User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Username penalty: IP users see articles 5x-50x faster

We need to remind users to logout to view mainstream articles 20x 30x faster. Avoid the username penalty which reformats major articles so much slower than for IP users. In running tests of template speed, I noticed that registered users (logged-in) now view articles which are formatted 5x to 50x times slower than what the IP-address users see (due to IPs seeing the common, quick, cached copies of formatted articles). Some of us were recently trying to optimize template speed, and were able to make a core template run about twice as fast, rather than having hundreds of "sub-optimized" one-line templates. In running those tests, then I noticed that hundreds of major articles can be displayed for IP users in about 1/8 second, whereas the username-specific reformatting of those articles runs several times slower, typically 20x 30x slower for mainstream articles, such as classic encyclopedia topics with formatted references. As you probably know, the complex citation templates use vast amounts of time to slow a large text article from a half-second formatting into several seconds during an edit-preview or view by a logged-in user. Of course that's fine, when people expect to hit "Show-preview" and wait several seconds for citations and navboxes to be formatted into a half-second text article. However, more users should know to log out and view the major articles 30x times faster, and edit them when needed, but after edit-preview log-in before saving the changes with an unwanted IP-address user ID. I would hate for most registered users to think that big Wikipedia articles are really displayed as excrutiatingly slow as when users are logged in. Logout and view the major articles 30x faster. Stubs display at the same quick speed either way, due to few {cite..} or navbox templates piled on those stub pages. Long term, I am wondering how to change major articles into simple large text pages that still format within one second, perhaps using dozens of quick templates. Reduce the current username penalty. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:49, 1 July, revised 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Assuming one is not a computer, then I don't see why this matters. I very rarely have to wait more than a second or two for an article to appear. I don't know what my reading rate is but I would say 30 words a second is a decent upper bound. So at the very worst this costs me the time to read a couple of sentences.

This will matter for bots of course. But then they shouldn't be running off cached pages most of the time... Egg Centric 21:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Only major articles slow, not stubs or small articles: Thanks for noting the difference. The problem is typically a speed factor for only major articles, such as the top 500 articles on any mainstream topic, where the {cite} templates have been used extensively (or navboxes are large). I think a typical infobox formats within 1 second, so a large half-second text formats within 1.5 seconds with an infobox. However, the various {cite} templates use the gargantuan Template:Citation/core with over 620 parameters in the markup, so using {cite...} often adds several seconds to the formatting time, at the rate of nearly 1 second per 13 {cite} transclusions. The result is that a major article formats in over 11-12 seconds, rather than 2-3 seconds, for registered users, or for anyone during edit-preview. Because the Internet is typically very slow (with exceptions such as Google Search), then many registered users do not realize that IP users see major articles several seconds faster than they do. It is an issue that I have been trying to improve for years (working on {cite-fast} templates which run 85 per second, 6x times faster), but Jimbo has advised to avoid "all templates" which would also solve the problem, but many templates (such as infoboxes) are valuable, so we just need to optimize (and reduce) the larger templates. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Making major articles 3x faster for editing: Okay, the reality, obviously, is that cached copies of articles will always be, typically, over 10x faster than any optimization of reformatting. A major article that IP users view in "0.249 seconds" is likely to reformat in over 11 seconds (44x slower), and my efforts at optimization are showing reformat times no faster than 5 seconds (20x slower than the cached copy), even though twice as fast as major articles display now. I think we could get major articles to reformat 3x times faster, to allow faster edit-preview of the whole page, by having special versions of templates which are specifically fast for the basic parameters (so for rare customized parameters, use the larger massive templates). Extensive functionality seems to be the enemy of speed, because checking for use of extra features, or giving users helpful advice during use, causes extra overhead and slows the whole template, or leads to n-variety sets of similar templates which are difficult to update in similar, synchronized functionality. A possible strategy would be to have 3 types of related templates:

• Template:Hogger - the typical massive template with many features
• Template:Hog_fast - a smaller version with only the basic features
• Template:Hog_helper - a training-mode version which warns of errors.

From the tests I have run, I am seeing that any template with many parameters will be something of a resource hog. This confirms Jimbo's advice to avoid large templates. Hence, we have the infobox templates, but they tend to slow reformatting by 1 second each, so limit their use (having 20 infoboxes in an article could slow the article by nearly 20 seconds). We can live with 1 or 2 large infoboxes per article, no problem. However, {citation} templates for 200 footnotes per article are going to eat major time, currently 1 second for every 13 footnotes, or almost 15 seconds for 200 footnotes. Instead, many people are hard-coding several footnotes, in areas, so not all "200 footnotes" use {cite} templates. The tests for the experimental {cite_fast} run faster as 70x per second, or almost 6x faster, but 200 footnote templates would still consume 3 seconds of reformat time, so again, hard-coding many footnotes (where the detailed parameters are not needed) can keep 200 footnotes below 3 seconds of formatting with a {cite_fast} template. -Wikid77 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've run a couple tests myself using citation templates. I did 3 tests: one with just the urls, one with full citation templates, and one with short Harv citation templates in the "Notes" section that called the longer templates in the "References" section. The no-template was obviously the fastest. The one with 200 full citation templates was the slowest, and the one using Harvard templates was in between. It's a good option for articles that have a lot of citations to the same source. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates (technical) is useful background reading. A fuller debate exists at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Citation discussion. It's demoralising to see how the actual solution (extend cite.php and move away from templates) is opposed at Demo of specific proposal for all the wrong reasons. Any technical solution that requires changing something is likely to fail because of the culture of inherent Ludditeism that exists in Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The vcite solution is great for now: Most users would be stunned to realize the articles will reformat or edit-preview 3x (thrice) as fast now, using Template:Vcite_book (etc.). Awesome! As for internal changes to Cite.php, I try to also consider the "worst possible scenario" of how the proposed internal PHP functions might include some hideous bugs, stuck for years, because template coders could not help to fix them. Instead, by using fast-cite templates, we can gain 80% more speed now, while also fixing any format bugs, within days, rather than months or years. Reducing a 23-second edit-preview to only a 8-second wait is a wikimiracle at this point. Beyond the cite templates, we can also optimize other issues, to gain even more speed than from citations alone. -Wikid77 15:48, revised 23:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Possibility of caching subst'd template results: Another tactic, which could be used in rare circumstances, would be to create "segmented articles" composed with cached segments appended to the current markup text. We could take very slow portions of articles and run the templates as wp:subst'ed, then save those segments and transclude them into the final article. For example, with an article named "Mars colony":

• Mars_colony/dynamic_map - a segment with a complex (slow) map template
• Mars_colony/dynamic_map_cache - a segment with the subst'ed template(s)
• Mars_colony - then transcludes {{Mars_colony/dynamic_map_cache}}

The rule would be that changes should be made to the template-based segments (not the cache versions), which are subst'ed into the cache-based segments, and then the cache files are appended into the article, allowing massive slow templates to be used in a huge article which reformats (around the cached segments) within seconds. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You know that Tim is working on Lua ("scheduled for 2013")? The aim is to replace frequently-used templates with a new and much faster system. Johnuniq (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Conversion to fast Lua language: Thanks for noting that option for 2013. It would be great to have the ultra-efficient Lua scripting language, with loops and recursion, even if more complicated for many users. Beware that a massive change in technology is a typical tech solution for "deus ex machina" and typically needs almost a year longer than hoped (=2014?) to "quickly save the day". There is also a danger of interface overhead, such as a "faster" system needing a "10-second" connection link (hopefully not with Lua). Often, a rewrite can duplicate unneeded complexity, and there might be a feeling to handle all "620" parameters now in Template:Citation/core. Meanwhile, I am still focusing on actions to take within a few weeks, which already show 3x speed improvements. Long term, the use of Lua might allow extremely smart, and yet fast templates, so that is another benefit beyond today's cumbersome templates. -Wikid77 06:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Working on essays about performance: I think we will need several essays about various performance issues, depending on people's level of perspective, such as explain how an article can process over 900 templates per second, but they must be (very) small templates. There are too many topics to cover in a single essay. One essay already introduces the readers to technical performance issues:

• WP:Analyzing performance issues - gives intro & links other essays.

We need a new essay about making templates run much faster. For example, passing only a dozen parameters to a template, rather than 100, can make a template run almost twice (2x) as fast. Another option is to have gated-if structures running 3x faster, which test for perhaps 16 rare parameters to exist, before checking the value of each of those 16 parameters separately. A gated-if structure with 1 parameter can run 5 times faster. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:15, 6 July, revised 7 July 2012, 13:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Forking large major articles to: (full)

I am re-thinking your advice to have smaller, more-focused articles on major topics, perhaps named as article "xx" with the current large version renamed as "xx (full)". I initially thought the Simple English Wikipedia would handle the issue enough, but now, I think we really need to have 2 versions of major articles, here, as you suggested long ago. I was looking at article "YouTube" and thought "way too big" for general readers. So perhaps:

• new "YouTube" - a smaller article, limited in size (perhaps 700 words?)
• new "YouTube (full)" - the original large article moved to a new name.

Otherwise, I really would fear wholesale deletion of extra information, such as the interesting list of other nations having YouTube versions, but all of that extensive description overwhelms the basic details of the 6 W's ("who, what, when, where, why, and how"). In many cases, the full article is almost "YouTube (rant)" because of the tedious detail, but obviously, we cannot label articles as "rant" simply because they contain 5x-9x times as much detail as most readers seek. There could be numerous cases, such as a notorious crime article, where the "(full)" version could include lists of forensic evidence to explain "whodunit" or why other suspects were freed, while allowing a smaller article to generalize the issues (but knowing the "(full)" version explains things oversimplified in the top, condensed version). Since you have already thought about this issue, and content forks are entirely valid, what other concerns should we address before making such article forks?

From a practical standpoint, I would focus on the 100 (or 1,000) most-viewed articles, and count what percentage of them need a simplified overview article. In terms of Wikipedia performance, everyone would benefit from the numerous advantages: most readers would see the nutshell version they expect; the smaller article would appear within 2 seconds; large articles could be protected from excessive trimming of details; limiting size (700 words?) would discourage POV-pushing (where currently, tangent comments are allowed in large articles because wp:NOTPAPER protects long sections); and ideally any POV-pushing in "(full)" versions would have less impact (because few people would read the massive full versions). Currently, WP is a major "advert-magnet" because people know any boosterism wedged into major articles has a good chance of being info-spammed into the "captive audience" who view the major article by name, whatever that name happens to display. Any other thoughts or advice? -Wikid77 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideally, I think the lead sections of all articles should combine to something like the Micropædia. —Kusma (t·c) 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Introduction to general relativity and general relativity. benzband (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I set up an RfC at WT:Article size#RfC: Should the rule of thumb for article size refer to readable prose size or markup size? which I believe is relevant. I should be neutral about notifying about that but I think the featured article candidate editors have completely forgotton and don't care about WP:NOTPAPER and just want to produce the equivalent of printed papers on the topics. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at the Youtube article and personally I would consider it a large article where bits should be turned into sub-articles if they grow to any size but not one where that should be a major consideration of the editors yet. Perhaps what is wanted is an easy way of just viewing the lead of an article? That perhaps could be an option which is automatically invoked in mobile profiles so they have to click on a button to get the whole article downloaded. Dmcq (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just put a proposal at WP:VPT#Section viewing about how one could deal much better with download time. I still think the FAC editors tend to push articles so they are about twice the readable size even with a good computer. Dmcq (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am thinking to allow users to see the smaller overview article, first, and then choose to see the larger article, whether a featured article, or not. -Wikid77 12:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alert !

Hello Mr. Jimbo.

I want to point out to you a problem, which I have identified in the current interpretation by other editors of WP:NOR:

If someone would mix a poison "X" and some fruit juice, and call it a "D" drink, and sell it to people, there is no way that fellow editors here would allow to mention the side effects of the poison ingredient "X", in an article about "D".

Why? Because the sources about "D" will not list the side effects of "X", as they would probably be PR for "D", and the sources for "X" will not mention "D", because what do scientists, who study the side effects of a poison "X", care about the drink "D" or "Z" that "X" will be put into.

Due to that there are two problems:

First according to the WP:NOR it is not allowed to use the scientist's source because it don't mention "D". Although, I think, that "X" is directly related to "D", as "D" contain "X", other editors' practice is to mandate explicit mentioning of "D" in the scientist article about the side effects of "X", and that is not going to happen, that is not how scientists work. They find a rule ("X" cause a side effect), they don't retest and make papers about every conceivable application of the rule, like when "X" is mixed in a "D" drink.

The second problem, is that according to the WP:SYNTH, if one say "D" contain "X" and "X" has a side effect thus "D" has a side effect¹, then it is synthesis. (From [(drinking "D") -> (drinking "X")] and [(drinking "X") ->(suffering a side effect)] it follows that [(drinking "D") ->(suffering a side effect)])¹. Again, I don't think that such a simple application of logic A->B, and B->C therefor A->C should be considered a synthesis, but other editors seem to be sure that it is.

And there you go, the drink "D" is on the street, and if a kid would open Wikipedia to learn about that drink, he will not learn of the side effects of "D" at Wikipedia, and drink the drink in ignorance.

I think that this is awful, and that something should be changed, so that editors will understand that a source can be related to the topic of the article, even if it doesn't mention the topic, but does mention some relevant ingredient of the topic, and that simple logic, that any educated person can verify, is allowed.

[1] labeled comments were added at --Nenpog (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

--Nenpog (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is completely unpersuasive. I happen to be sitting in a restaurant where they are serving a drink that pretty well matches your description. The

dangerous chemical in question is, as measured by LD50, 36 times more deadly than pure grain alcohol. The beverage? Tea. The chemical? Caffeine. Nowhere does Wikipedia mention the lethal dose of caffeine in the article Tea.

But as I expected, in the discussion it emerges that actually you are about to be banned for similarly illogical ranting on a completely unrelated topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good and detailed explanation of the issue hidden for talk page clarity - but read if if you want to understand more
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
. <-- -- Avanu (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Presumably, this refers to delicate clinical decision-making issues regarding indications to X-ray computed tomography (also discussed here). In addition to WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, I think WP:MEDRS is a valuable defence against applying simplistic assumptions, however well intended. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) If this is about someone selling drinks containing poisons, the appropriate course of action is to inform the authorities, not raise it on Jimbo's talk page. If this is about the risks associated with CT scans, why not say so? 'Simple logic' suggests to me that trying to compare the two is nonsensical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Déjà vu (from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_27#Adverse_effects_of_a_component_of_a_medical_procedure.). —MistyMorn (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC) -AndyTheGrump, there are many poisons that are completely legal to consume (e.g. alcohol, cigarets, etc, an expression-"what is your poison?"), and which may include immediate side effects, and delayed side effects that may manifest after years of consumption, or years after consumption (e.g. liver disease, cancer, etc.). -MistyMorn, I am not talking about "assumptions" or "simplistic assumptions". I am talking about simple logic, where A->B, and B->C are well sourced. In that case it follows that A->C. It is verifiable. Nothing is assumed. --Nenpog (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC) There are lots of consequences when applying this reasoning. For example, many mouthwash products contain alcohol, should we should label them as poisonous and addictive? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Do you think that they are not poisonous and addictive? I think that such products are anyway already labeled 'for external use only' or 'do not consume' due to being poisonous and addictive. --Nenpog (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ...except all your assumptions about the real world? As Oscar Wilde once said, "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple". Good night, —MistyMorn (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC) No assumptions. If you think an assumption is made you should point that out and refuse to accept, that the premise of the simple logic is sourced. Instead the situation today is that one can't argue in Wikipedia, that since one source suggest that [(drinking "D") -> (drinking "X")], and the other source suggests [(drinking "X") ->(suffering a side effect)] it follows that [(drinking "D") ->(suffering a side effect)]. --Nenpog (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC) The OP's question has been dealt with quite well in a number of other forums. On the other hand I'm glad that at last Wikipedia is warning about the drink DHMO made from the combination of a source of dangerous free radicals and an explosive that is being peddled cheaply or even being given away freely all around the world, If a reliable source had not been produced about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide people could not be warned about it according to WP:SYNTH. How can something be a fire retardant and a component of many pesticides and yet be safe to drink? Everybody should be warned of the potential dangers of DHMO. Dmcq (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC) One other danger is the drastic and unexpected cooling effect that dihydrogen monoxide can cause. Some children in the neighborhood somehow got a large supply of the stuff and were filling balloons with it and casually tossing these things at passerby, obviously unaware of the hazard involved. -- Avanu (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC) What you have heard about hydrogen hydroxide, also known as dihydrogen monoxide, or DHMO, is false. Read http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/ for the TRUTH! --Guy Macon (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Try formulating that as [A->B, and B->C therefor A->C], where the first two are sourced. Lets see if you can arrive with false conclusions.--Nenpog (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC) So, is this about poisons, or about CT scans? If it is about the later, it seems evident from a little perusing of your edit history that you are on some sort of 'mission' to alert the world to the risks involved in their use, and are repeatedly resorting to original research to do so. Multiple contributors have tried to explain to you that (a) Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for your 'mission', and (b) we don't write articles by cherry-picking primary sources to 'prove' a particular viewpoint. Yes, there are risks involved with CT scans, as our article makes clear - but it does so according to reliable sources, not by convoluted 'simple logic' that appears anything but simple (the biological effects of ionising radiation are a complex issue for a start), and less -than-logical of it ignores the benefits of CT scans as a medical procedure, and makes out that we are discussing a 'poison' instead. Our article on CT is written the way it is because it conforms to our policy regarding medical issues - which is to use only the best sources, and strictly avoid synthesis or the giving of undue weight to primary sources. In consequence, our coverage of medical issues has been commented on by outside researchers as some of the best, and often as reliable as more conventional sources. To change policy in order to allow soapboxing, POV-pushing and the like would be a serious mistake - and it isn't going to happen. If you want to alert the world to your views on the dangers of CT scans, you'll have to find somewhere else to do it. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC) It is about that simple logic is verifiable. --Nenpog (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC) That you are pushing a POV is verifiable. That this POV is contrary to what reliable sources say is verifiable. That Wikipedia articles are written according to reliable sources is verifiable. Simple logic says that you can't push your POV on Wikipedia. Do it somewhere else... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC) In simple logic I meant [A->B, and B->C therefor A->C]. Try writing it that way, or present the logic rule you employ. Please share the sources for your claim. Are you implying that you have a source that claim that simple logic is not verifiable? --Nenpog (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC) To answer the OP's question, an example would be "Vitamin K". For that article we had a hatnote on pointing out its slang use as a term for ketamine until it fell victim to a vandalism and anti-vandalism cycle.[1]. While that usage may be comparatively uncommon, there's still a fair possibility that Wikipedia saved the life of some idiot kid who would otherwise have snorted up a megadose of the vitamin and become a casualty a la "The Andromeda Strain". Wnt (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC) I don't understand your point here. --Nenpog (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC) There's no problem whatsoever. You've been confused by the fact that statements made in a biological or medical context are phrased as if they were universal, when in fact they carry with them a complex set of unstated assumptions about conditions. e.g., if I said "Mannitol is harmless", the assumption in the biological context is that I'm not delivering it in the form of a superheated plasma, for instance. Your problem is that to invoke "simple logic", A->B must be universally true. Making universal statements about complex real-world entities is surprisingly hard. To give a concrete example, drinking concentrated acid (A) entails burns in your throat (B). Drinking concentrated base (C) entails B as well. Since A->B and C->B, if you mix equal amounts of A and C, A AND C->B...except that, in actual fact, A and C neutralize each other and the real result is not-B. The flaw is not in the logic, but in the statements that A->B and C->B, which were falsely taken to be universal through a failure to appreciate the implicit assumptions behind the statement that "concentrated acid burns your throat". In short, the problem is not with your logic, but with your premises. Since we really can't make universal statements about the effects of a chemical "X" on a biological system, the onus is on you to show an empirical demonstration that the claimed effects of X are applicable to a particular system. Given that you're engaged in special pleading here on Jimbo's talk page and making a specious argument about logic, I assume you're getting badly spanked as far as the burden of proof goes. Choess (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Nice. The logic rule you try to employ is [((A->B) and (C->B)) therefor ((A and C)->B)]. That is a different rule than the simple logic rule that I mentioned, where the conclusion B of one statement (A->B) is the exact premise of the other statement (B->C), and very easy to verify as such. Additionally A=(drinking acid) C=(drinking base), and (A and C)=(drinking acid and drinking base). A mix of equal amounts of acid and base is a neutral solution, N=(drinking a neutral solution). N is not equal to (A and C), and there isn't a logic rule - [((A->B) and (C->B)) therefor (N->B)]. So (A and C) means that someone don't drink a neutral solution, and there will still be consequences for the throat B, thus (A and C)->B hold. Try again. --Nenpog (talk) 07:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Mixing acids and bases produces salts and gas, not neutral solutions: Perhaps the above analogy, mixing an acid with a base, reveals the danger of simple logic to imagine the result is a "neutral solution" when instead, mixing baking soda with vinegar (acetic acid) produces carbon dioxide, water, and also sodium acetate, a salt used for pickling. I hope no one tries to mix an acid with a base and imagines to drink a "neutral solution" which is actually an unpleasant salty liquid, with a large eruption of CO2 gas. Wikid77 (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Oh? Your generalization is, unfortunately, errant. That, in some cases, a gas is released does not mean this is, in general, true. The general case is that H2O and a salt are produced. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the info. In this case, I was using the info of the one who asked as source, and he wrote that the acid and base neutralize each other, and I think that what one would drink would be a solution. In any case [ it wouldn't be an acid nor a base, agree?, and ] (A and C) don't describe it. --Nenpog (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) You are missing the point entirely. You are trying to apply a universal quantification to an argument that requires an existential quantification. It doesn't matter which example you use. Any experiment conducted yields results only for the parameters specified and while it is the job of the scientist to extrapolate from the data, it is not the job of Wikipedians. Until a reliable source makes the connection that you're talking about we don't make the connection; the only exceptions are those of simple deductive logic and mathematics. What you are doing is attempting to use an inductive argument to make a deductive conclusion; the difference being that a deductive argument must be right, where as an inductive argument has a probability to be right. Sædontalk 07:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC) It is also the job of the scientists to recognize and verify the existence of rules in reality. The technical details of that may include data, extrapolations, tests, determining what is relevant and what is irrelevant for the rule, etc. Do you argue that scientists determination of rules is invalid, and no found rule should be considered valid? (Perhaps the rules of nature changed since the experiments, and the experiment's results are invalid for present and future purposes?) Once a reliable source assert the existence of a rule, one don't need to be a scientist, in order to use that rule in simple logic calculations. --Nenpog (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Actually logic and mathematics are not exceptions under Wikipedia. There is a bit of simple rephrasing or illustration allowed under WP:CALC but that still doesn't mean stuff that has no direct relation can be brought in. Plus examples are counted as illustrations so the actual figures don't have to be from a source and it can be done a bit differently, however it still can't start bringing in new ideas - it must only illustrate what is being talked about. Dmcq (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Dmcq, at that discussion your opinion was that "it is not in line with the consensus on Wikipedia as acceptable grounds for inserting a reference which does not mention the topic into an article or for putting a conclusion based on that reasoning into an article". Are you presenting a different opinion here? or is it the same opinion? --Nenpog (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Nenpog, the only opinions that matter here are those relating to your endless attempts to spin articles to support your unsupported and frankly ridiculous POV. You have wasted far too much of our time already, and I see no reason whatsoever why we should allow this to continue. You have two choices: (a) stop trying to insert WP:OR and other dubious material into articles relating (directly or indirectly) to CT scans, or (b) have us stop you - via a block or topic ban. We don't give a toss about your endless illogical appeals to 'logic', or your infantile comparisons of medical procedures to poisons. Wikipedia isn't here to provide a soapbox. Make your mind up. Are you going to cease your activities voluntarily, and retain a little dignity, or do you want to be given the boot? P.S. Any answer to this that doesn't directly address the issue of your problematic behaviour will be seen by me as a continuation of such behaviour - which I will see as ample grounds to start a thread at WP:ANI asking for a permanent block on your account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Could I ask that people back off a bit here? What we have is basically somebody saying something reasonable, or at least defensible, but saying it in such an obnoxious way that nobody wants to pay attention. That's a very unfortunate situation. If Nenpog knew how to work cooperatively with other editors, it is quite possible that some of the material he favors would make its way into the article -- the science here has, after all, been evolving. But he has tried to do it by edit-warring, and that's a disaster. Looie496 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but no. It is totally obvious from a few minutes inspection of Nenpog's editing history that we have someone not in the slightest interested in doing anything other than pushing an agenda - and doing it in a way that is totally contrary to the way Wikipedia works. Some people just don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is for - and the only appropriate response is to show them the door. As for 'evolving science', we will report on it after it has evolved, not beforehand. Nobody is arguing that there aren't risks involved with CT scans. As far as I'm aware, nobody is arguing that anyone has an exact understanding of what all the risks are. This is a legitimate subject for scientific enquiry. And given the possible risks and the widespread use of CT technology, such scientific enquiry is not only legitimate, but common sense - and such enquiries seems to be ongoing. This is what we should be reporting in our articles, not the speculative waffle of POV-pushers who seemingly can't tell the difference between a medical procedure applied when the apparent benefits outweigh the apparent risks (or at least, where those applying the procedure suggest they do), and a 'poison' which somehow justifies starting a thread on Jimbo's talk page entitled "Alert", followed by a heap of bollocks about 'logic' and the rest. POV-pushers obsessed by some 'injustice' or another are neither good for Wikipedia, or for scientific research. The least impolite way to handle such obsessives, once they make their obsessions clear, is to tell them to go away - to do otherwise is only to encourage them to carry on wasting everyone's time on matters that have nothing to do with article content. Nothing that Nenpog can say on the risks of CT scans is relevant to our article, per policy, if it is based on 'logical' original research aimed at 'proving' that it is dangerous - if for no other reason than that there is nothing remotely 'logical' at engaging in research to 'prove' what you 'know' already. WP:MEDRS is there for a reason, and episodes like this convince me that the reasoning behind it makes sense - Wikipedia is here to report on science, not to engage in it. Nenpog is in the wrong place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC) AndyTheGrump is entirely correct. This started as a content dispute on Talk:X-ray computed tomography where Nenpog faced a lack of consensus (every other editor opposed the changes he wished to make.) My only involvement is as a dispute resolution volunteer who tried to help resolve the conflict when it reached WP:DRN. He was then blocked for edit-warring and tendentious editing.[2][3][4] He then started Wikipedia:Forum shopping, taking his dispute to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Talk:Ionizing radiation, Wikipedia talk:No original research, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:No original research (Second time, in a different section), Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance At least one IRC channel (According to another editor; I don't follow IRC), User talk:Elen of the Roads, User talk:S Marshall, User talk:Jaeljojo, User talk:Avanu, User talk:Paul Siebert, User talk:RexxS, User talk:S Marshall, And now he is taking it to User talk:Jimbo Wales. The interesting thing about Nenpog's latest post to User talk:Jimbo Wales is that he is pushing for acceptance of the exact same logic that he has been pushing for from the start on X-ray computed tomography, but instead of talking about X-Rays and CT scans, he is now talking about poison and fruit juice. No doubt he believe that this makes it "new" and thus not WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Nonetheless, he is making the exact same argument that has been rejected every other place he has taken it, and if he gets validation for his theory in poison / fruit juice form, he will run right back to X-ray computed tomography and claim that he can now edit against consensus because someone here told him he could. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Guy, I can confirm that nenpog was indeed forum shopping at IRC, we had a visit from him/her/whatever around 2 or 3 nights back in #wikipedia-en. For obvious reasons, I can't discuss content, but it was definitely forum shopping, no question.  BarkingFish  17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I have complained at the WQA (see here) about Guy, because he follows me around and posts off topic negative disclaimers, related to me and other discussions, where they don't belong. I have explained why his claims of forumshopping on my part are wrong here. --Nenpog (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Re: "I have complained at the WQA about Guy", that complaint is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Uncivil behavior, where Nenpog recieved the following responses: "No incivility on the part of Guy." "I looked at the links and do not see a wikiquette issue. It is standard procedure to use the contributions list provided for each user to see whether any follow up to an issue is warranted." "OP appears to be forum shopping; nothing wrong with Guy Macon pointing this out." "Personally I think GMs action was the less inflammatory course of action to take." "Guy is fully correct to keep tabs on what Nenpog is doing, because so far it has been consistently disruptive to the point of exacerbation." "You wasted my time at WP:NOR after repeatedly being given perfectly good answers elsewhere. I fully approve of that notice there to give the background to what your query was about. My guess is you will eventually be blocked indefinitely as you don't seem to be able to drop the stick." I am tempted to say something uncivil about the above false accusation, but instead I will refer Nenpog to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Like Looie, above, I'm open to the possibility the article should contain something on the safety of X-ray computed tomography. I think I was the first to notice Nenpog's edits and may have been the first to revert them. His style of engagement is problematical, and I have no objection to appropriate measures being brought to bear. Those interested in curating our medical articles should not dismiss the POV, though, just because Nenpog has taken the wrong approach to bringing change to a Wikipedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Safety issues addressed here: X-ray_computed_tomography#Adverse_effects. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC) When this first hit WP:DRN, I thought the same thing, and carefully went through X-ray computed tomography checking every citation and doing searches looking for things they missed. My conclusion was that the editors who are working on that page (many of them physicians or medical researchers) are doing a careful job of describing the risks and benefits of CT scans. Nenpog only wants to add negative material, and he is willing to break every rule we have in order to get it in. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Yes I have spent a great deal of time trying to write a balanced overview of the harms of CT scans. I added that the current rates of CTs in the United States are believed to be the cause of 2% of all future cancers to our article more than a year ago. I have also spent a fair bit of time adding the risks associated with contrast. All that I have ever asked is that this user use appropriate references. And yet they have simply commented that I have a COI as I have stated that power point presentations found on line are not sufficient as are papers that do not mention CTs or iv contrast. Anyway as mentioned above I think we do a fairly good job covering the adverse effects of CTs currently (both short term and long term). However if people find further ideal references per WP:MEDRS I have no issue in expanding our coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 09:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you all for that reassurance. Clearly it's in good hands. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, Doc James's work is exceptional. In a world where WP is a relevant source for consumers of medical information, he really is a reassuring presence, and we're all really lucky to have him here. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the vote of confidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Yes. You're a blessing to the project, James. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Nenpog appears unwilling to drop the WP:STICK with this issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Alas, it looks like nothing short of a block will have any effect on the pattern on tendentious editing. Related: Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Appeals to Jimbo, Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, Wikipedia:What Would Jimbo Do? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Great Job Opportunity for Jimbo at Elance!

Hi Jimbo,

Apologies if you've seen this before, but this Elance ad is looking for a Wikipedia Admin or 'Crat who can publish the Wikipedia articles their clients have written "without having them deleted a few weeks later." I figure why settle for a 'Crat, when you can hire Jimbo himself?! After all, he runs this place, doesn't he?

But seriously, if "Swift11" got a quick note (or a visit - he appears to be in London) from you explaining how things work around here, it might (or might not) convince him to change his ways. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on this is herePharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

They've got a whole list of Wikipedia-related ads, mostly PE/PEW. benzband (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

These pages link to Elance.

—Wavelength (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Related discussion at WP:AN/I, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Paid_advocacy. Albacore (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If their clients don't want their articles deleted a few weeks later then JW is hardly their man. Just consider his article Mzoli's Meat. It got deleted after just 22 minutes. --Aspro (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet, Mzoli's it lives. Please don't mislead people. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's red links...hot or not?

Main page: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Notability - a question

Further information: Talk:Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency) § Wikilinks to MPs, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring § User:Doktorbuk reported by User:Boleyn (Result:Both users warned appropriately), and User talk:Boleyn § From Doktorbuk

If you saw an editor adding hundreds of new red links (links to nowhere) in existing articles, would that be cause for concern? Would it depend on circumstances? Do you like red links or hate them? How many people see a red link and think "I must go immediately and research that topic and create a new article" versus simply saying "Eh, the good samaritan behind me on this road will take care of it" and pass it by? -- Avanu (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Red link.—Wavelength (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have. I want to see other opinions. -- Avanu (talk) 06:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wavelength - the attitude of "See this policy document" is of no use at all. doktorb _words^deeds 06:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have never been a fan of redlinks unless there is a realistic chance of creating the corresponding article in the near future. Speculative redlinks are of little use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The redlink needs to be notable - it could have an article but is just not written yet. Interestingly we have means of finding redlinks on a most-wanted-list where the number of incoming links to any non-existant article shows its relative importance and article creators pick their chores from that. Anyway suitable redlinks are great, turning them blue is the icing on the cake. Agathoclea (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "is the red link notable" question goes to the core of my issue (and Avanu shares this too, hence their question!). A policy is being used as a "free pass" for notability, something I'm disputing. doktorb _words^deeds 07:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, the notability of the issue is key: redlinks should only be added of there is a chance of the article eventually being created. In this specific situation, redlinks are being added to either sitting or past MP's. MP's have been held by WP:POLITICIAN to be suitably notable for articles, and thus there is a reasonable chance that an article could be created that is suitable for Wikipedia. Doktorbuk has stated that they disagree with that notability and has therefore been removing redlinks. Wikipedia is not finished, but this discussion and the related disruption caused by continually removing said redlinks should be. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • And if the name of the politician happens to be the same as that of a rapist, and the article on the rapist gets created first, what happens to the redlink in a political article, where does it suddenly link to? John lilburne (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There was an analogous but opposite situation in lists of gay porn performers, with no care was being taken to ensure that the name of the performer was not the same as an existing article, leading to a situation where "red links" in the lists actually ended up being blue links to existing articles. Not everyone shared my opinion that labelling someone as a porn performer was a clear violation of our policies on biographies of living persons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that speculative red links should not be used, I disagree with this bit of advice from Wikipedia:Red link: "However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." I don't know of any good reason for that. I think using red links in lists, disambiguation pages, etc. are a good way to organize work and motivate other contributors.

The BLP issue outlined above is really a separate issue which will not apply in most cases of red links. But it is of course a valid issue. If a red link seems likely to cause a BLP violation if the corresponding article is created ambiguously, then I can see a strong case for avoiding it. But that's a small percentage of overall links.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• You'd be surprised how often it does occur. Whilst those two are historic figures I have no doubt that it will occur with living figures too. John lilburne (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• It's not necessarily a BLP issue, of course. One answer to John lilburne's question is, after all, "The same as happened at User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Mechanics when it was discovered that one of the few bluelinks in that list is an article on sexual bondage.". ☺

  The question at hand, that you may not have seen the whole of, isn't a BLP issue. It's actually a biographies of very dead people issue; a biographies of very dead politicians issue, more specifically. See the Village Pump discussion for what the question that you've been asked here actually relates to.

  Uncle G (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The redlinks that the Doktor is complaining about are about members of the English Parliament from the 1300s, where the person creating the redlinks is systematically setting up rosters of articles that indisputably will pass our standards of notability. Doktorb just seems to find the presence of lots of redlinks aesthetically offensive. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Commons flouting copyright law?

I've just been told that my sweat-of-the-brow copyright under UK law is, by policy, ignored, and the restoration work is to be recategorised into the public domain. (Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/First_colored_senator_and_reps.jpg#First_colored_senator_and_representatives and http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2012-July/thread.html#start )

As I was only asking for a CC-by license - the absolute minimum - and only then because I was tired of seeing unscrupulous print sellers selling things for £100 when people could download it and print it themselves, I'm horrified by this behaviour.

I mean, seriously, Wikimedia has a policy of forcibly removing a requirement that their content creators be credited, and all because it's possible that the European court might rule the UK sweat-of-the-brow doctrine invalid at some point in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

A restoration takes between about 8 and 50 hours to do right, and I have generally offered this up freely. However, at the moment, I've restricted access to my full-size restorations until and if this is sorted out to some sort of reasonably satisfactory conclusion.

Honestly, I wouldn't even have minded so much if this wasn't basically a violation of meta:Don't be a dick. I was offering my works to everyone to use freely, but people decided to attack me for doing so? Seriously?

Thank you,

Adam Cuerden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.213.143 (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See Sweat of the brow. This is accepted in the UK but rejected in the US and really I don't think you can expect much by it on an American based encyclopaedia when doing American senators! Personally I support sweat of the brow as a limited copyright. However I think copyright should have a much shorter term the same as patents and only trademarks should have long term protection whilst in use. I'd include Mickey Mouse or a writers characters as trademarks so others couldn't write new stories using them. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The work should have an additional notice about copyright outside the US in particular the EU. No way the public domain in the US bit can be taken out though. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Think you misunderstand the 1988 copyright Act. The sweat-of-the-brow has not been upheld in any UK court of law -ever. It is like suggesting that an accident car repair shop, which though the sweat-of-their-brows, restore a wreak to its original appearance and so can thus claim to have a copyright over that particular individual vehicle. A UK statute might state something but if the legal system finds it unworkable and too daft to uphold -then it is moot. In the description section and on the image's exif file ,if you wish, you can state that your are the restorer. Even, link to your web page or email. Just as long as its not seen as blatant advertising. Suggest: Upload the original un-restored image first and then your restored image after and the two will show up in the File History section, thus demonstrating your skill at using GIMP, Photoshop or whatever.--Aspro (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

When did the law ever find anything too daft? ;-) The requirements are easily low enough to allow copyright on that work in the UK. And even the case mentioned in that article about football listings is still under consideration as far as I know, it may be copyright or they might just put it under a database rights law - something the US also doesn't recognize. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In the UK one can sometimes buy a castle or Manor which gives one the legal right of Droit du seigneur but if you can't enforces it, then that legal privilege is not worth a dime (or even groat). Copyright law endeavours grant a privilege to the original creator of the creative work and a legal remedy against anyone that transgress, not to those that do technical manipulations and reproductions. To do otherwise, would be to miss-attribute copyright – again something that is covered in the 1988 Act. So what the OP wants is probably illegal anyway, if one is so intent on following the letter of the law.--Aspro (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-scan_tag says you have to give me credit. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally with you there, Adam. You should get a credit for the restoration. Formerip (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Credit is not the issue, I've already mentioned above, how credit can be indicated on these images. What the OP is claiming a CC-BY copyright over an original work, that is in the PD, something which the 1988 Act cannot confer.--Aspro (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the OP should have a credit which, at the moment, he doesn't. Formerip (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that he is claiming copyright on the parts of the restoration that have involved elements of creativity on his part. The image is still PD you can make as many copies of the extant image as you want. All fine. All the restorer is saying is that he has copyright on the restoration work and wants to CC-BY credit on that. John lilburne (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

But there is no evidence or legal precedent that that is true, simple faithful restoration of an image doesn't confer copyright in the United States, by simple faithful is I mean removing the subtle effects of age (yellowing paper), a scratch, crease in the paper, a stain, simply making it look more like it originally did before it was damaged/aged. This isn't really a high level of creativity, and there is no evidence that this kind of activity grants you copyright. Large scale restoration, like repainting a missing section of a painting, or coloring a black-and-white photograph that would, but removing a scratch or dust, wouldn't. That's the issue. — raekyt 19:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since when does a UK court have to uphold a law passed by Parliment, EVER, before Wikipedia obeys it? This is an era of international corporations, when American companies like Apple, GE, and Microsoft have to consider EU regulators before merging, bundling, or producing a new product. The argument that this is an American organization so we dont care about British copyright seems silly to me. As does the idea that a British court needs to approve Parliment's laws. Parliment IS the "supreme court" of the UK. To my knowledge there is no court that could possibly invalidate Parliment's law, ever. Wikipedia should not ignore a sovereign law. Silly or not.Camelbinky (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

On this issue, Wikimedia takes exception to the UK law, see commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and specifically the comment by Erik Möller about this. — raekyt 18:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation very much respects the copyright laws of all nations. What's tripping people up here is their emotional interpretation of the 1988 Act and the way they feel the law ought to be practiced.--Aspro (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Erik Möller put it pretty plainly how they're going to handle this situation, specifically when it dept with the NPR legal threats. I don't see how this is much different, a individual UK citizen that is a contributor here by restoring images carries with it far less legal weight than the NPR, and Wikimedia basically said they're not going to recognize their legal claims. Adam may have legal copyright claims in the United States for restoration work that exceeds beyond the simple, i.e. recreating large missing sections of an artwork, but for simply color correcting, removing yellowing paper, small stains, scratches, dust, simple clone tool work, that doesn't grant copyright and would be something the foundation has already ruled in how they wish to handle that when it comes to Adam's claims of copyright. I mean if Jimbo wants to jump in here and specificly state Wikimedia's policy on simple faithful restorations of public domain images, that would be great, because right now there has never been an "official" legal position by wikimedia on this, and I pretty sure there hasn't even been a court case in the United States or UK dealing with this either, so it's really left up to interpretations. *shrug* — raekyt 18:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, to the best of my knowledge, the NPR didn't restore images, merely photographed/scanned them, and, at most, colour corrected them. I do a hell of a lot more than that. Also, there are small areas of missing information in this. 86.139.213.143 (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you honestly assert that removing dust or a scratch is of such significant creative effort as to confer copyright? — raekyt 18:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

People on Commons assert that removing a copyright watermark on an image make the image a derivative. John lilburne (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

And what is the policy for that? heh. — raekyt 19:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they don't like watermarks, so clone them out just as if it was a dust mark, then claim that is justified as they can make derivatives. Naturally one major image donor of some 80,000 images disagrees and has stopped donating anymore images to Commons. John lilburne (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that is something that should be addressed in Common's policy if it's an actual problem? But absence of said policy just because some people think it does qualify as giving them copyright over the modified image by simply cropping or cloning off a simple watermark doesn't mean it's valid. — raekyt 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Because of the way the Commons works, if an image is freely licensed and it does have a watermark, it can be removed (but the original source/author/licensing information must be transferred over to the new image). I know there are a lot of people who do not think that and just put any license they want. I admit the Commons is a mess when it comes to this (and with the work I do on there, I do not deal with a lot of watermarked images unless I am involved in an OTRS compacity). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim on Commons is that cloning/cropping out Copyright Management Information is covered under making a derivative work. If that is true then cropping/cloning out a dust spot or scratch is making a derivative work too. John lilburne (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Link to the actual policy that states that? — raekyt 19:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pick your link. John lilburne (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

None of those support your statement that the remover of the watermark is granted any kind of copyright over the image from the act of removal, that is what I was specifically asking for. — raekyt 20:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Do try to keep up. The rationale for removing the CMI from the image is that it is allowed as one is making a derivative. If one is not making a derivative then one should not be cloning/cropping the CMI from the image. "A derivative work is a new, original product that includes aspects of a preexisting, already copyrighted work." thus Comnmons claims that cropping/cloning is indeed making "a new, original product". John lilburne (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your confused here, a derivative work is yes a new work made with an existing one, BUT the creator of the derivative can only claim copyright on the NEW material added to the work, here we're talking about cropping an image to remove a watermark as a derivative, yes it's a derivative, but NOT copyright-able by the person making the derivative since no NEW ORIGINAL MATERIAL is being added to the work. Same can be said with removal of a watermark, your not adding new material, simply removing it. The extent of the cloning needed to accomplish this removal may stretch the issue, but very MINOR clone tool work I think would be extremely hard to claim is substantive enough to be covered under copyright. Again I don't see any policy of commons to backup your assertion... — raekyt 20:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not I. You can alter an image under a CC-BY license if you are creating a derivative under copyright law. One cannot invoke the right to make derivatives to justify some action (cloning or cropping out) that is not making a derivative. So either the cloning/cropping out CMI is creating a derivative in which case the OP is correct, or it is not and the Commons policy of cloning/cropping is outside the license. I don't think one can have it both ways. John lilburne (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a case of having it both ways! You're mixing premises. The actions can be the same but the status of that -which is acted upon- can be different.--Aspro (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point I don't know what your talking about, the laws behind what is copyrightable on a derivative work is pretty clear, and the OP was making an argument about sweat of the brow copyright not derivative work, and these are public domain images not CC images to begin with. You can't take an image and crop it then impose a copyright for that crop and expect that to be upheld in court, just as you can't take someone's book, add some annotations too it then claim copyright over the original book's wording, you only get to claim copyright on the NEW material (the annotations). A Derivative Work is not a copyright license, it's a legal term, and does not automatically confer copyright to whoever derived a new version of a past work, theres a threshold of originality that must be met. — raekyt 21:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. The OP is not claiming copyright on the image but on the new material that he has added. However, it is claimed here that what the OP is doing does not create any claim in copyright as he is not creating a derivative under copyright law. OTOH Commons clones out 'watermarks' (Copyright Management Information) which is prohibited under Title 17 USC § 1202. Commons justifies the cloning out by arguing that the CC-BY license allows them to make derivatives. Thus the claim from Commons is that by cloning out CMI they are making a derivative. IOW if the OP does it then isn't a derivative, but if Commons does it then it is a derivative. John lilburne (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Adam, your skilful in what you do and as I pointed above there are was that you can claim 'credit'. But the law doesn’t work the way you think it does. Parliament produces 'good law' only, which is taken as a basic tenant. However, if courts find that some part are unenactable (unenforceable) because they can be easily demolished by Reductio ad absurdum then that part tends to get ignored. You might not like it but Parliament enacts a mountain of laws each year and if they had to go back and remove every unenactable line, phrase, or paragraph it would take them an age. So it is left to the courts. This PD issue has been discussed ad nauseam by Wikipedia and its sister projects. (Note: We have to defend PD as well without favour). Attributing a copyright to a PD work that you have rescued, without the consent of Parliament is not a right that you have under UK law. The Act would have to say something more specific about bring PD works back in copyright and it doesn't. That's why, no courts have been able to uphold it. Add your credits in the way I suggested and leave them as PD. Can you agree so we can close this section?--Aspro (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Aspro, I'm not sure how relevant the legal situation in the UK is but, judging from our article on sweat of the brow, you have it exactly backwards. It seems like the 1988 Act may be read as intending to abolish sweat of the brow, but the courts have declined to interpret it in that way. Formerip (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Formerip: The OP states “A restoration takes between about 8 and 50 hours to do right” suggesting sweat of the brow as justification par se for a CC-BY. So should you not be agreeing with me when I state above that the courts have not upheld this yet -when applied to works already in the PD? You must differentiate sweat of the brow for artistic creations, against sweat of the brow technical restorations and read the Act as it was intended. --Aspro (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There is extensive creative work in figuring out how to fix elements 86.139.213.143 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That might well be true -but that is not something that the law recognizes in the 1988 Act. The OP's question is is about the law. Believe me, I would love it to be the other way around. I could then slap copyrights on everything that I have ever sweated over. Life can seem unfair sometimes - if you look at it that way - but most people get over it.--Aspro (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Aspro, just above you were arguing that we should ignore the statutory wording and now you're making the opposite argument. Excuse me for not knowing how seriously to take you. And isn't "sweat of the brow for artistic creations" a contradiction in terms?

I think you're conflating what's moral with what's legal. If Wikipedia is a reliable place to look for the information, then the OP quite possibly is the legal owner of his restoration under UK law: "one can acquire a copyright by expending skill, labour, and judgement, but no creativity or inventiveness".

Like I say, though, I'm not sure how relevant Commons will find that. Formerip (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Formerip: Where do you think I have conflated my Premises? Where in the 1988 Act does it say one can acquire a copyright by expending skill, labour, and judgement, but no creativity or inventiveness? Are you trying, not to create a proper copyright argument but a Straw man? You can see why people have ridiculed the two Texas Republicans who want to ban:[5] . It might find favour with people who live out in the sticks but not in the big cities where one's job requires clear logical reasoning.  :¬)--Aspro (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Read for instance the section 'Making News Together' in [6] which says "The court held that the effort skill and time expended by Dr Sawkins were sufficient to consider them original works in the copyright sense." An earlier judgement said shorthand writers reports of public speeches were copyright. Dmcq (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read the facts in that document it's pretty clear that this wasn't "faithful restoration" of a copyrighted work, there was substantial improvements and modifications, including adding new instruments, new base lines, and over a thousand other musical modifications to the original. If it was simply someone taking old analog tapes and converting them to MP3's and removing some minor audio imperfections like hiss and such, then that would be equivalent to the matter at hand. We're not talking about taking an image of a painting that was damaged and repainting part of the image to replace the damaged parts, or any other significant modifications during the restoration, that I've always said is probably copyrightable (probably because only a court would say so or not, not our place to rule on it), but for MINOR FAITHFUL REPRODUCTIONS, there's a difference here, the threshold of originality would need met, and even in the UK this isn't entirely trivial to meet. — raekyt 00:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding that case. It doesn't seem to be an audio restoration, but the correction and annotation of various written scores that had errors in them or of which no definitive version existed (ie he created hybrid versions for different sources).

On the other hand, audio remasters do seem to be copyrightable in the UK. If you're in the UK and own any CDs that have been remastered, check the copyright statement. Formerip (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said above they should include both the PD license for the US and a CC-BY_SA or other one one for the EU. Dmcq (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think it's questionable whether or not simple digital restoration is copyrightable, I see no reason not to allow the person who does the work to release their work under a Commons-compatible license if they wish. We already have tags, such as commons:Template:Licensed-PD-Art, which are used by institutions to release reproductions of public domain works under a free license. The point of such tags is that PD-Art law varies from nation to nation, and in nations where the PD-Art policy might not apply it is important to have a "fallback" license. I believe the same argument applies in this case - Adam's edits may be copyrightable in some jurisdictions, and content reusers in those jurisdictions would benefit from an assurance that the work is under a free license there. On the other hand, we should also be clear that in jurisdictions where that work is not copyrightable, content reusers are not obligated to comply with the license. Dcoetzee 04:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think commons:Template:Licensed-PD-Art is a problem, provided Adam is ok with it? It addresses my concerns making it clear that the work is public domain but may hold copyright in other countries, which is Adam's concern, I think. — raekyt 04:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this case is similar, but not completely identical, to the Licensed-PD-Art case, in that we are not addressing only copyrightability of a slavish digital reproduction, but also threshold of originality (whether his alterations rise to the point of copyrightability), which also varies between jurisdictions. As such a slightly different template might be needed, stating something like this: "This work has been digitally restored, and those modifications have been released under the following license: (license) In some jurisdictions the changes involved in digital restoration are not copyrightable, and complying with the above license is not compulsory." Dcoetzee 04:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If the text is changed to ""This work has been digitally restored, and those modifications have been released under the following license: (license) In some jurisdictions, the changes involved in digital restoration may not be copyrightable." I'd agree. Though I think it's ridiclously convoluted, as it's not like a CC-by license is at all restrictive, and it guarantees worldwide copyight status. But then, Wikipedia regularly states core principles (e.g. Commons attempts to be a repository of materials that can be used worldwide) then ignores them whenever it suits. 31.54.23.15 (talk) 10:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your page at pt.wiki

Hi, Jimbo. I think some changes are needed on your user page at pt.wiki. I was reading it and I could find a few errors; probably good faith mistakes when translating. Some sentences apparently don't have the desired meaning. I was about to fix that, but I don't see the text in English I can use as parameter. If you can provide a text, I bet there are a few users that could help on improving that page. A link to that text in English works (or, if you want an update, a new text is also fine). Regards.‴ Teles «Talk ˱_{@ L C S}˲» 08:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's techno black hole

Would it be too much to ask of Wikipedia that its basic editing tools be workable? The toolbar has been sliding from flawed to nonfunctional for a long time. Is this the Wikipedia black hole of space? At the moment, I can't do an "Insert" for the links here. Can't Wikipedia do better than this at enabling its editors? Maile66 (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Toolbar_bloopers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar_2.0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar_1.0

A kitten for you!

Hello:)

D vsquez (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)