sure if they can do altitude, but it certainly wouldn't be out of the question. It'd be a good feature to have. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Altitude is easy if there are enough GPS satellites in range. I think it is four satellites for a 3-d co-ord system as opposed to three satellites for a 2-d co-ord system. Of course, to be really useful, you have to know the topography of the area. It's not much use knowing that you are 2000 metres above sea-level if you don't know where the ground level is... And the real use of GPS in phones and cameras is to track where people are, not to tell them where they took photos. The kind of stuff that is already done with cell phone records. Carcharoth 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of photographers are very interested in automated location recording, though. Plenty of professional applications, quite apart from the fact that people like sticking their photos on a map on Flickr or wherever. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Just imagine a zoomable Google Earth Map, and when you get in close, all these small arrows start popping up. Ooh, look, a photo from that location, pointing in that direction - and you get a choice of times (1910, or 1950, or 1990), and weather (sunny, cloudy) and season (summer, winter). That would be nice. Then translate to a video system. Then you have people recording their whole lives... Carcharoth 00:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Template camera

I have created a template for Wikiproject cameras Template:WikiProject_cameras

Diyako checkuser logs

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([11], [12], [13]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Shane Hagadorn AfD

I am reluctant to change any talk so if you could amend your text, and the unbundled articles are now all AfD. Darrenhusted 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sourced have appeared for the forced bisexuality afd. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email last week, did you receive it?--Konstable 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no problem, I have re-sent it.--Konstable 09:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)