Jump to content

User talk:Bilby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs) at 06:34, 4 February 2011 (→‎Boyce McDaniel: Blocking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User
User 		Talk
Talk 		Gallery
Gallery 		Contributions
Contribs 		Email
Email

Template:Archive box collapsible

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Email

Hello, Bilby. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Echoedmyron (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Photo of Jessica Watson

Hi Bilby: I would appreciate if you talked to me first before reverting my recent change of photo at Jessica Watson. I spent a lot of time, setting up the photo which I uploaded, corresponding with the Australian author of the photo and giving my reasons at [[File:Jessica W.jpg]], why I could not obtain permission for the Creative Commons license, and instead had to settle for "fair use."

Please reply and tell me why you object to my photo. I thought it was a better image. The one you put back is rather dismal-looking and does not do Jessica any favours. :-)

(P.S.) ...just read your note at the Talk Page. Yes, I understand the rules, but I also believe in exceptions, and for lack of a better word, this sucks. I tried hard in three emails to convince the author to go with our Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and she would not bite. I don't see why, but she was somehow spooked by the fact that others could reproduce or modify her photo at will. Anyway, if you insist, then I will concur, as I have no stomach to put up a fight over something so trivial. --Skol fir (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you it would be much better, and I would love to use it. But this, unfortunately, is a policy where we don't have any room to move. I've also been caught by it when trying to convince people to release photos for us, and I have argued at times that I'd rather see no photo than a bad one, but it is something that is basic to how we manage the licenses. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, not worth fighting for. I tried to do Jessica a favour by presenting her in a better light, especially now that she was chosen as Young Person of the Year in Australia. To dig into the trash bin and place a dumpy photo of her on her own page at Wikipedia, is rather embarrassing for Wikipedia. ...leaves a bad impression, like this is some kind of rinky-dink operation, instead of a professional enterprise. Anyway, I have said it, and that's that. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After pondering your statement above, I went to Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people and found this argument for not deleting photos of living persons that were "fair use." -- "The copyright holder may allow Wikipedia to use the image, thereby nullifying any claim that Wikipedia could face legal action for using the image." This happened in my case. It is all there in my justification at File talk:Jessica W.jpg. The owner of the photo gave me permission to use the picture FOC under "fair use" provisions. This might help me in my attempt to at least thwart deletion of the file, aside from not being able to place it in the article itself. That's obviously another issue. We'll see how the admins handle this one. --Skol fir (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm worried I might have given you the wrong impression - if I thought we could do it, I've be very happy to fight to include the photo. :) You are entirely correct about the quality of the current picture, and a new one would be great! The problem is that the rules on this only allow for a small number of well defined situations where fair use images of living people are allowed. The problem isn't with getting permission from the copyright owner, but as I understand it, the problem is that non-free images conflict with Wikipedia's free use licenses. Thus local consensus can't override this, as it isn't so much a content dispute as a legal policy, and that gives use little room to move. In this case, the problem comes down to the first of the criteria for the use of non-free content, as there is both a free equivalent (even though it is of much lower quality) and it is conceivable to create a new free photo (especially as she is a public figure).
I find it frustrating as well: I would really like to use a photo I took of Sonia McMahon's dress, but the rules at the Powerhouse Museum only allow me to license it under a "non-commercial use only" agreement, and that also runs into the same problems as fair use. However, I guess there's nothing Wikipedia can do about legal restrictions. - Bilby (talk) 07:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Watson owns her boat

There is no confusion here. I just got an email this morning, from the manager of Jessica Watson, Andrew Fraser, that she now owns her boat. What do you mean by mixed sources? I have just updated an outdated reference by receiving personal communication as of today. I don't see why you call the sources mixed, when the original source was just wrong, as of today. It might have been right a year ago. You have a strange way of deleting a perfectly justified edit.

Bilby, if you need proof, I can forward the email from Fraser through to you on our internal email system.
--Skol fir (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, personal emails aren't verifiable, so normally they can't be used. Most of the time this means we fall back to whatever the reliable sources say, and in this case I can find sources in June, 2010, stating that Don McIntyre owns the boat, but only hints after that suggesting that Jessica does. My assumption is that Don may have donated or sold the boat to her, and that would make some sense, but I thought the safest bet was just to say nothing given that situation with the sources. You can raise it on the talk page if you like - I'm very happy to stick with whatever the consensus is. - Bilby (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see BIL found a source - that's fixed then. :) On it's own I wouldn't be comfortable with it, as it doesn't say that she has purchased the boat so much as had signed a deal to do so, but combined with your email that should be fine. - Bilby (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, BIL added a reference to my reverted edit. That should resolve it for now, at least for the story behind the purchase of the "Pink Lady" by Jessica. As for the personal communication, it was an aside that Fraser made to me in his email, not related to another matter we were discussing. I can't give you a reference for that, because it is not yet "in print." :-) --Skol fir (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding the original speech

Hi Bilby. Thank you for locating the original speech from January 26, for the Jessica Watson article. I was trying to remove a whole bunch of dead links and in replacing this one, all I could find was the one from the Courier Mail. Actually, if you read the entire speech, Kevin Rudd also said, "Jess Watson is a remarkable young Australian" in the paragraph following "extraordinary." So both I and the reporter had our reasons. Thanks anyway. We can leave it at "extraordinary." That's just as good, if not better! --Skol fir (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You're doing a wonderful job! I just figured I could help out on that one, as I was curious about the difference in the quote between the primary source and the secondary one. :) But it is great to see someone [read?] them. - Bilby (talk) 01:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My last edit was long on "grammar," short on spelling (in the edit summary). :-) BTW, it is my pleasure to help out here on this article. I figured that the photos that I uploaded will be approved by the OTRS system shortly, and therefore submitted them here for your enjoyment. I got the necessary approval from Andrew Fraser for a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. That should satisfy the admins, once they process my email to the OTRS (which could be up to a month in my experience!). Hopefully, the watchdogs will not pull my photos prematurely. If that happens, I will just keep bugging them! lol --Skol fir (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, I used the "Article Blamer" tool to see who originally submitted that quote from Kevin Rudd, and it was BIL: Jan 26, 2010 13:05:10 -- (/* Criticism */ direct source to Prime Minister Kevin [Rudds] speech, hopefully he is [noteable] enough for a quote to be allowed.) What BIL replaced was this: "Jess Watson is a remarkable young Australian." :-) What goes around, comes around, a year later!! lol
I guess we let that one go, it being BIL! :-) IOW don't argue with someone who speaks Swedish, English, passable Danish and Norwegian.
--Skol fir (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

MfD nomination of User:Bilby/Bonghan system

User:Bilby/Bonghan system, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Bilby/Bonghan system and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Bilby/Bonghan system during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali

That's great! Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I was looking for accounts of his death, as I couldn't get the one you were looking for, and came across that picture. Took a while to figure out the copyright status, but all should be good - I'll clean it up tonight when I get access to better equipment. On the original topic, I do have some reports of his death, if it helps, from Australian newspapers of the time. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. I have no Australian sources at all. Maybe they will have new material. Can you email them to me? Just in case you can, I'm sending you a blank email now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're all from Trove, so I'll just send along the URLs. Mostly they're just covering news from the UK, as he was remembered from his Australian visit. There were mentions in other databases here and there, but they were almost all in regard to the recent show. - Bilby (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've only had time to look at the first, but it's great because it has a large quote from the daughter including her indicating he was 49 when he died, which I had only found once before (more confirmation that the 100 or so sources saying he was born about 1892, can't be right [see the first footnote in the article). Second, I didn't now Trove existed. I will use it in the future. Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love Trove. :) The nice thing is that the Australian papers in the late 1800's early-to-mid 1900's received news directly from the UK, so they didn't editorialise so much as simply report what they got. Thus Trove can be surprisingly useful even in articles that aren't directly related to Australia - although it seemed Hadji Ali had a connection anyway. I'll try and do some restoration work on the photo today - I tend to enjoy that, and I loved the picture. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boyce McDaniel

Thank you for your continued work on the article. I am honestly confused as to how block quotes could ever be a "copyright infringement"? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I might butt in, the deletion does not appear to have been about the block quotes but about the main content. Text in the article was directly copied and pasted from sites such as this one, without any quotation marks telling the reader that they were reading a quote. Citing a source for the content does not tell us it is a quotation; it only tell us that the information (not the exact words used) can be found ("verified") from the source. If all that content was placed in quotes that would still be a copyright infringement because it would quote far too much text to constitute fair use. To answer the actual question—"how block quotes could ever be a "copyright infringement"?" (again, though, I don't think the block quotes were the issue), I think you're confusing copyright and plagiarism. If I were to take Stephen Kings latest novel and republish it without copyright permission, but I put a huge notice on the cover "This book was written by Stephen King which I am quoting in its entirety", and I also put that notice at the top of each page, I would not be plagiarizing but I would be infringing Stephen King's copyright. But what if I only quoted half of the book in this manner? One chapter? Two pages? Somewhere along the line we would say this quote is short enough (the purpose of the use is also important but let's not get bogged down in complexities) that it falls under fair use and, while the text remains copyrighted, the limited quotation is not a copyright infringement. So, length of quote is an important copyright consideration. Bilby may clarify of course. And Bilby, sorry if answering this here steps on your toes. Since I had left a message above, when I stopped back, I saw this one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. The article had a paragraph which introduced a block quotation of McDaniel discussing his views on dropping the bomb on Japan. That is nowhere in the webpage that you cited. Your response is an argument that a quote can get so long that it can't be claimed to be a fair use. However, the three quotes were of a defensible length. There are three obits written about McDaniel and each is slightly different, but they all cover his life in chronological order. I wrote a fourth which is slightly different, but also covered his life in chronological order. There are some details in the sources that are left out of the Wikipedia article. There are some details in the Wikipedia article that are left out of the three obits. The Wikipedia article included three block quotes -- all of which are deleted, when by definition, they could not be copyright infringement. If there is a sentence which Bilby feels is too similar, I can understand and can adjust. But here, after going to great lengths to rewrite the article completely, Bilby's deletion requires close examination and thought. I don't see any argument that the Wikipedia article was a derivative work, because it combined an attributed selected facts from a number of sources. Chronological presentation is not copyrightable, and facts are not copyrightable. Racepacket (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Racepacket and Fuhghettaboutit. I'm always happy to have anyone get involved in conversations here. :) In regard to the problem, when I'm concerned about possible copyright issues, what I normally do is go through each line and compare it to the source, removing it if it is overly close, then I look at whether or not rewriting is viable. I much prefer to write articles than remove stuff, so I'm always hoping that I can fix things rather than cutting them back. In this case there were multiple sources being used, but each line came clearly from one of them, typically being very close to the original. When I had removed the lines that were a problem, the blockquotes, which were fine by themselves, had no context, so I felt that the best move was to return it to a stub and expand from there. It's never pleasant, as I understand how much work goes into these, and it certainly wasn't plagiarism in any way as everything was sourced, but unfortunately a rewrite wasn't possible without a fresh start. - Bilby (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) No, I am not talking about the block quotes. Take a look at this version of the article The first paragraph starting with "McDaniel was born in Brevard, North Carolina. He graduated..." is a near word-for-word copy of this obit (note that slight variations in language are still copyright violations). Take a look at the second paragraph that starts "McDaniel had finished his doctoral thesis..." This and the next sentence are a word-for-word copyright violation of this obit. Later in the paragraph, the sentence that begins "which helped identify the amount..." is also a copy from this source. The next paragraph that starts with "In 1946, McDaniel joined the Cornell faculty..." is again word-for-word copy from the first obit above. This patent infringement continues throughout the rest of the text. So forget the block quotes. Now, let's be even more explicit. You added all this infringing text, as shown from the article's page history, and I am troubled that you have over over 13,000 edits and apparently don't understand the problem. Crap. I just looked at another article you started at random, J. Andrew Noel, and immediately found it to be riddles with copyright violations. Well I am warning you here, since I know you are following this thread: If I find that you have added any further copyright violations to any articles in the future, I will block you from editing. Meanwhile, I am constrained to start looking at your edits in more depth. Bilby: I am sorry to hijack your page like this, and will move further comments elsewhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of "patent infringement" which is a term of art. When describing certain items there are not many acceptable alternatives in language. (For example, a "pair spectrometer" is an unavoidable term of art.) The selection of facts and the order of presentation are very relevant for determining copyright infringement. I will take a look at J. Andrew Noel later and will post a new version of Boyce McDaniel on a subpage. We are all in agreement that the block quotes are fine, which are the basis for my question. Racepacket (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't the use of "pair spectrometer" which is the problem, but the similarity of the wording and sentence structures in which it appears. Block quotes, as Fuhghettaboutit points out, are fine so long as they aren't overused, but the core problem is to do with overly close or identical paraphrasing from the sources. - Bilby (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Racepacket: my use of "patent infringement" was poorly stated because of the understandable confusion it could cause. Patent (pronounced pay-tent), as in clear, palpable, conspicuous, clear-cut, flagrant, glaring, obvious, etc. Not patent (pronounced pat-tent), as in the intellectual property concept of protecting an invention or process.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the ambiguity. Is IP law a big part of your practice? A lot of this turns on the difference between permissible fair use under US law and Wikipedia's policy preference to avoid any possible claim of its content being a derivative work of another source. The Boyce McDaniel article was clearly sufficiently different to avoid any copyright liability. The subjective question is whether it meets Wikipedia's higher, subjective standard of not being close to being a derivative work. As I said, I will leave a rewrite on a subpage and ask Bilby to review it before I move it to mainspace. Please see my response posted your talk page about Noel. Racepacket (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're not understanding at all. This is not an image where we're trying to figure out whether WP:NFCC applies. This is text. There can be complexities when you get into certain grey areas but we're not here about anything like that. We're here about blatant, on their face copyright violations—yours—direct cut and paste of paragraphs of copyrighted text. None of this has anything to do with the "difference between permissible fair use under US law and Wikipedia's policy preference"—absolutely nothing. The fact that you continue to argue that the content of this article may not have been a copyright violation, in fact are risibly saying things like "The Boyce McDaniel article was clearly sufficiently different to avoid any copyright liability", this coming a year after you were investigated for large scale copyright violations, means to me that you are incapable of editing Wikipedia in a manner that avoids violating copyrights. This is text from the article as it stood yesterday (and just one example from others to choose from):

"McDaniel had finished his doctoral thesis at Cornell in 1943, researching the absorption rates of neutrons in indium. While the U.S. government did not classify the thesis as secret, McDaniel and his thesis advisor, Robert Bacher, understood its implications for weapons research. They marked each page "secret" and locked two copies away in the university's library"

And this is text from http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/02/5.16.02/McDaniel-obit.html

"McDaniel had finished his doctoral thesis at Cornell in 1943, researching the absorption rates of neutrons in indium. While the thesis itself was not considered classified information by the U.S. government, McDaniel and Bacher understood its implications for weapons research. They marked each page "secret" and locked two copies away in the university's library."

Does that sound familiar to you?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arging with Bilby, I am asking him a question with the goal of resolving a problem. I have printed out and compared the two documents and am going to post a rewrite on a subpage for Bilby to review. Based on Bilby's answer to my question, I will retain the three block quotes. Yes, the Boyce McDaniel article is sufficiently different to avoid any copyright liability. The same principles of copyright law apply both to images and to text. Wikipedia has made a policy choice, which I accept, to go beyond what is required to avoid copyright liability to also seek to make the articles completely reusable in any nation and to avoid any claim of being a derivative work. I defer to Bilby to apply the Wikipedia criteria, which is different from US copyright law. Until I did the side-by-side, I had not looked at the obit for a year. If you want to try your hand at rewriting the Boyce McDaniel article, I will be happy to step aside and let you. Otherwise, I will post one on a subpage for Bilby's review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought, before anyone presses the "save" button, they should ask, "How would I feel if this talk page became an exhibit in a court case?" Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your message above, confirming not only that at this late date, a year after your past CCI investigation, that you misunderstand copyright compliance, but that you will argue for keeping in your own past copyright violations, and the fact that having done a little investigation, I see you are serially adding infringing text to articles currently (I will list a few below for third party review), I am blocking your account indefinitely.

        February 2, 2011: Diff, with content ripped from here;

        January 27, 2011: New Article, with text with content ripped from here;

        January 26, 2010: New article, with content ripped from (the subject) here;

        January 12, 2011: Diff, with content ripped from here;

        January 9, 2011: Diff, with content ripped from here (and here, from here);

        December 20, 2010: New article, with content ripped from here;

        December 19, 2010. Diff, with content ripped from here;

        November 27, 2010: New Article, with content ripped from here;

        (arbitrary stop).

Given the above, which was not difficult (though laborious) to find, it's obvious another CCI investigation is needed, picking up the day after the last one ended. The shame is, there's lots of good edits in between, but this can't be allowed to continue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bilby&oldid=411933043"