User talk:Moonriddengirl: Difference between revisions
Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
*<small>''I'd like to cite this talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mia_Malkova] in addition to my own talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hanswar32] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "''if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, '''then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there'''.''" The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four ''15-month old'' examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding...Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree.''</small> |
*<small>''I'd like to cite this talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mia_Malkova] in addition to my own talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hanswar32] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "''if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, '''then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there'''.''" The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four ''15-month old'' examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding...Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree.''</small> |
||
*<small>''You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to '''''your''''' edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stormy_Daniels]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandi_Love] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative....It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormy_Daniels&type=revision&diff=660485540&oldid=660485359].''</small> |
*<small>''You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to '''''your''''' edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stormy_Daniels]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brandi_Love] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative....It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormy_Daniels&type=revision&diff=660485540&oldid=660485359].''</small> |
||
*<small>'' |
*<small>'''''What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that {{U|Scalhotrod}} justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone.''' I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time.''</small> |
||
*<small>''Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_Dee&type=revision&diff=661249800&oldid=661241187] --Ronz....Ronz Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. --Hanswar32''</small> |
*<small>''Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_Dee&type=revision&diff=661249800&oldid=661241187] --Ronz....Ronz Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. --Hanswar32''</small> |
||
*<small>''Another revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_Dee&type=revision&diff=661468086&oldid=661425330] --Ronz...You conveniently missed reading the edit summary which I purposefully left expecting your continued harassment and specifically wrote to the editor that ''I'm not going to revert you'' to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, and I didn't. I've already warned you on your talkpage, so if you keep harassing me and continue with your pitiful lies, nothing would be more satisfactory than seeing you endure another prolonged block to your history. --Hanswar32''</small> |
*<small>''Another revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sophie_Dee&type=revision&diff=661468086&oldid=661425330] --Ronz...You conveniently missed reading the edit summary which I purposefully left expecting your continued harassment and specifically wrote to the editor that ''I'm not going to revert you'' to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, and I didn't. I've already warned you on your talkpage, so if you keep harassing me and continue with your pitiful lies, nothing would be more satisfactory than seeing you endure another prolonged block to your history. --Hanswar32''</small> |
||
{{Collapse bottom}} |
{{Collapse bottom}} |
||
:::The above should give you some insight to my and [[User|Scalhotrod]]'s history with Hullaballoo and the reason for my April 12 reverts. It's my understanding that the 3RR applies to a ''single'' page over 24 hours, and whatever the case, regardless of the technicality of it, I seek to uphold the essence of the rule by avoiding confrontations and engaging in discussions to reach consensus as cited extensively above. Ronz however has failed to address or respond to anything in any satisfactory method, if at all, because he knows that what he's doing is a pathetic troll job to silence/harass an editor he disagrees with and it would be my pleasure to embarrass him once again if he decides to continue on with his foolishness and make a false report to ANI. [[User:Hanswar32|Hanswar32]] ([[User talk:Hanswar32|talk]]) 23:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
:::The above should give you some insight to my and [[User|Scalhotrod]]'s history with Hullaballoo particularly in bold and the reason for my April 12 reverts. It's my understanding that the 3RR applies to a ''single'' page over 24 hours, and whatever the case, regardless of the technicality of it, I seek to uphold the essence of the rule by avoiding confrontations and engaging in discussions to reach consensus as cited extensively above. Ronz however has failed to address or respond to anything in any satisfactory method, if at all, because he knows that what he's doing is a pathetic troll job to silence/harass an editor he disagrees with and it would be my pleasure to embarrass him once again if he decides to continue on with his foolishness and make a false report to ANI. [[User:Hanswar32|Hanswar32]] ([[User talk:Hanswar32|talk]]) 23:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC) |
||
== DL001E - DL-001 Primer on Intellectual Property == |
== DL001E - DL-001 Primer on Intellectual Property == |
Revision as of 23:53, 12 May 2015
Hours of Operation
About Youtube videos and copyrightThis is kind of a left-field question...and it's not necessarily Wikipedia-related,it might be more of a larger, ethical-edge issue. But it comes after years of trying to talk my kids out of listening to music that was clearly pirated. Supposing a Youtube song video is preceded by ads sponsored by what seem like major corporations? Home Depot or similar? Can we assume these were approved by the artist or the music publishing company that holds the rights? No hurry - it's just that I can't figure it out from G-searches. Hope you're enjoying spring, Novickas (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 April 2015
About copyrightHello. I mentioned you and your advice at User talk:Gamaliel and User talk:Adam Cuerden - about the user we were talking about, user:WPPilot's edits. Gamaliel is one of the main editors on Signpost and Adam is main editor responsible for Featured content at Signpost. I pointed out the issue in both places. I don't know if I succeded to explain how the correct attribution has to be done. I don't know that either. If it has to be done in the edit summary, then it is too late now. WPPilot is ideffed now, so I guess somebody else has to do this now. Hafspajen (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hafspajen, with a site like Wikipedia, we are all volunteers, and people who choose to take responsibility are the responsible parties. I can share your frustration and weariness, but I have no magic solution. :) The best I can do is tell you how to request review at the appropriate forum if you don't want to fix the problem yourself (that's WP:CCI). I wish I had the capacity to shoulder this and all the other copyright problems that come Wikipedia's way, but I don't. Due to issues in my personal life, my time volunteering is sadly truncated, and I spend almost every minute I have on here working on copyright problems. (I miss the days when I wrote an article every other day. Those were good times. :)) I know that there other volunteers who are similarly sinking in copyright work. Just look at the number of names we have listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. People care and care quite deeply, but there's just so few of us and so much to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
At the top of every issue of the featured content report, it says This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted to featured status from [date] to [date]. Text may be adapted from the respective articles and lists; refer to their page histories for attribution. I'm getting a bit annoyed. Under my watch, FC turned from something where everything was copy-pasted blindly to where most things are rewritten. I changed the header because consistency with using quotes to attribute wasn't happening, but, otherwise, I think we've been managing fairly high-quality reports for a while. I'm seriously considering giving it up, because Hafspajen has been deoing everything in their power to fling drama everywhere. Misquoting me, quoting me out of context, trying to pull me into disputes. I'm largely on wikibreak, and I'm still having to deal with major wikidrama, and it's been going on for months. I cannot handle this. Hafspajen: Drop the stick and step away. Please. This would have blown over three months ago if you hadn't made it your sole crusade to keep bringing it up over and over. And not to Gamaliel or anyone who could do anything, but to as many formerly unconnected people as you could drag in. I don't ask for a lot of time off of Wikipedia. But when I am taking time off, it would be nice if I wasn't getting constantly pulled into squabbles anyway through being tagged, pulled in, criticized for not doing things when I'm not freaking here and, worst, regularly misquoted and made out to have opinions I don't have. I wanted two months where I could just spend the little time I had for Wikipedia making sure Featured content worked, so I could spend time with my mother. What happens? Constant drama as Hafspajen actively picks a fight with another FC contributor, then brings people into it until he reacts, and they can use that as reason to ban him, throwing in a few other issues which never get discussed with him as everyone's rushing to help Hafs who started it. I didn't want to say anything, but that it's still going on, and Hafs is actively opening new threads everywhere still is getting ridiculous. I have an anxiety disorder, and I don't want freaking Wikipedia to be causing me anxiety on top of everything else. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl: As a minor point of possible interest, you don't mean a null edit, you mean a dummy edit. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you removed some text from this article which was copied from the website of the organisation. I think I can send a permission about this text, as I am working for this organisation. Would it be OK? I am a long term editor here. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The Signpost: 06 May 2015
About my articlesThank you for informing me about all the facts about copyright and etc. Yes, I apologise from all of you that, I had some problems in the past about copyrights of some photos and few articles. I think, all of them due to lacking knowledge about those stuff, because most of them did when I was just became a wikipedian very early times. But, now I have fixed all those wrong things and only my words are writing on created pages and existing pages. It is true that I got facts from many books, online newspapers, journals and other audio visual media, but I didn't cut and paste them. I photographed the photos that I uploaded now, but there were few incidents very early that I get directly from internet. But now, I can assure that recent photos that I uploaded are photographed by me. But, I never paste articles recently anywhere, only with my writing skills, I created the pages. So, apologize about previous copyright violations, but it will not be again. Thank You...(Gihan Jayaweera) Morton GouldHi, MRG. I was just looking at the Morton Gould article, and came across the Library of Congress page for his collection there. As part of it, there's a striking publicity photo dating from 1963, which has more information about it here. It doesn't seem to fall under the staff photo exceptions listed here, so I assume it's still under copyright. There's currently a photo in the article dating from later in his life (1980s?) - do you think adding a second non-free photo would be excessive? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Continued edit-warring by Hanswar32Hanswar32 (talk · contribs) is the subject of an edit-warring report that was archived without response from any admin, and only a single and brief response from any non-involved editors. You had blocked him, and then removed the block after he promised, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." He decided to continue with the edit-warring a month later ( [1] [2] [3] [4]) and has continued through the past month (including [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]), more than a year later. I am planning to take the case to ANI, but thought it might be best to notify you first and get your thoughts. --Ronz (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
DL001E - DL-001 Primer on Intellectual PropertyHey, I'm interested in volunteering in the IP area of this Wiki. I'm willing to take courses so that I can contribute in a valuable way. I'm looking into this course: https://welc.wipo.int/acc/index.jsf?page=courseCatalog.xhtml&lang=en&cc=DL001E#plus_DL001E. What do you think? --Syed Kazim (Talk | Contribs) 20:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
|