User talk:Herbythyme: Difference between revisions
→Legistorm.com: Well stick around -- we really need you on en.wikipedia |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
#[[User talk:Herbythyme/Arc2|November 07 to]] |
#[[User talk:Herbythyme/Arc2|November 07 to]] |
||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
||
== Pygmalion Books == |
|||
Herby, I have added some arguments about the Pygmalion Books situation to their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#pygmalionbooks.org spam] section. Out of all the other moderators involved, I have only seen you admit that their may have actually been some substantial non-spam in the information I added. While I'm willing to admit that I may have gone overboard with some articles, I believe your hunch here to be the case. I can go into further detail on the specific articles that I think merits their contribution if you'd like.[[Special:Contributions/205.200.244.98|205.200.244.98]] ([[User talk:205.200.244.98|talk]]) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== 69.31.147.93 == |
== 69.31.147.93 == |
||
Revision as of 01:18, 24 December 2007
 Old stuff drifted off into the sunset: |
|---|
Pygmalion Books
Herby, I have added some arguments about the Pygmalion Books situation to their spam section. Out of all the other moderators involved, I have only seen you admit that their may have actually been some substantial non-spam in the information I added. While I'm willing to admit that I may have gone overboard with some articles, I believe your hunch here to be the case. I can go into further detail on the specific articles that I think merits their contribution if you'd like.205.200.244.98 (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
69.31.147.93
I thought it was strange to see that after blocking a user, you then reverted the note on that IP's talk page explaining how crazy the block was. If you have anything to suggest that the IP in question is actually a proxy or zombie other than the fact that one of the two edits ever done by that IP address was mildly critical of wikipeida, I'd like to know what it is. I'm not assuming bad faith, but could you please explain these actions? 155.42.99.201 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- No problem to explain it as I see it (& nothing to do with the criticism aspect either). The ip was listed on here as being an open proxy. Equally I found evidence here that it is likely still one. It is against policy to edit from Open proxies so I blocked it. As to the edit I reverted, I understand where you are coming from to a point. I sort of took it as a vandal edit I guess, had it been an appeal of a block then I would have left it for someone else to deal with. I hope that answers your queries but if not do get back to me, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- That explains it, I didn't even know that there was an open proxy detection system in place, there is so many pages in the Wikipeida:xyz space that I don't think I'll ever be able know of them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.42.99.201 (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
PanchoHardy on commons, again
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PanchoHardy I hate having to keep bringing this up but it seems nobody bothered at all with both my request, and your re-request and he had since uploaded more blatantly copyvio images. This is taken from the internet and was taken in the eighties, inside a ring, inside a ring, television screenshot. To top it all off at the same time as he's uploaded thiese images he's had the gall to nominate some other images for deletion as copyright violations showing he is aware of what copyright is.[1] [2] [3]
This user knows what copyright is, and yet every upload of his that isn't a transwiki is a copyright violation that he has taken from someone else. This really needs to be taken care of. –– Lid(Talk) 14:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Gracias. –– Lid(Talk) 15:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I asked the user for clarification. If the answers are not sufficient we should probably block him, he has had enough warnings. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 21:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, much appreciated - Re: your comment on 'Alan Miles not being a major part of the Levellers
Hi Herby,
Thanks for your help, much appreciated - Re: your comment on 'Alan Miles not being a major part of the Levellers because you have been to quite a few of their gigs over the years' --> Alan Miles' co-writing of their first Gold selling LP and performing on the recording, being a part of the era when they were creating the seminal sound that they have stuck to ever since, as well as co-writing the 'Liberty Song' on their second Platinum LP is certainly considered quite major to me and a vast oversight on your part I believe.
I do, however, agree with your comment on 'conflict of interest', I can see why this is crucial to the Wiki system
Thanks for your understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commonviper (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
blacklist entry
Hi Herby, thanks for your counsel. It was my first time adding to the blacklist. I wasn't really aware of the option, so I had solicited opinions in the admin IRC channel for how to deal with the situation (dynamic IP re-adding spam link, but other IPs making good edits) when one admin suggested this option and told me how to do it, upon viewing the article history. I can certainly solicit outside opinions on-wiki as well in the interest of transparency before adding a link to the list in the future. ~Eliz81(C) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't let me screw up on my first day
Thanks for all your support in my RfA! I couldn't have and probably wouldn't have without your encouragement.
Now I have my first questions; I struggle to understand copyright and I know you know a lot about this from your Commons work.
Here's a photo from Commons of a Japanese stuffed animal: Image:Domokun.jpg; Domo-kun is the mascot for a Japanese TV station. According to the image description file, this image is free content and the image's creator has made it freely available per the terms of a free license. Here's my question: I'm guessing the underlying mascot is proprietary to the TV station -- so does that mean it's really fair use in this case?
Here's another one: Image:Godzilla （04）.jpg: Godzilla, probably very proprietary/tradmarked/copyrighted/whatever, as a sculpture on a Japanese street. My thinking is that whatever claim the Godzilla movie owners held on this image, they licensed to the sculptor and the sculpture owner. But is its use in Wikipedia limited to fair use in a discussion of just that statue (and perhaps its surroundings and the sculptor)? Do we have an obligation to the movie studio here? What about the sculptor and/or sculpture owner? Then there's this deletion discussion that I don't really understand: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Godzilla hibiya japan 2006 9.jpg
I was going to leave this tasteless RfA thank you note (click on its corner link to open it) but the last thing I need to do is spam fair use images across 86 user talk pages.
Thanks again for the big stuff and now this little question. --A. B. (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right - copyright is not my thing. Equally the problem is that en wp can have material that Commons cannot. Godzilla is definitely not hostable on Commons and has been deleted (ALE!'s summary is quite clear). The stuffed animal I would have thought was not hostable on Commons either. BUT I have no idea whether "free use" would be applicable to either. Now if it were about proxies, blocks, links....! Try Fair use and VP as other sources? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- On en.wikipedia, the policies (rightly) discourage fair use as much as possible. Fair use images are not allowed on user talk pages. Better safe than sorry -- I will look for alternate images. Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Really, really bad Haiku from a new admin
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Abyss.PNG){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Royal_Rumble_07.PNG){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HardysWorldTagTeam_Champion.JPG){kind=link}
So far, so good. No copyright vios with this one.
And thanks so much, as always. --A. B. (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Open proxy
I wish I knew more about open proxies to deal with this. If you know it is one, by all means feel free to tweak the block. Spellcast (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah you know more about this than I do. If you think it's appropriate, go ahead and apply the 3 year block. If I come across similar IPs, I'll refer to you in the future or this guy who seems to be familiar with this stuff. Also, I don't mind you tweaking my blocks/administrative actions. It's just common sense :) Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the great lesson!
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For a very special lesson you've given to me, which made my way at Wikipedia much easier —--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)) |
Important message about recall
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I and others first developed this category over a year ago, we visualized it as a low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would trust, in fact a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for the community and bad for the admin. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process. I have in my User:Lar/Accountability page, given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. it is not needed to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want, rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived change. Further I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. Put it in this table: Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall/Admin criteria for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and are entirely up to you. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should happen to be recalled. Thanks for your time and consideration and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek |
++Lar: t/c 00:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- To me it would be sensible to adopt an approach that covers as many as are willing to be involved. As such my gut feeling is to "adopt" your process/page - do I steal it or link to it? I can't see anything obvious that would mean I would wish to change it. Many thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Legistorm.com
Thank you. I do understand that. I'm trying to be civil.
I'm an admin myself, but I'd prefer not to remove the site because I'm honestly not familiar with this area of the project. Before this happened, I didn't even know we had such a list. It seems that a handful of users maintain it almost exclusively, and I didn't want to step on any toes. Would it be unwise for me to remove the link myself? Do people ever run an RfC on this issue? It seems like a waste to me, but I'm very frustrated with how this is going. Cool Hand Luke 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- It goes without saying that I very much appreciate what you do around here, Herby, and so tactfully, too.
- I think in the interest of encyclopedia-building it's worth considering some sort of controlled removal of the legistorm.com links from the blacklist. I don't think that should be discussed, however, while folks are still riled up and sticking sticks in your and Hu12's eyes.
--A. B. (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly agree with removal in some shape/size/form/timescale. However the linkage is excessive. I can find a whole bundle of things to do with me time than play the games I left en wp to avoid so it will have to be nice & calm for me to come up with anything constructive I think. Thanks for your help A. B. --Herby talk thyme 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well stick around -- we really need you on en.wikipedia. Close your eyes, take a deep breath and visualize whirled peas.
--A. B. (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well stick around -- we really need you on en.wikipedia. Close your eyes, take a deep breath and visualize whirled peas.
Re: whitelist
Thanks, I've added the request now. Waggers (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers, I've tested it and it seemed happy with the link. Thanks again, Waggers (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)