User talk:Mozzerati

This page has been blanked; for old comments please see

• before 21:06, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
• before 17:51, September 6, 2005
• before 09:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

question on my RfA

Hi Mozzerati,

Thank you for posting an additional question on my RfA - I was extremely slow on the uptake and only realised it was there yesterday! I have been quite disappointed that the few opposing votes I have had do not seem to have read or appreciate the sentiments I have expressed on my user page... but hey - perhaps they haven't even looked!

Anyway, thanks again, and all the best. DJR (Talk) 11:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers to my questions on your RFA. They help me much, but still leave me a bit uneasy. I'd like your response to this: a) If we do break the copyright law accidentally, it may be important to show that we do our best to follow it. If asked about this; what could you point to to show that, in general, you try ensure we stay within the spirit of copyright law even if we had somehow failed to exactly follow the letter. b) if a new article contained only copyrighted material from an identified source, why would you not delete it? Mozzerati 12:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

a) Depending on the situation, the justification for violation varies. For example, the use of a copyrighted, non-fair use image has to be deleted, even if it was uploaded assuming good faith. However, WP:COPY clearly lays out Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights and their possible infringement, the most important quote being "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia". This once again links back to what I said previously regarding the evolutionary nature of copyright - although its content is protected, its ideas are still be free to be developed in order to enhance knowledge for all.

b) If a new article contained only copyrighted material, then I would seek to reformulate it as suggested above (from WP:COPY). There is no reason to delete the article outright if you can simply take some time out to read to copyrighted work, re-write it in your own words, and then remove the original. All knowledge grows from this basis, and Wikipedia is no different. Of course, if the content is unique and cannot be altered significantly enough to avoid the problem, then it has to be deleted. However, the latter is extremely rare.

hi agin.. Thanks for your answer again, though it still didn't completely clarify for me what I was trying to ask. In WP:COPY part of the procedure for copyright is specifically handing on to WP:CP. For pages which are, and always have been, plain copyright violations the procedure there is to delete then rewrite. I'm still not sure from your responses whether that is what you mean by rewriting. Is that the procedure you do / would / could in future follow? If the new version of the page is not a "derivative" of the copyright page, then there is no reason to keep it in the history. Why not just delete the old version and keep the rewrite? Mozzerati 13:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I apologise for not making myself clearer, but that is exactly what I would do. If the copied text is small I would do it myself and make a note on the article's talk page, but if it is a significant violation then I would take the issue to WP:CP. I completely agree - there is no reason to keep the copyrighted work in the history if a new, reformulated version exists. I was not aware of the procedure of deleting first, then re-writing, but as this is the case then I see no reason to do otherwise. DJR (Talk) 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

my new/final RfA

Hi Mozzerati!

First and foremost, I must express my thanks for your support during my first RfA. Due to a highly disturbing surge in opposing votes after the submission closed, it has been resubmitted. Unfortunately, it looks as though are large number of opposing voters have appeared and I would be extremely surprised if my new RfA passed... which is fairly disheartening considering that I was around 1 hour from succeeding last time!

In any case - it has been an interesting experience - one thing I can take from it is that someone with a clear thought process should learn to control the focus of their views. As I am wholly unable to pretend I do not have a clear POV, I doubt I will apply for adminship again. It seems fairly clear from this second submission that I am better off sticking to what I do best! Especially considering that I am "not yet a wikipedian"!

Anyway, many warm thanks for your support, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you ever need my assistance for anything in particular.

Regards, DJR (Talk) 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Thank you very much for drawing that bug to my attention. It normally would ignore copyvio notices, however, a recent change was made that bypassed the copyvio check under certain circumstances. I've corrected it. Sorry about that. Any other feedback you have is very much appreciated. All the best. joshbuddy^talk 21:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

How to find Knut Gunnarsson Helland

When I search for Knut Gunnarsson Helland the search engine comes up with 0 result. But it is there. The address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knut_Gunnarson_Helland

How come?

Frode Inge Helland

DirectShow peer review

I wanted to thank for your insanely helpful peer review of DirectShow! I've put it up for peer review again, so if you could comment again that would be great! Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 08:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Shock and Awe

Hello Mozzerati, I don't want to cause any trouble because I'm new here (at least as an editor), so I'd like to talk off the record to a few good contributors about a problem I see on an article that you've edited. Your contributions seem solid, so maybe you can help me. I've been using the Wikipedia definition of "Shock and Awe" for several months because I like how it described the type of warfare that "Shock and Awe" is and also how it gave a link to a definition of "rapid dominance" (of which it claims to be a subset).

In the last couple of days, however, a user called JW1805 edited the article and I think he made the definition much worse.[1] It now says that "Shock and Awe is a military doctrine," whereas is used to say exactly what type of military doctrine it falls into: "Shock and Awe is a method of unconventional warfare." Isn't the old definition more informative? According to the definition of Conventional warfare, I don't think anyone could call it that. So, I think it's safe and informative to say that "Shock and Awe" fits into the definition of unconventional warfare, don't you?

Also JW1805 removed the link to "Rapid dominance," deleted the "Rapid dominance" article and redirected it to "Shock and Awe." Yet the "Shock and Awe" article still says, "Its authors label [shock and awe] a subset of Rapid Dominance." Does that make any sense to you? According to RUSI Journal 141:8-12 Oct '96, "Rapid dominance" is an "intellectual construct" whereas "Shock and awe" is one "method" of implementing that construct. Obviously they are not the same thing. So, why would JW1805 redirect "Rapid dominance" to "Shock and Awe?" Why would he delete the "Rapid dominance" article and the link it?

I went to JW1805's talk page to speak directly to him, but I read what others have said to him, and it seems to be the same story: if you are only one person complaining, JW1805 considers you a troublemaker and has his friends ban you, but if more than one person gets together and says the same thing, he listens. If you feel the same way as I about his edits to "Shock and Awe" and "Rapid dominance," I'm sure we can work together to get the best definition back in place. Are you up for something like that? --Larnue the dormouse 21:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)