User talk:Lifebaka

Hello!

Please add new comments in new sections. I will respond to messages here unless you ask otherwise. Or, if you're notifying me of a problem, I'll probably just fix it and leave it at that. I can also be contacted by email.

Your assistance please

I got the email you referred to in Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives.

Thank you for your explanation that you do not want to take a position on whether or not the original list was copyrightable.

I hope you will take the time to answer some other questions arising from your closure, or related to this discussion.

1. I thought DRV was generally the appropriate venue to ask for discussion as to whether our policies had been followed when material had been deleted.
2. I thought that DRV was specifically the appropriate venue to ask for discussion as to whether the policies on deletions on perceived copyright violation had been followed when material had been deleted.
3. If DRV isn′t the right venue, would you mind suggesting to me a venue you consider more appropriate?
4. If DRV is the most appropriate venue, would you mind offering a suggestion as to how to seek resolution on this issue... Do you think it would be appropriate for me to ask for this DRV to be re-opened? If you think it is appropriate to ask for it to be reopened, do you think you are an appropriate person to ask to consider reopening the DRV? And, if so, would you please consider it? Thanks.

I hope you dont mind me asking you about a phrase you used. You wrote: “I have placed below the portion of your user page which is not an identical copy of Appendix II of the Brooking study.”

In the context of intellectual property rights I am happy to trust your judgment that the subpage was an "identical copy" of Brookings's study. From a practical point of view, though, hadn't the subpage been very heavily wikified? I think the revision history gives a hint as to how much effort I put into wikifying the sub-page. I have done a lot of work on the Guantanamo captives' habeas corpus petitions -- hundreds of hours. This subpage in userspace was part of the scaffolding to support those efforts.

The admininstrator who deleted this subpage seems to have taken a position that I think is strongly at odds with our policies, and with our long-standing conventions. It seems to me that the deleting administrator thinks it is appropriate to hold subpages I have created in userspace to a higher standard than that we require of articles in article space. When a legitimate, policy-based concern is voiced about an article in article space, and then that concern has been adequately addressed, that article is allowed to remain in article space. The deleting administrator′s position seems to be that if they once voiced what they regard as a legitimate, policy-based concern over subpages I have created in userspace, they can delete that subpage, even if their stated concerns had subsequently been adequately addressed.

The material you emailed me consisted of the sentence, "178 habeas petitions were cited, most only once." followed by the list of the names of those 178 habeas petitions. That list of petition names hasn't the remotest trace of copyrightability. In my opinion my sentence is brief enough that I would never claim it was copyrightable. IMO it is just below the border of de minimus.

As I believe I noted, in the DRV, there isn't a single passage on pages 69 through 84 that anyone could claim was protected intellectual property. Like my list of 178 habeas names it was purely the product of collation. There was no spark of creativity. The names of the captives are "facts" -- not copyrightable. The names of their habeas petitions are "facts" -- not copyrightable. The titles of the newspaper articles the Brookings authors used as references, the authors, the dates, the publications, all the bibliographic material are "facts" -- not copyrightable. Pages 85 through 90 contain some phrases, sentence fragments, more brief than the sentence you sent to me by email, that the deleting administrator claims are copyrightable. What was I thinking when I created this subpage? Did I decide those passages were too brief to merit being considered intellectual property? Or did I simply overlook considering the question altogether?

I dunno. Being emailed a copy of my source might help me remember. But, I suggest, if we honor the principle that if material once raised a policy-based concern, is subsequently fixed, it is allowed to remain, even if the deleting administrator's assertion that the half-dozen passages repeated on the final pages were long enough to merit copyright protection this page could be made compliant with trivial effort. As I believe I suggested in the DRV, if the those passages were excised, or if I replaced all those passages with a phrase I drafted, then the page would be completely compliant with COPYVIO, even if the deleting administrator's assertion those half-dozen passages were copyrightable.

Yes, I haven′t forgotten that you chose not to address the question of whether the material was copyrightable. But I believe even if , for the sake of argument, the page contained some copyrightable passages, the page could be made compliant with COPYVIO, with trivial effort.

The Brooking's tables were collated before the DoD published an authoritative list of which captives were, and which captives weren't still in custody in Guantanamo. It was superceded by a "Consolidated list". So the list is of very little value for determining who remained in Guantanamo when it was published. What it is of value for is for collating which captives are named in which habeas petitions. It is an area of our coverage of these topics that, in my opinion, needs more work. And this table -- the wikified version of this table that I was using in userspace is of great value to me. It is potentially of great value to anyone working on our coverage of the habeas petitions.

So, I request you reconsider your decision to only email me this portion of the deleted material. Would you please consider emailing me the full text of the deleted material? Geo Swan (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alida Vázquez (1931)

I was the author, and it would have been nice if I'd gotten a notice that this had been submitted for deletion. She's a woman composer listed in other encyclopedias, so should be automatically important enough to be covered in Wikipedia. Pkeets (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Could you reinstate this article? I'll add more indications of importance.Pkeets (talk) 01:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Problem waiting to happen

In search of advice by an administrator, I've stumbled across you, the person that welcomed me to Wikipedia many moons ago. I'm having 'trouble' with another editor. (S)he's clearly biased, and actually explicitly acknowledged that several times! During a discussion about an edit or piece of text, it's difficult to not get sidetracked by the many (I guess) flamebaits and off-topic comments made by that editor. In the few places third editors have responded, they have 'sided' with me, actually validating my arguments. However, up till now, it has never escalated, or resulted in a out-right conflict, so I'm not sure it there's anything Admin Powers (tm) can really solve at this point. I can give specifics (names, places, ...) if needed, but I guess in all fairness we'd have to involve that other editor too then, and I'm not sure if that's what's best right now. --DanielPharos (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(bump) Down MiszaBot, down! --DanielPharos (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi

We are all volunteers, and you are certainly entitled to take a couple of days off. After waiting a couple of days I thought it was appropriate to ask for help from other administrators, and I did so here.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been emailed the full source. I would still like to have the issue of whether it was a copyright violation resolved. Geo Swan (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad this got resolved, and I am sorry I was not here to take care of it for you. I should have been here to finish what I started.

Regarding my DRV closure, my intent was simply to direct discussion elsewhere. I don't believe that the users at DRV are well suited to make large decisions about how we handle copyrights here at Wikipedia, which appeared to be what you were after. If you have not done so yet, a discussion at WT:COPYVIO about adding some text over there about whether or not lists of facts should be considered copyrightable content under our policies. I should have stated my intent earlier, rather than leaving it to be guessed at. Again, I apologize for muddying the situation. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not regard the situation as resolved. Geo Swan (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistaken, then. I suggest you seek assistance in one of the various placed on Wikipedia where those knowledgeable about copyrights gather, in order to receive properly informed opinions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

help

• Hi, can you look at here? I edited page for pictures but IP user always change it, but page is not visual i think. (my english is not good sorry for this). thanks. --Hedda Gabler (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Googleisawesome and User:Channel 6 - circular sockery

Hi,

You seem to be the admin who blocked User:Googleisawesome and User:Channel 6 for disruptive sockpuppetry, so I thought I would bring this to your attention. Hope that's ok. It's just that I noticed that there is some confusion looking at their user page and talk page as to whether they are blocked for abuse of sockpuppets, or blocked because they are sockpuppets. Indeed, one message on each seems to indicate that they are sockpuppets of each other. Now, don't get me wrong, whoever this is has clearly done some massive abusive sockpuppetry, and I fully support a block, it's just that it seems precedurally problematic that it's not clear which one is the 'master' account, should they ever request an unblock. It might be worth just deciding that the oldest account is the master account, and making it clear that they are blocked for sockpuppetry (and could request an unblock) whereas all the other accounts (and there are loads!) are blocked as sockpuppets and therefore are never likely to be unblocked. I hope that makes sense, and you see what I'm getting at. Thanks.--Korruski^Talk 12:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Shmeat revision request

Hi,

Could I respectfully ask you to explain why my article on "Shmeat" has been deleted, and returned to redirecting to "meat analogue"? This is completely inaccurate -- it would be better to delete the article altogether, though what I wrote is fully accurate (as I explained on the talk page).

I would like to ask you to re-consider, and re-instate my article.

Thank you,

Andrey