User talk:Pr3st0n

Today's motto...

→ Rather than be less
Cared not to be at all.

It is approximately 8:10 AM where this user lives.

WikiProject Eurovision

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletters

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2009

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the gray bar.

If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. This Newsletter was delivered by Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

UK Copyright Act 1911

Resolved

 – thanks to special contributions from Andrewcrawford; Malleus Fatuorum; Moonriddengirl; and Pr3st0n on 25 September 2009

Reply to Frank's statement by Pr3st0n - Gareth

After sleeping on things, I have been able to reassess the entire situation (sleeping on difficulties is one way that I am able to cope with the bipolar moments - to which a few did occur during the RfA process). I fully respect now, why the nomination was closed early originally. However, at the time I did feel it was a little unfair, as a few questions were put forward without myself being given any chance to answer them - hence why I asked for it to be reopened, so that I could answer these doubtful questions, and to that I am grateful for the opportunity. I truly understand, and thankful for the prior warnings from yourself Frank. Although, when I read the WP:RFA on how to post comments on either 'support, oppose, and neutral', whilst things were in the comments that could be d mention to avoid posting comments that could be seen as negative, and try to be as positive, to avoid discouraging the applicant from wanting to pursue any future nominations. This, I feel was not the case. Some of the oppose comments were positive, but 60% of them were very negative, to which goes against the recommendation on how to leave comments. Anyway, I have taken into account all comments made, and made a conclusion that of course some areas may need to be addressed, which is why I have taken the "adoption" route, to be able to learn more, and prepare myself for a future nomination (that's if I don't get a nomination from my adopter).

To the area about "copyright violation", I feel that none was broken. As I previously explained, I helped a local historian (Ms Jackie Stewart) in Lostock Hall, to compile research for her book on the village. Together we found information on the British History website. We contacted the people who run the site, and asked if it would be possible to use extracts in her book. It took several weeks before a reply was sent back, and in the letter permission was given to use on any projects to do with the history of Lostock Hall, from the book, to any future project which we may pursue - the letter itself wasn't specific as to say if the permission was from them or the organisation from which the website also obtained information. However, permission was given, along with a full script of what could be used in the book. It was that script in the letter (to which I still have a copy of) that I copied from into the article, and included the name of the website as a ref link. So the wording used was the wording on the letter. I did not visit the website while writing the article to copy/paste extracts. As I have this blasted swine flu, I unable to go out and obtain the ISBN details for the book - but as soon as I can, I will also be adding those details as a ref link. So I fail to comprehend where if any, the violation that has been broken; everything has been carried out in conjunction with the Copyrights Act 1911. As a temporary measure, I could add a note to the text to say that prior permission was given to use those extracts, until full ISBN details can be provided. However, those who kept bringing up this were referring to the original inclusion of these extracts into the article on 15 September 2009. Since then things have been altered to avoid any identical similarities. If you wish to discuss this in more detail Frank, then you know where to find me. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
Whether or not you "feel" copyright has been violated is not the point. The text that appears on this site does not differ except by a few words from text which appears on another site and which lists itself as the copyright holder for the material. Please read WP:COPYRIGHT and its associated pages for more details. In addition, if you actually have permission to reuse content, you must make that permission known to the Wikimedia Foundation by way of WP:OTRS. I am not expert enough to guide you through this process smoothly; however it must still be done or the text must be removed. I'm going to ask a local expert to weigh in on this.  Frank  |  talk  20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
I also don't understand why you think the copyrighted material has been changed in the article ("Since then things have been altered to avoid any identical similarities."), nor do I think finding the ISBN for a book will help. Please compare the second paragraph of the "Origins and history" section to this page. The problem is that the material appeared elsewhere and copyright is claimed ("Copyright © 2009 University of London & History of Parliament Trust - All rights reserved"); until we have information that the copyright is no longer valid or we have permission to use the material on Wikipedia (or in a license style compatible with Wikipedia), it's a copyright violation for our purposes, and it needs to be dealt with.  Frank  |  talk  20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Hi. Frank asked me to stop by to talk about how to verify permission. As I mention at the article's talk page, I have removed the text for now, since we're forbidden to publish it prior to that verification and since I did not want to place the {{copyvio}} template on the article, which rather defaces it. You are, of course, welcome to replace it with placeholder text that is written entirely in your own words. If you aren't sure how much revision is necessary, you may want to review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, which offers some suggestions. Wikipedia is governed by United States copyright law, which protects not only the precise verbiage but also less tangible elements such as the structure of a piece.

If you have permission, as you indicate, then you have of course not violated no copyright law. You have, unfortunately, run afoul of Wikipedia's copyrights policy, which requires that permission be verified for previously published text. This isn't because we doubt your word; I have seen bureaucrats on Wikipedia who have had to take material through this process. It's a policy that applies equally to everyone, since it has potentially serious legal ramifications for the project itself.

The whole procedure for verifying permission is set out at WP:DCM. The easiest way is to ask the copyright holder to send an e-mail release from an e-mail address clearly associated with the first point of publication agreeing to license the text under CC-By-SA. There's a good form letter for this at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you go this route, I'll be happy to explain anything about that process which is unclear. Alternatively, your snail mail clearance can be faxed or mailed to the Foundation. The process goes more slowly, but there is no deadline.

(In response to your note at my talk page, placed while I was typing this, we do not leave copyrighted material in publication on Wikipedia unless we have that verification. If you need access to the original in order to rewrite, I trust you know how to access it in history.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Please address the continued concerns listed on the article's talk page swiftly so that the material does not need to be again removed. Additionally, like Frank I am puzzled as to what you mean by "current ISBN details are not to hand to include as evidence of citation resource." The ISBN is immaterial to documenting permission to reuse or create a derivative of that text. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Am I'm a citizen of the United Kingdom, only the legislations of the UK Copyrights Act 1911 are within my memory bank, I would have seen reason to look at US Copyrights Acts, due to this. A previous debate between myself, and members of the Lancashire & Cumbria project team, to which the Lostock Hall article is connected with; agreed that at this current time, it would be ok to use the original text (which we did on 15 September 2009). However, since then it was re-worded to remove the similarities on 20 September 2009. So the version to which you removed was the then newly worded version. I have since re-written it again (today), until I am able to obtain the ISBN details for the book, to which a full copy of the letter of permission to use is in there. I have a copy of the letter, but it is impossible to add a ref link to this, as it is in the material world, and not on the internet to ref it to. The letter however does state that permission to use specific wording has been granted not only for the project of the book to which it was used, but also any future projects to which myself, or the author of the book which to work on - as this article on wikipedia can also be seen as a project, then no law has been broken. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, and US copyright law governs it. Accordingly, US copyright laws govern all contributions to it. The "newly worded version" was nearly identical to the external source identified, and the rewritten text is demonstrably too similar. I have included excerpts of each for comparison at the talk page. A "ref link" is not what is needed. What is needed is for you to send a copy of the letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is all set forth in our copyrights policy, specifically at "using copyrighted works from others", which binds all of Wikipedia's contributors. Moreover, the permission must contain some specific language making it clear that the material is either in public domain or can be licensed under CC-By-SA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
While here, let me clarify that you may, of course, use brief quotations of copyrighted material, but in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline, this material must be clearly marked so that it is not mistaken as original text. You may be able to use some quotations pending your verification of this permission through necessary processes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
Also, it would be very helpful if you could provide diffs to explain what you're talking about when you refer to a debate regarding the text and the re-wording on 20 September. In the latter case, I see only three edits to the article on that date, and only one that was near that section; all it did was rename the section. This may sound nit-picky, but you're making claims that I can't see any evidence for. I'm not saying they didn't happen, but if you could be explicit in providing a link to them, then there would be no ambiguity.  Frank  |  talk  21:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank's Comment
An additional point worth noting, I think, is that you mention copyright law from 1911, but Wikipedia claims that the prevailing UK copyright law is from 1988. You can see details at Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#UK Copyright.  Frank  |  talk  21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
The UK Copyright act is still 1911 version - an addendum was made in 1988, but this comes under a different name. The 1988 version you speak of is the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Original guidance in this act is still outlined in the 1911 version. As for the versions to which you want me to link - if you start to view the 15/Sept/2009 version, and view the other ones bringing yourself up to the current time, you will see the edits made slowly bit by bit. I don't have the time to be adding the links to each of the edits of the re-write for history to a comment posting - as there are that many. Pr3st0n (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford's Comment
Acutally wikipedia is govern by international copyright as well as american copyright laws. And as such laws of the uk can apply. I am not ocmment on the user whatever they have done i have not reviewed it but i think people get the laws a wee bit mixed up. Just because the servers ar ein america does not make it american law..... anhything onthe internet comes under a different ballgame to which ther eis no define law as such yet (not saying that ther eno law but only that no one to this date can really say who law takes higher power.)oh by the way wikipedia has servers in europe to. That why ilegal filesharing and a lot of other things that go on are still in limbo due to copyrights rights and law for itnernet being applied as your coutnry can have differnet laws to another. Again i am not sure what the user has done so i aint saying there right or wrong or that your right or wrong to tell them to undo it, only that your wrong about jsut because server are in america mean it american copyright laws.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Andrewcrawford's Comment
The user is right the copyright laws for the uk are still dated in 1911, but the copyright,desgin and patents act not law is dated 1988, there is to be new copyright law passed int eh near future which is more to deal with internet based stuff and a few changes to the original one i think one is to extend the life of copyrighted stuf fin the uk from 50 years to 80 to 90 years after death--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Wikipedia respects international copyright laws where possible, but is governed by US copyright. This is set out in our copyright policy: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Comment
The two are not necessarily incompatible. A good example is the difference in freedom of panorama between the UK and the US. In the UK there is no copyright on works of art displayed in a public place, and so there is equally no copyright on pictures of those UK displayed works of art in the US. What matters is the copyright law in the country where the material originates. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your last sentence, but it doesn't seem to mesh with Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, which says "Copyright status of a work in its home country is often important in evaluating its copyright status in the United States. Nevertheless, a work which is in the public domain in its home country can sometimes be under copyright in the United States and so can not be used on Wikipedia." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Comment
"Sometimes" is quite an important word, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Oh, indeed it is. :) Why look at the difference it makes: "What sometimes matters is the copyright law in the country where the material originates." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
I've just had a good read of Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, and it states A work can equally be in the (USA) public domain in its source country but still under copyright in the United States: any non-posthumous work published after 1922 by a British, French, or German author who died between January 1, 1926 and December 31, 1937 falls into this category. as well as stating Any work published before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, regardless of its source country. Seeing the the information I used was first published in 1911 (which is before those dates I just quoted from Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, then it is in USA public domain, and therefore can be used. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
You're quite right that if it was originally published in 1911, it's free for use on Wikipedia. (You'll want to attribute it, per Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) I'm sorry that I didn't realize the date of original publication; I looked at the website where it says, "Copyright © 2009 University of London & History of Parliament Trust - All rights reserved". But they cannot impose new copyright on copyright expired information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
(P.S. If you aren't familiar with attributing PD sources, I'd be happy to help with that.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Therefore, the write to which I have done (and has now been removed) was safe to use in the first place, regardless to the fact I have written permission given to me a few years ago? And thus, it is safe to have that text put back into place. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
Yes, it is, if it was originally published in 1911. You don't need to verify permission of your author friend, because she is no more authorized to "permit" it than anyone else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
That was also the main concern from opposer's on my RfA nomination - so in the end I hadn't broken any rules - and all those who opposed based on that, opposed incorrectly. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
I don't know; I wasn't aware of your RfA. I tend not to follow those routinely. But if they were opposing because you violated copyright then, yes, they opposed on a mistaken premise. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Based on what we have now found, I shall allow you to revert your alterations to Lostock Hall, and pointing out that the original source was published in 1911, thus making it free to use on Wikipedia. Not sure how to do that PD thing you spoke of, so if you could be so kind to do that on my behalf, I will be grateful. Pr3st0n (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
All right. I'll restore the original text and repair the Lockstock Hall reference to indicate its PD status. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's Comment
It's done. I've altered the reference to indicate the original source, not the website hosting it now (though it is, of course, still linked), and I've supplied the attribution template at the base, here. That satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia:Plagiarism. (I have no idea why the second editor isn't showing; the citation template seems to be formatted correctly.) I'll go make a note at the article talk of the PD status. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n - Gareth's Comment
Thanks, I'm glad that we have managed to sort this out. A bit long-winded, and some heated moments, to which I apologise for, but at least now we all know where we stand, and that no violation was broken initially. Pr3st0n (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Comment
I've fixed the problem with the citation. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again

Hmmm thanks, I am not sure about the unnecessary outbursts (I have seen worse) but fair enough. Please don't lose all motivation and enthusiasm even though I know you must be having a difficult time. Do go cheer things up a little as this ought to have a positive effect. You will probably feel much better tomorrow/next week/whenever and any ill feeling will then seem like it's in the distant past. It is best to remain civil when all around you appear (and I stress appear as sometimes things are not as bad as they seem) to be losing their heads because then you are doing no wrong and you are safe in the knowledge that you are not losing yours (even though I appreciate keeping cool can be difficult at times even with that "show preview" button). You can be a perfectly good editor even without being an administrator (in doing so you may even put the behaviour of some administrators to shame). Also, try not to treat all the opposers as enemies and the supporters as friends—they were attempting to assess your ability to perform a series of additional tasks, not your appearance/personality or any other similar characteristics which form the foundations of such relationships. Inevitably someone will take an extreme or negative reaction somewhere but I think you've done rather well despite how things have turned out. I trust that you have learned or even relearned many things from the RfA (concerning policy, etc. but not necessarily limited to that) and this must surely already mean you are a better editor. And that may be the most positive thing of all. --candle•wicke 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That has got to be the most sweetest comment I've ever seen - thanks! You're right though, people can say what they want about me, but at the end of the day, we all have our own faults in life, and only we know ourselves for who we really are. So far, the work has been good (I won't say perfect, as there's no such thing as perfection!). And you have a good point, we can be good editors even without those admin tools. Deep down, all's well that end's well. Time to move on, crack that whip, and carry on with edits, and set them to an outstanding level. Cheers for the kind words again! Pr3st0n (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Friends

Hi Pr3st0n - I've made a minor tweak to your wiki-friends [1] as I am from the east side of the pond :) Hope you are well. Pedro :  Chat  08:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thank you for correcting it for me Pedro. I'm doing quite ok today - how are you? Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's very interesting that table actually - it shows the bias WP has towards the US and the UK. Whilst we have many excellent editors from across the world we certainly could do with more from Europe, Asia, South America, India and so forth. Moving on, I'm sorry your RFA went wrong - I think the dialogue above shows you're clearly on the right track however and have learnt some things! Keep on enjoying Wikipedia and if I can be of any help please hit me up on my talk. I tend to be less active at weekends but normally pop in to check for messages. Best. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pedro for the kind words. That table was a weird, yet clever idea I concocted. And you're the first to spot its main design reasoning ;-) I did have it split into continents, but decided for now, it be best to have it all merged into one (I don't want to make myself a continentalist (hmm new word for the dictionary)). It is strange though how it shows the WP bias between UK and US, I hadn't spotted that until you mentioned it. Anyway, moving on to the dreaded RfA (only joking), I was surprised with the positive feedback, I know deep down I am a polite person, and treat people how I expect to be treated in return (mother's policy, she'd slap me if I didn't continue with it). The only thing now that is narking, is that copyright issue. It was only when that came up, that the opposer's which followed were picking up on it, and jumping into the pile. Now that we've since discovered that no breach of copyright has happened, I feel that pile have penalised me based on false pretences. Ah well, not to worry, life moves on, we learn from mistakes, and make sure we don't get a big chunk bitten out of our asses ever again lol. I'm going to spend a few months preparing myself for a re-run (sometime around Spring 2010). I do feel there are some areas I could with gaining experience on first before doing so; like getting my first article up to GA status. Once that mission is done, I will feel more confident with the current tools, and policies. How's life treating you these days? All set for the weekend? Don't forget, the weekend starts at 5pm lol. Keep in touch mate, and I'm only a click away if you need me. Pr3st0n (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable

Declining a GA nomination without substantive comments as to why the article does not in your opinion meet the GA requirements is unacceptable. If you are unable to formulate comments beyond boilerplate templates then you have no business reviewing any article. Otto4711 (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel that a rapid fail was unjustified, however all procedures as per Wikipedia:Good article criteria and Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles were taken into consideration. As there would be too much to outline in what areas needed covering, the only solution that remained was to go through the "Quick Fail" route, to which a template (the one used on the articles talk page) has to be used. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Please specify which of the five quick-fail criteria that this article falls under. Please specify which of the good article criteria the article does not fulfill. Otto4711 (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You probably don't wish to know this, but I think the nominator has a fairly strong case. The article was "quick failed" using an WP:AFC template, not GAN templates; and there is little, if any, evidence that the article was reviewed against WP:WIAGA. You may have been failed it for the "right reason", but the review does appear to have been inadequate/inadequately documented; and your comments on the WP:GAN appear to lack a degree of objectivity. The nominator does not appear to be objecting so much to its failure; the objections appear to be more against the way it was failed. That must provide some thought for comment? Pyrotec (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA oppose and neutral

Hi, I just wanted to say something about RfA oppose notvotes. RfA is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. When people leave a NotVote they're supposed to leave a bit of text to explain their NotVote. For the oppose NotVotes these comments will always seem negative, because they are reasons why one editor thins another editor is not ready yet for adminship. RfA is a harsh process. People would welcome your input at the RfA talk page if you have ideas about how to make it less harsh. Finally, please don't lose motivation. Admins are not elite, they're just regular editors with extra tools. content creators are elite - they are the people who create wikipedia. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm ok with it all now (just about). The main concern that spiralled out, was the copyright issue surrounding the Lostock Hall article, to which people started to jump on the pile stating I was in the wrong - it has since come to conclusion that in fact no violations had been broken, as the context was originally written in 1911, which is prior to the 1923 date set out by Wikipedia Copyright Policies, and therefore made it free to use via the US public domain. SO as you can imagine, I now feel penalised, due to the pile on of oppose that surrounded this problem, to which there was no problem after all. Pr3st0n (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully the copyright thing got resolved, which is a bonus. There was me getting frustrated because I had that letter which gave permission, but wasn't able to exactly link it, as it is a piece of paper, and not a web page lol. And the swine flu stopped me from getting out to obtain the book's ISBN so that I could put that on the article, and people could view it and see the letter that was also published into the book. Anyway, all ends well, and the article can now get back on track. Don't you just love copyrights?! haha, one lesson learnt, the US and UK copyright acts are very fine-lined, and to be honest, I like the US version better than the UK one. That's one chapter closed, wonder what's next to burst itself upon me. Only time will tell. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

This edit completely changes the nature of the discussion, the result of which appears above. I know it looks a little more professional, but you are changing how things were threaded and it is generally frowned upon. In addition, the original authors of some (or all) of those comments may not be able to to easily find what they had previously written in order to follow the conversation. Please have a read of WP:TPO for more information. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hang on one sec Frank, the comments were getting all over the place in that thread you pointed out, as it is on my talk page, I was merely being helpful, by putting things into time-line order - some people were adding replies were every they felt like it, instead of at the bottom of the continuation. How I organise my page is up to me, as long as I don't alter any of the original comments - to which I didn't. I have not told you how to maintain your page, a respect that I wish to receive in return. If you have a problem with me, then you might as well spit it out - cause from what I am seeing, you are trying to pick fault with the slight thing I do now, to which it is INDEED causing unnecessary stress. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the other users have complained about it; and they were well aware it was happening, as conversations continued partway through the tidy-up... the only person in that thread that has found fault is yourself. And the WP:TPO to which I have read in full, only mentions not to alter what a user has written, it doesn't say that the conversations can be tidied up back into time-line order, to which that order was actually following on from one to the next. Pr3st0n (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And before you even quote it, I have read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_your_web_host. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of where people were adding replies is that they were responding to individual points. That is the reason for indentations and for adding things directly under what they are responding to. That's the way Wikipedia works. As for picking fault, I'm sorry you see it that way. I'm guiding you toward the way things work around here, not picking fault.  Frank  |  talk  14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they were replying to another person thread, which got mixed up within all the edit conflicts that kept happening. Twice I tried to post a reply, and twice I got a conflict, in the end my comment got somewhere near the top, and the reply it was meant for was at the bottom, while another user's reply to the same thing ended up in the middle. The time-line helped us all out, Moonriddengirl, Malleus, and Andrew, not to forget myself. Sure you're trying to help me out here - which is fine! But the tidy-up hasn't harmed any of the others, to which it was only theirs anyway that got jumbled up in the edit conflicts, yours were still in the original places where u put them. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the dreaded "edit conflict", sometimes abbreviated (especially in edit summaries) as "e/c". You can read about that here. The reason your comment got "somewhere near the top" is probably because of the two boxes that showed up when you were alerted to the edit conflict. It can be cumbersome but you have to take your comment from the box at the bottom and find the right place to insert it back in the top window.  Frank  |  talk  14:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, it hasn't bothered any one up until now - I think it is best we draw a close to this conversation, and start a fresh. While I've got your attention, I'm going to put forward a question to you. I will start it off in a new thread, so that we don't get confused with this one. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are also making yourself sound like you are talking on their behalf - to which I doubt you are (but can only assume). If any of the others in that conversation had any problems about the tidy-up that was happening, I'm sure they would have brought to attention there and then last night when it was in progress. Just leave things be, and stop digging into the past - water has flowed way under the bridge and is out to sea by now. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm telling you how Wikipedia works. Do not assume that because someone doesn't say something it means they have no opinion. They may not see it, they may not feel strongly about it, they may not feel it's worth saying anything about, they may not have edited for 12 hours...the list goes on. That's one of the reasons we have policies around here...so people know how the place works.  Frank  |  talk  14:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Failed GA review on Society for Human Rights

Frank; I did another GA review on the above article. And when you see the article for yourself, there is insufficient context about the organization itself - after reading it, I knew more about the founder than I did about the main topic. I checked policies, and guidance for a good 20 minutes or so; and found that due to the articles lack of context on the main subject it related to, it caused justice for a quick fail, and a template to use - to which I did. The user Otto4711 is complained stating that I have failed it on a "no-review" basis. Which is not true, it was failed based on lack of content, and I used the following

to stipulate my decision. Have I done wrong by failing it? Pr3st0n (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)