Jump to content

User talk:Canterbury Tail: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MrX2077 (talk | contribs)
118 edits
MrX2077 (talk | contribs)
118 edits
Line 216: Line 216:
Reasonable inference, the reason why the transcript exists, is so that it can be discussed, therefore fair use to carry the transcript for the purpose of commentary
Reasonable inference, the reason why the transcript exists, is so that it can be discussed, therefore fair use to carry the transcript for the purpose of commentary
[[User:MrX2077|MrX2077]] ([[User talk:MrX2077|talk]]) 18:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
[[User:MrX2077|MrX2077]] ([[User talk:MrX2077|talk]]) 18:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: Your linked to [[Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works | Linking to copyrighted works]], I am specifically citing " Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use." "discuss the episode" provides the context
"

Revision as of 18:30, 19 October 2017

Note for all users I shall make any replies to comments on my talk page here on my talk page. I feel this allows everyone to see a consistent conversation rather than one spread across multiple pages. Please make new comments at bottom of page.

Archive 1 - Beginning to September 2006

Archive 2 - September 2006 to 10 January 2007

Archive 3 - 11 January 2007 to 25 April 2007

Archive 4 - 26 April to 2 July 2007

Archive 5 - 3 July 2007 - 30 October 2007

Archive 6 - 31 October 2007 - 15 March 2008

Archive 7 - 16 March 2008 - 31 August 2008

Archive 8 - 1 September 2008 - 26 January 2009

Archive 9 - 27 January 2009 - 13 September 2009

Archive 10 - 14 September 2009 - 21 January 2010

Archive 11 - 22 January 2010 - 29 June 2010

Archive 12 - 30 June 2010 - 15 April 2013

Archive 13 - 16 April 2013 - August 2017

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another FYI

I saw you reverted and left a warning for 175.103.25.137. See this diff and User talk:Dennis Brown#User:Scott Delaney? for additional info if you haven't seen it already. Thanks, Mojoworker (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hand of Ulster

Might I request that the article remain blocked for another month? Eireabu has finally decided to respond the day before it is lifted however it seems clear by what they said that they intend to continue on as before regardless. I have asked they either do it in a sandbox version or post it at the talk but I feel this will not happen and will result in what will be a borderline edit-war as I have little faith in their ability to present evidence without many issues. Maybe a prolonged block will encourage them to properly discuss it. Mabuska (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not block the article for the actions of one person, however I also don't have a justification to enact an ban on them editing the article. At this point I don't see a definite intent to be disruptive so I'd say see how it goes for now. Canterbury Tail talk 12:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they intend to be disruptive either, simply just ignorant of Wiki policies and guidelines. Mabuska (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note 4

There are no inbound links at Note 4. I'm thinking that turning that title into a disambiguation page makes sense. That would spare needing a hatnote on the Samsung Note 4 page. Does that sound reasonable? —C.Fred (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Came here for something else.... I also briefly considered the same. While thinking on it, Canterbury reverted so I moved on. What kind of page views does Note 4 see? -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada

Don't know if you're still watching Talk:Canada, but I'm on the fence whether the user's edit note on reverting the section would count against your warning to the editor. Editors shouldn't be referring to other editors by ethnicity in my view, but... -- ferret (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah that definitely counts, however they did revert it just 2 minutes later so they're at least aware and as a result I'm also on the fence. I'll keep an eye on it, but one more comment like that and they're out of here, and not temporarily. Canterbury Tail talk 02:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that got a little crazy. -- ferret (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely clueless. Still doesn't get it. Canterbury Tail talk 02:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SM Entertainment (2001)

I was never going to submit the article. I only made it as a projection of what SM article would've looked like on the day wikipedia launched (January 15, 2001.) I wasnt publishing in. it was a fan effort. At lleast let me screenshot it plz????-K-popguardian (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

seriously?

This is the source I have provided as a citation. https://www.thesun.ie/news/1017253/northern-ireland-politics-border-poll/

The citation says the following "A poll reveals 51 per cent back a vote over the North’s place in the UK at some point in the next five years."

It also references a border poll. 'Border poll' and "the Norths place in the Uk" can only mean one thing.

No that's your interpretation. The source does not equate border poll to united Ireland, and in fact at one point lists them as two separate items in "Arlene Foster and her party, the DUP, would not be in favour of a border poll or a united Ireland". To connect the two and reach that border poll and united Ireland poll is the same thing is your opinion and unless the source states that we can't have it on Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 11:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting the article. The "DUP, would not be in favour of a border poll or a united Ireland" does not mean the dup refers to them as different things. a border poll and an actual united ireland are obviously two diffrent things. How can you interpret that statement to mean the dup doesnt think a referendum on irish unity and a border poll is different? I cant help but suspect that you are being deliberately obtuse.

No I'm not interpreting the article at all, you are interpreting it. By interpreting it you're breaking WP:OR. Unless the source states what you're claiming it to you cannot use it to support a claim. See WP:OR, WP:Verifiable. Wikipedia is based on valid references, if the reference does not state the claim you are making then it's invalid. If you continue to re-add this OR material you will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 11:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. You claimed the dup think a border poll and a unity referendum are the same. In what world is that not an interpretation?

No I didn't, I just stated that the page text states them as separate items. Anyway lets take this to the article talk page where it should be. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you interpreted the dup as saying they are separate things.

Nope, I just quoted the appropriate line in the article that lists them separately, applying an interpretation would be WP:OR. Anyway we're almost to your point with the other reference, see the talk page, but just need to connect a few dots. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is obviously an interpretation. see interpretation

Clear case of WP:SYN. If the source doesn't explicitly state it then we shouldn't. Mabuska (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Sorry, I didn't see your final warning before placing a block on the user. I thought this was clearly an undisclosed paid editor, and the continued disruption was enough for preventative block. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 02:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry about it. I was very tempted to just block them outright myself but thought maybe I'll just give one warning and chance before indeffing them. I have no issues with you taking the step (and I'm actually surprised no one else did earlier.) Canterbury Tail talk 11:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion contested

I’ve contested your speedy deletion on the talk page of Klein (musician)—not sure how an artist can be considered non-notable when they’ve received lead reviews and features in no less than 5 major music publications. Get that fixed please. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archival from ANI noticeboard

As I'm not neutral or an admin on this I'm somewhat inclined to do nothing, however given the archival from ANI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&type=revision&diff=803704596&oldid=803703625 with the only communication from subject being a scumming of myself (or anything) I somewhat feel someone has to do something .. e.g. final warning ... block ... attempt to re-engage. Doing absolutely nothing is a bad precedent as likely encourages bad community behavior. Not really sure how to raise this issue ... Thanks Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC). Comment: Our friend down a couple of edits one of which was useful. He has also begun posting images of a railway (with caption of Irish language signs) to some Ireland related threads e.g. Tipperary. I have undone that andissued a uw:fringe3 to hope to nip it in the bud without going back to ANI at this point. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hippeas

Hello,

This user asked for a renaming on meta, and as a global renamer I handled the request. This kind of request is indeed very common, as the new username follows the suggestion for such an old username which implies a shared use (the policy for example states "Mark at WidgetsUSA" as an acceptable username). Litlok (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. There was no criticism, I was just genuinely curious as to the process of how the request came through. Cheers. I've unblocked the user now as you point out the username is now allowed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spsand reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: )

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Spsand reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: ). jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Blade Runner -- amendment

Your concern:

rvin appropriate commentary and personal opinion. Unless other reliable sources are heavily discussing or referencing this it's not appropriate.

Material in question:

With respect to Battlestar Galactica, there are two incidental facts: 1) Edward James Olmos starred in both Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica. 2) The use of phrase "skin job, a pejorative term directed to those who were not born by way of natural conception, in Battlestar Galactica is an homage to Blade Runner.

First of all rvin, maybe you should try to limit use of phrases that might be difficult to understand. I suspect it means reversing, I was unable to find an answer on-line.

Second, part one of my statement is absolutely a statement of fact he was in both shows. As for part two, in Blade Runner, the first use of the phrase was by Captain Bryant (M. Emmet Walsh) to Deckard (Harrison Ford) "I've got four skin jobs walking the streets." I am sure that is easy to verify. The reason why it stood out to me was his very abrasive manner in conveying the statement. By the way he also said "Either your Blade Runner or your little people" (side-note).

As for the copyright violation, that maybe an overinterpretation on your part, "Hollywood" in general is only concerned with exhibition of full-length television shows and films. I was only concerned with the text, or the transcript, which I never passed off as my work. If anything at all, I am not interested in the whole script, I just want one phrase that illustrates my point. With respect to copyright law, I invoke the fair-use exception, and I included the transcript to prove my point that the phrase was used, and also for the sake of discussion. It was not merely my word that the phrase existed. The reason I chose the site in particular, is that the transcript had speaker identifiers (As in who said what to whom?)

MrX2077 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(removed link to a site containing copyrighted content.) "rvin appropriate" should have read "rv inappropriate" where rv is Wiki speak for revert.
Olmos being in both pieces of work is certainly true, but has no relevance to anything, it's a pure coincidence and he wasn't placed in BSG because he played Gaff in Blade Runner and they wanted a connection.
The reference to skin job is certainly there in both works as well, but it's only your opinion that it's A) relevant and B) related. Wikipedia doesn't work from your opinion and view on this, only on what reliable sources contain. For it to be notable and used on Wikipedia, reliable sources out there need to be making that connection and talking about it. Showing a script that says BSG uses the term is not important. Having say Forbes have an article where they draw a connection between the two and expose on its significance is relevant and notable. Everyone on Wikipedia needs to be notable and referenced.
As far as the copyright goes, that site you linked to contains copyrighted information. It is illegally hosting a script of the show without permission and its hosting of that material is far from fair use. Wikipedia copyright policy as per WP:COPYLINK is very clear on this, it cannot be done under any circumstances. And you cannot claim fair use of a site that is breaching copyright. Canterbury Tail talk 18:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the bottom of http://sadgeezer.com/Battlestar-Galactica-Transcripts-Season-3-03-Exodus-Pt-1.htm

Discuss this episode in the 'Battlestar Galactica Forum'


Attention Webmasters: If you insist on stealing these transcripts for your own website without contacting us first, at least have the decency to place a link on your site to sadgeezer.com. (You know who you are!)

A Special thanks goes out to Boomer and TWoP for their gracious assistance in prepating these transcripts.

Battlsestar Galactica names, characters and everything else associated with the series are the property of Sci-Fi Channel, NBC Universal and R&D Television.

Reasonable inference, the reason why the transcript exists, is so that it can be discussed, therefore fair use to carry the transcript for the purpose of commentary MrX2077 (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Your linked to Linking to copyrighted works, I am specifically citing " Context is also important; it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use). However, linking directly to the still of the film removes the context and the site's justification for permitted use or fair use." "discuss the episode" provides the context "

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Canterbury_Tail&oldid=806103001"