Jump to content

User talk:Primetime

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Primetime (talk | contribs) at 18:28, 7 June 2006 (Proof that "J," and "C" Aren't Copyvios). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vandal

His edits after you wrote the note were even worse. I've blocked him until he says he's ready to play nicely. Most likely just a passing vandal though. -Will Beback 01:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just did not understand the process. Sorry! Not an act of vandalism. Hope that there will be a list of architects of malian origins as there is a list malian writers.

This is just a reminder that you've made 3 reverts to Lolicon. If you make any more you will be blocked for WP:3RR. (I've made my three reverts too.) Ashibaka tock

You're very welcome. Good luck with the cause. Keppa 23:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., I really appreciate the (unsolicited) support you've given Colors (Band) and Voice Male, two articles that I started. Keppa 20:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embarazada

Hi Primetime. I'm writing this here because I thought it wasn't relevant to the AfD discussion. I wanted to reassure you that my reasons for mentioning the fact that you'd written messages to inclusionists asking them to vote were not personal - I mentioned it because I genuinely thought it was relevant to the discussion. I understand that people who look at AfD are not a cross-section of the community, and I do not see anything wrong with telling people that there is a vote going on - as long as one does not intentionally tell only those people who are more likely to agree with you, as they are inclusionists. This, I believe will skew the vote. Anyway, I hope there are no hard feelings. ConDemTalk 05:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Mauñel Azaña y Díaz.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mauñel Azaña y Díaz.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 14:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

Well, granted the fact that I haven't touched it, I think it says plenty (though I can't find it, so thats another matter altogether). No idea if the rest of the community will follow suit though -- Tawker 08:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very happy with your edit to Lolicon

Hi Primetime. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Lolicon, restoring the version preferred by soon-to-be-banned troll User:The Psycho and a new anon IP account. You know, I took the time to write a fairly lengthy description of why I made my original edit. But you didn't address that, on the talk page or even in the edit summary.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm going to need some justification for what you did, OK? Thanks. Herostratus 21:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gee, I didn't mean to sound threatening above. Given the fraught history of the page, I think it was a reasonable request. I would think that you would welcome the chance to offer a cogent explantion of your reasononing, under the circumstances, lest people mistakenly think that you are merely trolling pedophilia. So anyway, thank you for responding. Your statement that you "don't care about my lengthy explanation because I'm not an administrator" has the virtue of being, well, honest, as well as unique. Not, however, that of persuaviveness. Reverted.Herostratus 02:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 (UTC)

NPA

Herostratus' comment on Lolicon, while not entirely civil, was not a personal attack. Your warning was removed. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture placement

I'd strongly suggest that you use the talk page more and revert less. - brenneman{L} 06:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Civil War image

I'd like to know more about an image you uploaded, Image:Nationalist soldiers capture Republican troops.gif. Which action does it depict? I'm working on Spanish Civil War battles, and I'd like to find a place for it in an appropriate article. Albrecht 22:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no problem. I'll see what I can do with it. Albrecht 16:49, 12 April

re Lolican talk page redaction

OK, fair enough, thanks for the heads-up I didn't summarize or alter your comment text in any way, I just moved it, cleaning up the page, but as I noted if that wasn't OK with anybody, fine. I thought it was clearer before, but whatever. I did re-add the new section for use of those editors who want to use it.

I don't get your reference to God. I'm a Unitarian, as it says on my userpage. You don't have to believe in God to believe that there are evil things in the world, I don't think.

Yes I had already gathered that you're here to help other people decide what to believe. I prefer to let them decide for themselves, but to each his own. Herostratus 11:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 86.128.222.36 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

We've had a small edit conflict. It seems the List of Shock sites debate wasnt closed yet; ive reverted your closing. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you want when you're editing; I couldn't care less. But don't lecture me on what's appropriate and don't tell me what I "should" be doing. Proteus (Talk) 21:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm wrong, am I? Perhaps you should read the MoS a bit more carefully, in particular the bit where it says " The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style." Proteus (Talk) 10:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embarazada

Sorry I missed your message. I have not been online in a while. Glad the outcome was "Keep". Please let me know of other voting proceedings you may need help with. LisaSastro 00:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religious fanaticism

Would you care to explain your revert of Loom91's sensible changes without a shred of explanation on the talk page? On WP we don't summarily chuck other people's bona fide work. At the very least, you should have explained your opposition and worked carefully to retain the changes that you did not object to. As it stands right now, I think the article violates POV and attack rules by naming specific practices of specific religions. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 18:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

list of shock sites

That's three reverts. Better quit now. - brenneman{L} 05:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just got your message, but as I was reverting the article an admin protected the wrong version. I'll keep an eye on it and revert it as soon as it's unprotected, unless someone beats me to it. Skinmeister 06:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites/Uncited

Are you even looking at what you're reverting. Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln, why would you care if the links had "http" in front of them? The notice at the top is appropiate, and making a pseudo-subpage is actually a measure of good faith on my part. Verification policy is unshakeable, and that material wasn't verified as being a "shock site" so policy allows it to be removed outright. If you want to be taken seriously, choose your battles, don't do pointless reverts like that one. - brenneman{L} 06:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your tireless effort on commenting on the list of shock sites article. There seem to be three disruptive users who are actively working against the consensus about this article. Keep up the good work. - Abscissa 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAI2U

The page does not appear to contain any information about the owner's anonymity, the identity of the model, her acting background, how its popularity has spread, or when the site started. Please check out the talk page, however I'll refrain from further removals to give you a chance to fix these problems. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Rollback'

Without wishing to comment on the edit itself, do remember that the use of automated rollback for non-vandal edits, such as this is seriously unpopular. Although you are not an admin (right?) ArbCom has reprimanded admins for using rollback in situations such as this, and really the same thing goes for using non-admin versions of it. -Splashtalk 01:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, brother

I've been sinking the boot into you something shocking the last couple of days. We're both clearly interested in what's good for the encyclopedia, so I'll try and not run roughshod over you as much in the future. If you're at all interested in hearing how I think that you could change your behavior, I'm happy to comply, but not unless you ask.

I always welcome criticism, constructive or otherwise. I know that you find fault with many things that I've done, but that at least I'd think you agree with. Tell me when you think I'm doing things wrong. I may not stop, but I will always listen.

brenneman{L} 04:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of themed timelines

Thanks for the note at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of themed timelines. I try to maintain transparency always, and should have thought of that. Oh, and it's re-opened, by the way. Next time don't be afraid to ask me to reverse my closes on my talk page.
brenneman{L} 03:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites

Hey ... I see you disagree with my edits, but I wish you hadn't simply reverted everything. But, whatever. You're interested in this article. I think it's obvious that not every single link on that page is worth including. I'm interested in hearing what you think, and having a discussion on the talk page so we can make this article as good as possible. Mangojuice 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

embarazada

No me puedo creer que un hablante que se define como de un nivel casi nativo pueda transcribir embarazada así como "ehm bahr ah ZAH dah". ¡Qué pecado más grave! Lo cambié a [emβ̞αɾα'θαð̞α] según el AFI. ¿Qué te parece? – Andyluciano 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Es que... Los vocales y los consonantes en español son muy pero muuuy diferentes de los del inglés. Eso de transcribirlo como si fueran palabras inglesas no tiene mucho sentido. Yo tampoco soy hablante nativo pero en mis experiencias yo sí sé que si lo pronunciaras así en un país hispano no te llevarías muy bien. Los vocales no son aspirados con [h], los consonantes B, Z, y D son muuuy diferentes, y para representar eso el AFI es mucho mejor. – Andyluciano 02:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shock Sites

Hey -- you haven't responded to some of my discussion and edits; could you let us know what you think on the talk page? I've culled out some of the clearly less remarkable sites, much still needs doing, though. Mangojuice 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I noticed you removed the sockpuppet tag from User:Skinmeister. I know it doesn't look like much, but the evidence that was there was an outcome of a checkuser request, which means that that "likely" is backed up with lots more evidence than we get to see; this is the way RFCU works. I'm not reverting it, I just thought you should know... if someone reverts it back, don't get into an edit war over it, it's not worth it, trust me. Mangojuice 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Primetime. You are about to violate WP:3RR, colleague. `'mikka (t) 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


question

I was wondering if there was any way to find out why the Vernon Buckley pages and The Maytones pages were deleted thanks Chinamanjoe 03:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I speedied them under A7 (band with no assertion of notability). --InShaneee 03:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel it's neccisary, go ahead and recreate and AfD The Maytones, but I don't think that Vernon Buckley needs that treatment, as per WP:MUSIC (as it essentially states that artists should redirect to their bands page until they gain notability outside of their band, and that article was only one or two lines). --InShaneee 03:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ARE A SLAVE OR JUST NOT CONSCIOUS PRIMETIME!

wake up
see
AND
dont revert the changes i do
unless you know better
and even then
tell me
ask away

mfg

Pavao (Paul) Skalić

I must inform you that Paul (Pavao) Skalić WAS NOT GERMAN AUTHOR!!! He was born in Croatia, also his name is old croatian surname Skalić, so HE CAN NOT BE GERMAN!!! Regards,


And also, don't look too much in a Britannica- it is full of ignorance and mistakes like that!

They also have information that Croatia has only about 129 square miles of a sea- the real fact is more than 30 000 square Km.


RENS


Thanks for your understanding Primetime! It's good to see that someone can understand good arguments.

Two or three notices for you before I leave...

Surename version Skalić is, in fact, the original (Croat) spelling of that name, while the other you have mentioned is only one redaction of original.

And one beneficient advice: chech the all informations that you find in a Britannica, and compare it with other sources more times before you publish something. I don't wish to insult someone, but that encyclopedia is full of mistakes and ignorance- especially concerning smaller nations and countries.

For instance, you'll find there that we (in Croatia) have fought in a "Civil war" during nineties- which is absurd, hence we were attacked by Serbian forces that were in command of Slobodan Milošević

So, to conclude, don't believe anything you read- sometimes you must do your own research.

Regards,

Rens, Pula, Croatia


Pavao (Paul) Skalić

Primetime, I don't doubt it that that's what is written in that encyclopedias (Americana, Britannica...). But what is the problem with Anglo-American, and western encyclopedias in general- they all transfer same wrong informations one each from another, and then you have a transfer of mistakes all arround. It's unfortunate that people on west can't read oter languages, in this case Croatian- in Croatian Encyclopedia, where you'll be able to confirm that this information isn't false. One information I think you should know also- Croatian institutions are among the most serious in the field of encyclopedic work on the region of Central- South Eastern Europe, with old tradition of publishing encyclopedias of all kinds.

But there's one general shame of all western encyclopedias- they simply don't want/ manage to recognise anything done by anyone who's not from major countries like GB, Germany, France...

There are many contributions in so many areas of Croats, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, etc... but they always have to struggle for their's recognition!

Again, he was born in Croatia, and was ethnical Croat. On the end, I must note you once again - Skalić is old known Croatian surname, you will not find any native German with that kind of slavic surname ( all other versions are germanized surname)- it's time to correct this major mistake and injustice on Wikipedia- free encyclopedia (free also, I hope, for smaller nations than Germans, English, French.)

So please don't be as same ignorant like many people that love to call themselves as a experts...

Regards,


Rens

Rens, I'm sure Skalić is an old Croatian surname, but every book I've looked at says his name is Skalich, Scalich, or Scaliger, and all say he's German. Croatia is not very close to Germany, so I don't see how they could confuse the two. I first thought you meant "Czech." I would be willing to change it back if there were a reliable source saying that he was Croat, though. I can see that you are very knowledgeable about encyclopedias, and I agree about Britannica being unreliable at times, but Americana is a very reliable source. I know some languages, like Spanish, change the names of some people when referring to them in their works. For example, Queen Elizabeth of England is called "Reina Isabela" in Spain. Perhaps the Croatian book you read simply spelled his name as Skalić? Then again, him being German versus Croatian is a different matter.

Regards,

Primetime 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Primetime, I know that you must be thinking that we're taking a credit for someone who's German, but it is not the case. You are right when you say I know a lot of about encyclopedias, but, in fact I know even much more, especially about Croatian culture, science, history etc. hence I'm a professor on a Croatian studies, I can assure you that Skalić is Croatian. Why he's in some encyclopedias presented as a German, I just don't know- that's their problem with accuracy of information they are publishing to the readers. Yes, I do have reliable informations which confirm he's Croat in croatian very reliable sources, but it seems that Croatian sources are not in a same level with american, british or of other major nations for you and people on a west, inspite of fact that Croats should be in a first line to judge who he really is hence his surname is Croatian, not German, also a fact that he was born in Croatia. Even all that versions of surname you are mentioning aren't of German caracter in any scence, yet Croatian. That's the fact that any linguist will confirm to you easily in any country.

So we got a dilema. It seems that you recognise that he is Croatian by his surname and by his born place, but still are willing to accept false, inaccurate informations from "Americana" or some other anglo-saxon related source, rather then to accept logic of common sense and information from "little more" educated professor in that field, who is, happens to be, from Croatia- country where Skalić was born and where he lived in Zagreb ( Croatian capital).

That means that "Americana" and other closely related sources mean much more to you than confirmation of one university professor with full professional indemnity. I know that is hard to accept that there are many false informations regarding some matters in many western encyclopedias that are repeating frowardly inspite of many suggestions for correction from professionals, but it's simply the fact- well known to many intelectuals from smaller countries, but I don't know why and how, these kind of mistakes are present to this day in many encyclopedias.

It is unfortunate fact that there's absolutely nothing done to correct that, and many other false informations. I have allready illustrated you how come that you'll find as same type of mistakes in many encyclopedias- they simply transfer as same false information one each from another and, by some time, that informations become "scientific facts", but that kind of practice undermine basic truth which is always bad thing to happen! As it seems they just don't care whether they publish correct or inaccurate informations concerning small nations- any way, that kind of facts aren't important enough to be presented correctly! That is real shame and injustice!

As same kind of "professionalism" is to blame why, for instance Nikola Tesla, one of the greatest scientists and inventors in a world history ( he invented modern system of AC electric power, which is in use in all arround the world, and many other inventions on a field of electricity and electronic) is relatively unknown in USA, while Tomas Edison is credited for many things, inspite of fact that Tesla is responsible for modern transformation of our world in such a profound way that it shouldn't have been as same that he didn't lived!

You can correct this kind of long held iniquity by supporting real truth about Skalić, who is not German! You know, there are some thing that should be credited to a smaller nations.

Regards, Rens

And one more thing. Do you know where is Croatia to make such a constatation that Croatia isn't near Germany. Croatia was for many centuries first neighbour of Holy Roman Empire which was ruled by the German dynastyes, also for many centuries later in control (rule) of one dynasty which held the crown of that empire. You should look for that informations more carefully, and got to find out much more about croatian history. But it is not you to be blamed for, it's a general problem of western educational system which is very negligent concerning smaller nations history.


If you insist so much on a citation, here you are a web site of CROATIAN MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY where you can find one scientific project that shows very well that Skalić was Croat:

http://www.mzos.hr/svibor/6/01/334/proj_e.htm

So check for yourself.

Regards, Rens

There's no reason to get upset about it. We maintain a higher standard of accuracy on the "Encyclopedia" article than on others. We've even had it professionally reviewed. I admit that I don't know very much about Croatia. What I meant when I said that it wasn't "near" Germany was that it isn't right next to it, like Poland or the Czech Republic. I didn't mean to imply that his name was Croat, either. What I meant was that I believed you that Skalić was a Croatian surname but that Scalich seemed German (I have no idea, really). I looked on the site you just mentioned and it does say that he's Croat. However, I checked a fourth encyclopedia in Spanish, the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 19, (1930) page 1166, and it says that he's Hungarian! The Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th edition (1911) page 169 says he's "an Hungarian count" (you can view the page here but you'll have to download AlternaTIFF here first). I couldn't find him under any name in any biographical dictionary, though, So, it looks like his heritage is uncertain. So, perhaps I can add a note that various sources have said that he is Croatian, German, and Hungarian.

I agree that it would be a great injustice to your country if Skalić were really Croatian, but his heritage was thought of as German.--Primetime 18:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, did you read what I have written to you. If you were you wouldn't be confused like that. Linguistic doesn't make such a mistakes, it's simple - Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian Slavic construction of surname- you can chech if you want- ask any linguist, even better croatists or other slavists!

Other thing- who do you think is someone born in ZAGREB, Croatia- can it be that he's Hungarian ( Only if Zagreb is in Hungary- which is not the case!).

Other thing, Skalić had in his name also one adverb "de Lika". Lika is, to be informative for you, one region in Croatia. You will not find region with such name in Germany or Hungary, so it's very curious how far can ignorance go- that he is even Hungarian- UNBELIVEABLE RUBBISH!!!

That would be as same as I consider Newton ( who was born in England) as a German, or French, for instance... Sadly, but european encyclopedias are even much more filled with false, incorrect informations.

I guess, it must be that he's "Hungarian" hence Croatia was, for a few centuries a part of Hungarian kingdom- so some "professionals" assumed that this is enough to call Skalić Hungarian! That's the absurd statement at it's peak!

If that is the way as on which "serious science" in some european countries handle historical facts, I must say that I'm absolutelly stupefied with a level of that kind of professionalism, if we even can call it with that name!

I just imagine how much "accurate" informations do some european encyclopedias have about, for instance, Arab countries and their's history!

Oh, I have to quote one famous croatian poet: " Znanje je vrlo krhko!" ( Knowledge is very fragile!). So, think about that, if you have failed to recognise all very logic explanations I have mentioned to you. And, do as what you wish to do - go ahead on a same path of falsification of history if you aren't able to meet this reasonable arguments!

Regards, Rens

  • Yes, I did read what you wrote. I really don't understand why you're getting so upset about this. I'm American, and my country is probably the least understood in the world. People who know nothing about my country hate it intensely. The reason that such misunderstandings occur is that most people don't have enough time to read the details about every country in the world. I'm unique among my countrymen in that I can even point out on a map many of the countries we are discussing. If you want to get upset at someone, it seems like maybe it should be these reference works. Maybe you could write them an e-mail about this, or something. I'm just telling you what they're telling me.

    Anyway, I just checked, and Lika does appear to be a region in Croatia. I believe they may be referring to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. I just added a footnote about the whole controversy to the article. Let me know if it looks OK. I think I may add a note about the matter to Scalich's article on Wikipedia, as well. Let me know if you object to that, also. I hope there are no hard feelings. Best wishes, Primetime 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pavao Skalić

Yes, I do object! He's heritage is absolutelly certain:

1. He was born in Croatia- there are original municipal documents to confirm that,

2. His surname Skalić, Shalich or any other redaction is Croatian slavic construction- any linguist, slavist or croatist would confirm that,

3. That surname is of old croatian heritage, and there's many people with that surname even today in Croatia ( on a contrary there was/is no Germans or Hungarians with such a surname and that surname construction isn't present in any of that languages!),

4. With his name, he had an adwerb "de Lika"- Lika is Croatian region (you will not find that name nowhere in Germany and Hungary!),

5. In all croatian encyclopedias you'll find he's Croat, noone of scientists - slavists, croatists and linguists don't think he is German or Hungarian,

You can insist on a same false ( also very absurd!) informations of Skalić, which is shame for such a encyclopedias, and go on with a spread of forgery of history- intentional or not, but always destructive from the prospective of truth!

There are no hard feelings, but the truth must be uphold as it is! You are making controversy on a artificial way. Yes Croatia was part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, but does it mean that someone born in that time in Croatia is of Hungarian or German ethnical.

Does it mean, for instance, that Strauss, who was born in Austro- Hungarian empire was Hungarian, think of it little!

And to inform you, in that time (16.th century) there was no any Austrian-Hungarian Empire, only Habsbourg Empire (consisting of many ethnic groups; Slovaks, Austrians, Hungarians, Czechs, Croats, Polish etc...). So you must see how wrong is that constatation that someone born in a common empire under domination of Austrians ( later in 19th century also of Hungarians) is only by that Hungarian, German or something else.

I think you can't understand concept of countries, ethnic groups and nations in a Central Europe as same as some western encyclopedias.

On the end one historical information- Austrian-Hungarian Empire was created just 1867. with the confirmation of Austro-Hungarian agreement.

A year later 1868. another agreement was signed between Hungary and Croatia, which gave some kind of authonomy to the Croatia.

Regards, Rens

I understand, but try not to revert all of our changes. We moved the statement up so it is in the etymological section. We also made it somewhat easier to read. Also, what I meant about the Austro-Hungarian Empire was that it existed at the time the older reference works I cited were written. (The EB 11th edition was published in 1911, and I'm guessing that the volume of the Espasa was written around the same time [being that the initial volumes were published between 1908 and 1930.]). Regards, Primetime 21:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. Do you mind if I add a note about this to Skalić's article?


Pavao (Paul) Skalić

Unfortunatelly your encyclopedias show exactly what does many people in your countrie/s think of smaller nations and theirs contributions to the world science, culture etc.

Transfered to the conventional language- THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO BE FAMOUS INVENTORS, SCIENTISTS, OR SIMPLY, TO BE CREDITED FOR NOTHING AT ALL. If it occurs that someone from smaller nations did invented something or is to be credited for something- HE MUST THEN BECOME GERMAN, ENGLISH, HUNGARIAN... ANYTHING BUT THAT EXACT SMALL NATION AS HE IS, HENCE IT IS EGREGIOUSLY THAT SOME CROAT, SLOVAK, SLOVENE, SERBIAN... TAKE THE CREDIT FOR SOMETHING !!!

Anglo-American and western world intended them only the role of some third-class nations, which is unfortunately very common thing at west. IN THAT SCHEME THERE'S NO PLACE IN BRITANNICA, AMERICANA, OR SOME OTHER WESTERN ENCYCLOPEDIAS FOR CROAT PAVAO SKALIĆ, ONLY FOR GERMAN PAUL SCHALICH, OR MAYBE HUNGARIAN- BUT THAT's NOT SO INPORTANT - only that matters is if he's not Croat!

At the end, I have to say that I'm not angry on anyone, but very dissapointed with the western official science which constantly ignore smaller nations and their credits, and I'm also dissapointed with western common sense...

Regards,

Rens

WHY ?!

Primetime, why do you always revert this version I have created. Didn't I presented enough arguments for that constatation? Why do you bother to put Skalić in text and to mention that he is Croat...

After all of time spent on a presentation of very reasonable arguments...? T IS NOT UNCERTAIN ORIGIN! YOU ONLY CREAT ARTIFICIAL CONTROVERSY- ISN'T IT TIME TO STOP WITH THAT ABSURD DOING!

Rens

You do make reasonable arguments, but that's the Espasa, Encarta, Americana, and Britannica that all say otherwise. We both have a lot of evidence pointing both ways, thus, the origin is uncertain. I agree with you that Britannica has had problems with accuracy (Espasa as well), but I have never noted the same problem with Americana. Reference works usually require multiple sources, and other encyclopedias don't usually count. You are a professor and I'm certainly not, but even professors disagree with each other every once in a while.

Also, I apologize if I seem a bit fastidious. I really got into this because I like researching things (it's like an adventure for me). I also walk by the library everyday on my way to my classes.--Primetime 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It's time to start to encounter a problems, hence Americana isn't doing nothing else then transfering as same false informations as Britannica. When such a famous encyclopedias, like Brtannica and Encarta publish false informations- a lot of other encyclopedias take infos from that encyclopedias as a truth- then incorrect informations can spread like a disease all arround the globe! That's the case with your precious Americana!

And also, you are traying to say that you, from America, have as same quality of arguments on someone that was born in my own country, than I am!!! That is pure ignorane, not to mention arrogance! After all presented arguments of pure common sense, you're still blindly reffering to a obviously false informations!!!


Unfortunatelly your encyclopedias show exactly what does many people in your countrie/s think of smaller nations and theirs contributions to the world science, culture etc.

Transfered to the conventional language- THEY DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO BE FAMOUS INVENTORS, SCIENTISTS, OR SIMPLY, TO BE CREDITED FOR NOTHING AT ALL. If it occurs that someone from smaller nations did invented something or is to be credited for something- HE MUST THEN BECOME GERMAN, ENGLISH, HUNGARIAN... ANYTHING BUT THAT EXACT SMALL NATION AS HE IS, HENCE IT IS EGREGIOUSLY THAT SOME CROAT, SLOVAK, SLOVENE, SERBIAN... TAKE THE CREDIT FOR SOMETHING !!!

Anglo-American and western world intended them only the role of some third-class nations, which is unfortunately very common thing at west. IN THAT SCHEME THERE'S NO PLACE IN BRITANNICA, AMERICANA, OR SOME OTHER WESTERN ENCYCLOPEDIAS FOR CROAT PAVAO SKALIĆ, ONLY FOR GERMAN PAUL SCHALICH, OR MAYBE HUNGARIAN- BUT THAT's NOT SO INPORTANT - only that matters is if he's not Croat!

Rens, calm down. I'm saying your word has the same weight as Americana or Britannica. That's why I wrote it was "uncertain". It doesn't matter to me what country you're from (China, Croatia, England, whatever). What matters is that you're a professor, so you're obviously knowledgeable. I hold no bad opinions about Croatia, because, like I said, I'm not knowledgeable about it. It confuses me when you speak of "the West" because I always thought of Croatia as a part of "the West" and countries like China to be part of the East. As far as I'm concerned, you're one of us. I do know that Croatia also has done better economically than many other Eastern European countries since the fall of communism. As for reliability, though, keep in mind that Encyclopedias don't reference each other--they tend to obtain their own sources.--Primetime 23:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, but you believe in that that encyclopedias don't reference each other?! You shouldn't be so naive ( don't take this as a insult), they are doing exactly that- I have some contacts and know that very well! My words should have much more significance, since it matters from which country you are in this subject. Skalić was born in Croatia, so it is of importance for reason that scientists from Croatia should be much more precise in his biography that seconnd,third... hand Britannica and Americana.

Also, it's not the right solution just say that his origin is uncertain while there are many excellent arguments (excluding obviously false informations in Americana and Britannica) presented on a base of common sense (not some infos from some encyclopedias) that he is Croat

How come that people in America just don't use their own brain anymore to figure something? Why do you all toughly repeat something you have read -inspite of many excellent evidences that this is false?

I find that offensive. The evidence are the six encyclopedias I just cited. I think it's common sense not to ignore the research of others! Do you honestly think I'm going to disregard all those prestigious writers because some anonymous guy told me otherwise? I don't even know who you are.--Primetime 23:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Would you also jump from the bridge if one hundred people do as same? Think of it! What would be if someone present to you absolutely reasonable arguments for something which are in opposition to your six encyclopedias! How would you'll be acting?! Follow something as a taperecorder, or decide to use your own brain! If it soud you as a insult- you should know that you left me no other choice!

Rens

I have used my own brain, and have judged the argument to be undecided. Two of the sources that I respect (Britannica's 11th and the Espasa) contradict the other four, and that government site offers a third opinion (although its spelling of his name is different). Perhaps you should argue with the publishers, and not me, though? I'm not a spokesman for them, you know.--Primetime 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, you are only a tape from dictafone! Just don't use any common sense, it's so much dangerous! For instance I don't believe something I read in any encyclopedia if it is in a colision with a common sense and arguments! Real guestion is, why do you people on the west let so easily others to think for you- and you automaticly accept that what you read- if it is published in a "respectable" source. Is that the way on which Bush convinced you all that Iraq is a "AXIS OF EVIL", or on which way he/other one will convince you to go in a aggressive war against someone else, inspite of voice of common sense!? Think of it!

Rens

That's ridiculous. This isn't Croatia. Everyone's different in America. We're arguably the most diverse country in the world. I'd probably die of boredom living in a country like Croatia, where no one is creative enough to be different. My American friends have called me gullible before, and I agree with them, but I'm not so gullible as to take the word of some anonymous guy over some pretty-reliable sources. As for Bush: he was elected last time with only 51% of the vote, and many voted for him (including myself) because there were only two choices. I admitted that I don't know much about Croatia (although I do know you were OK with being ruled by someone much worse than Bush--Tito) now it's time for you to admit that you know nothing about America. So fess up.--Primetime 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Skalić (Skalic)

The anonymous is correct, AFAICT. It is true that Croatia was not an independent country at the time, but it is also true it was a country, and it is true that the Croats did exist at the time (perhaps not as a modern nation that they are today, but certainly in some form). This kind of confusion in old encylopedias when it comes to assigning origin to people has been known to happen - for a time, the adjective "Hungarian" was bluntly applied to all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary regardless of whether they were Magyars, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians or other. In this case, thankfully, the etymology of the surname is fairly clear. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(Also same case with the countries ruled by the Germans, or with people of smaller nationalities/ ethnic groups!)

That's what Joy thinks about this matter. As far as I'm concerned, this argument that four modern encyclopedias have same information doesn't give any credibility to it (false informations should be corrected no matter where and how many times published)! Formerly in many encyclopedias there was a lot of informations in relation to the ex Soviet block and about many countries which were a part of it, with a numerous false informations, all in that and similar prestige encyclopedias. Same case was with Yugoslavia and many republics (today independent countries) which were parts of it.
How much accurate can be, for instance Encarta, shows perfectly one exampe; it is said there ( don't know which edition exactly) that Josip Broz Tito was born in a Zagreb which is unbelivable nonsense since he was born in Kumrovec- village near Zagreb, in Zagorje region. In that village you'll find a memorial museum dedicated to him in his family house where he was born.
Another example of false informations; in one of that encyclopedias you'll still maybe find one absourd geographical information- that Croatia has only as 129 square miles (!) of a sea ( true fact: more than 11600 square miles, around 3100 miles of seaside and over 1000 islands). :In fact Croatia is a country of a numerous beautifool beaches with very high income out of tourism annually.
There are many other examples of a inaccurate informations regarding Croatia, but also about many other countries, esp. smaller ones.
In any case, what's wrong with mentioning the disagreement? Everything I wrote is true. It is a fact that those encyclopedias say these things. How are their writings about him not relevant to him?

Also, I should mention that you are undoing our changes too many times. It's against the rules to undo someone else's changes more than three times in a day. It looks like you may get blocked from editing because of that, but the block will probably be for only a day. If you are blocked a second time, though, it would likely be for two days or a week.

Finally, I want you to know that I intend to research this matter further and will request several books from my library's storage area that I think may hold the answer. The reason I am willing to do this is that I think Scalich is not Croatian. Sincerely, Primetime 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are in this way insulting any Croat (esp. academic one) by constantly deny such a huge thing as that he is Croat! That would be as same as to point that Thomas Edison isn't American. It is not only me who think he's Croat, there are many linguists, croatists, slavists... numerous scientists. Didn't you read my message regarding encyclopedias and it's mistakes- doesn't it incite you on a thinking on it's credibility? How come that you are so frowardly against any rational expalanations and arguments etc... also against him as a Croat- Is it so hard to imagine that some small nation has to be credited for something?! Is it ethnocentrism and arrogance of big nations so hard to prevent them to admit something to someone else and also that they do make mistakes ?

I am not against arguments. In fact, if you had not made them, I would have deleted any mention of him being Croat and would have wrote in his article that he was actually German. If you want to help your country, and if you are indeed an expert on Croatia, I would suggest expanding topics in our encyclopedia on it. Wikipedia is by no means complete, in fact, it lacks much of the cultural information found in some print encyclopedias. I would also recommend that you give everyone an impression that Croatian people are polite and respectful of the beliefs of others.

I just requested three books from my library's storage warehouse that I think may provide the answer. If they do not, I will submit a question to Google Answers. I am very confident I will be rewarded for my efforts.--Primetime 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]



All of that is Ok, but I'm not confident in western related sources at all, hence I was shocked for too many times with obvious mistakes found in, for instance Encarta, Britannica, some also in Americana.Did you read two or three examples of wrong informations I have mentioned to you? What is you though on it? Also must say that I'm not very optimistic you'll find anything at all about Skalić on Google (normally this kind of search portals isn't mine choice), at least not something reliable. But I am already sick of telling people that there are many infos about smaller countries in a prestigious encyclopedias that are false (you are not the first one). Many people, for instance come in Croatia in a basicly wrong conviction- founded on a too many Britannica or... informations, and then when they see or explore things themselves they figer out how many incorrect things is written.

I just checked my 2001 Britannica CD-ROM for the statement about the area of Croatia and it says "The total area of the country is 21,829 square miles". The online version's area reads the same.[1] I believe you that the error was there at one time, though, as I've found errors in Britannica as well, but something that I think both of us should realize is that Britannica is on average more accurate than any human being, including you or me. The vast majority of information I have read in it has been true upon double-checking. Everything I have read in Americana has proven true, as well. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, but you shouldn't dismiss it out of hand so readily, as they're more accurate than you think. As for Google Answers, that's a research service you pay to use, whereby another person will try to find an answer to your question.--Primetime 21:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Smith

User:Quentin Smith didn't vandalize List of ethnic slurs. He split it in two. The page still contained links to each half, List of ethnic slurs/A-M and List of ethnic slurs/N-Z. The intent was probably to avoid half of the wait while loading an unusually large page. That's debatable but well-intentioned, and I explained on Mr. Smith's talk page that it wasn't vandalism. Art LaPella 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culchie

Any particular reason you tweaked the definition of culchie? I have never heard a culchie call another culchie a culchie. It's solely a Dublin phenomenon. Saluedo 20:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culchie2

I am from Dublin and I have asked my culchie friends and they agree. The users of a language know better than any book. I will change it back. Saluedo 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Busted

Son, you've been caught. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned the source of your thefts (the Dictionary of Literary Biography) right on your user page. Reinhard Sorge, N. Scott Momaday (here versus here)...do I need to continue? --Calton | Talk 00:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very disappointed. Plagiarism is a poor activity for a scholar. Now that I review your contributions I appreciate that you have improved the project by finding images and copying them here. In those cases you had no trouble acknowledging the source, and only using appropriate, public domain material. I don't understand why you were not able to do the same with written material. Even 1911 EB has to be acknowledged. If you do sneak back, please don't add any more plagiarized material. In any case, thanks for the contributions. -Will Beback 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Will!! You're the first person to thank me for contributing to Wikipedia. That means so much to me. You are truly a great friend. I don't want to have to sneak back, though. Wiktionary was a playground for me and I always tried to be on better behavior here because I wanted to edit here forever. I also found it hard to get along in Wiktionary because it's easy to get tired of other users. There's no room to breathe there and it's easy to take things personally because everyone knows each other really well. In any case, I can actually prove that many of my articles (e.g., "Fiat", "History of the Spanish Language") were written by me in classes at my school. I can e-mail anyone the MS Word documents. Other articles are clearly original (e.g., "embarazada", "spic"), as they have sources listed at the bottom and are not found in any book.

Another administrator blocked me because he said he wanted to prevent me from creating any new articles. If that is what they're concerned about, I am absolutely willing to give a guarantee that I will not do so. I wish to continue sourcing words on that list as well as uploading public-domain images. I have also many articles on my watchlist that are obscure and unwatched by others.--Primetime 06:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Is there something else you wanted to say about respecting intellectual property rights in the future? Art LaPella 18:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will respect intellectual property rights on Wikipedia and not copy from any source ever.--Primetime 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would really help us if you'd give us a list of the articles that you did copy. -Will Beback 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But thank you for the promise. Art LaPella 20:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios and sources

Let's start that list, shall we? Coming clean is good for the soul -- and the only way you'll get unblocked if I have anything to say about it.

What are the sources of your additions to/creations of the following? If you say you wrote the additions or article yourself, please supply the actual sources of the information you used -- ALL sources.


Your old user page had a list of articles (where I pulled the above list from), with the intro, "Non-stub articles to which I am the principal contributor (some of which were edited by me under other user names as well as under my old IP address [emphasis added])" What are those "other user names" and IP addresses? Do these include the following?:


If you have done any copyright violations not listed above, now would be the time to list them. Candor counts in your favor; lack of candor doesn't.

Bear in mind that any claims of original work will be investigated -- and not just using Google. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuses

I am in receipt of your e-mail: to paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, you're not right; you're not even wrong. Stow the paranoia and paper-thin rationalizations, and demonstrate the tiniest shred of integrity: fewer excuses, more action, please. --Calton | Talk 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline

In any case, I can think of no bigger waste of time than spending hours in a desperate attempt to remove information from an encyclopedia. The articles aren't hurting anyone right now. (From Primetime's e-mail to me, referenced above)

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you actually believe what you wrote above and you really don't understand, I suggest you make an appointment with one of your professors or with your academic advisor and put the question to them. I have no doubt that the professor is going to be aghast, and that you're not going to like the professor's answer.

But son, I really have better things to do, so here's the deal: you have 48 hours to respond in a meaningful way (not whining, not offering up fresh excuses, not concocting new rationalizations for intellectual theft, NO delaying tactics) or I'm just going to go ahead and suggest that all of your contributions here -- every single one, including those of the suspected sockpuppets -- be deleted, because then you'll have shown you can't be trusted -- or don't truly care.

If you want to save what is genuinely your work -- if any -- now is the time to step up to the plate, or else it goes into the bit bucket. Your choice. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

John Abbey

W.L. Sumner, "John Abbey: Organ Builder", The Organ, xxix (1949–50), pp. 122–7

Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 1. p.230

Bernardo Davanzati

Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 17, p. 1092.

Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti, vol. 12, p. 410.

De Roover, Raymond. The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Matteo Pantaleoni, University of Bristol, <http://www.ecn.bris.ac.uk/het/davanzati/davanzat.htm>

Here is the bibliography from the article:
  • Boldizzoni, Francesco. 2004. L'anatomia politica di Bernardo Davanzati: prospettive sul pensiero economico del Rinascimento, in Cinquecento moderno, ed. Marco Cattini, Cheiron, no. 42. De Roover, Raymond. 1963. The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank. Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press; Galiani, F. (ed.) 1750. Della Moneta. In Della Moneta e scritti inedite, ed. Alberto Merola, Milan: Feltrinelli, 1963; Harrison, John. and Laslett, Peter. 1965. The Library of John Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
Why don't these two lists match? -Will Beback 08:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because a bibliography is a list of works recommended for further reading, not a list of sources.--Primetime 08:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an odd way to format a bibliography. Why didn't you cite your sources? -Will Beback 09:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Guide to layout#Sometimes bulleted bibliographies don't work. In that post, I proposed changing the Manual of Style to allow prose types. I think the paragraph format often looks more elegant when the bibliography is short. When it gets too long, it's best to list it though. As for sources, no one likes to do that because it adds little to the article and takes a long time. I tend to do it only when I forsee conflicts, like at "Spic," where you'll notice I included a list of "Works consulted" which came quite in handy when along came IP Address. Other names of such lists are "References" or "[Foot/End]Notes." If I've already written a school report with them included, I throw them in then, too.--Primetime 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd that you added so many bibliographic references, plus selected works, but not the sources. Well, anyway, there's a pending question about the articles that you did copy at the bottom of the page. -Will Beback 09:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Coralli

Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol. 15, p. 453.

"Coralli, Jean." Encyclopædia Britannica

Salvatore Quasimodo

"Quasimodo, Salvatore." Encyclopædia Britannica.

Lind, L. Twentieth-Century Italian Poetry, 1974.

F. J. Jones, "The poetry of Salvatore Quasimodo," Italian Studies, 16 (1961): 60-77

F. J. Jones, "Quasimodo and the Collapse of Hermeticism," The Modern Italian Lyric (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1986), pp. 512-561.

Ramón Menéndez Pidal

Diaz Plaja, Guillermo, A History of Spanish Literature, New York University Press, 1971

Biografías y vidas. <http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/m/menendez_pidal.htm>

"Menéndez Pidal, Ramón". The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.

Sergio Marchionne

"Saving Fiat," The Economist, December 3, 2005, p. 64, vol. 377.

"Company Profile: Fiat S.p.A.," Datamonitor, May, 2005, p. 18.

Wilhelm His, Sr.

Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 1. p. 230

Great Soviet Encyclopedia, vol. 6, p. 621.

Pascual Ortiz Rubio

Dulles, John W. F., Yesterday in Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961

Paolo Fresco

John Tagliabue. “Will GE’s Fresco Bring Good Things to Fiat?” The New York Times. September 12, 1999.

Luca Ciferri, "Fresco Brings Taste of New World to Fiat," Automotive News Europe (August, 1998) vol. 72, p. 6.

Anastasio Bustamante

Bustamante, Carlos Maria de, El gabinete Mexicano durante el segundo periodo del presidente D. Anastasio Bustamante. Mexico City: J.M. Lara, 1842

Costeloe, Michael P., La primera republica federal de Mexico, 1824-1835. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1975

Pedro Almodóvar

(Other sources are provided in the text.)

International Who's Who, 1990-91

Hopewell, John. Out of the Past: Spanish Cinema after Franco (1986)

Smith, Paul Julian, Desire Unlimited: The Cinema of Pedro Almodovar, (New York, NY), 1994.

Bouza Vidal, N. The films of Pedro Almodovar. Instituto de la Cinematografia y las Artes Audiovisuales, Ministerio de Cultura, 1988

Society Islands

Harold T Stearns. Comparison of the geology of the Society and the Hawaiian Islands Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 1978

E S Craighill Handy, History and culture in the Society islands New York, Kraus Reprint Co., 1971.

Second Spanish Republic

Gabriel Jackson, The Spanish Republic and the Civil War, 1931–1939 (1965)

Paul Preston, The Coming of the Spanish Civil War: Reform, Reaction, and Revolution in the Second Republic, 1931–1936 (1978)

J

Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, p. 2313-15

Colliers Encyclopedia, vol. 13, p. 419.

Clodd, Edward, The Story of the Alphabet (1901; reprint, R. West 1979).

Diringer, David, History of the Alphabet (Newbury Books 1983).

The Teams

Wright, Judith, New Land, New Language; An Anthology of Australian Verse p. 11

Murray-Smith, Stephen, Henry Lawson, Lansdowne Press, 1962.

Retentivity

Gibilisco, Stan. Physics Demystified (2002) p. 358.

Gibilisco, Stan. The Illustrated Dictionary of Electronics (2001) p. 598.

Ebira

"Igbiras", Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, vol 28. p. 900

Peoples of the Niger-Benue confluence. London (1970)

Manuel Gómez Pedraza

Costeloe, Michael P., La primera republica federal de Mexico (1824-1835), translated by Manuel Fernandez Gasallo. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1975

The Central Republic in Mexico, 1835-1846: Hombres de Bien in the Age of Santa Anna. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993

Santoni, Pedro, Mexicans at Arms: Puro Federalists and the Politics of War, 1845-1848. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1996.

Adolfo de la Huerta

Dulles, John W. F., Yesterday in Mexico: A Chronicle of the Revolution, 1919-1936. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961.

"Huerta, Adolfo de la." Encyclopædia Britannica

Giovanni Agnelli

Wikipedia, "Giovanni Agnelli." <http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Agnelli>, <http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Agnelli_%28senior%29>

Chester A. Crocker

Levy, Peter B. Encyclopedia of the Reagan-Bush years. Greenwood Press, 1996

Hutchinson Encyclopedia of Biography, (2000)

Comments

Primetime, thanks for listing this information, but can you explain what all this is? Is it a list of the copied articles, or a list of sources for the articles you didn't copy? It isn't clear to me. Thanks, -Will Beback 05:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a list of sources for articles that I didn't copy. That isn't to say that the rest are copied, though. I provided sources only for the articles that Calton asked about.--Primetime 05:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can you please proivde a list of the article which you did copy? -Will Beback 08:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I must also say that this is a remarkable bibliography. It is surprising that even a major university library would have all of these resources: a 1949 issue of The Organ, the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana, Enciclopedia italiana di scienze, lettere ed arti, a 1998 issue of Automotive News Europe, and even the El gabinete Mexicano durante el segundo periodo del presidente D. Anastasio Bustamante published in 1842. Also remarkable that you have been able to access these resources in order to write these articles. Anyway, a list of the plagiarized articles, please. -Will Beback 08:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't to say that the rest are copied, though. You might want to drop the coyness, since you're in no position to be trying that tack.

I, too, marvel at this remarkable bibliography. Which means you're sticking to your story, so I'm calling your bluff: what I'm going to check the articles against first, if I get the chance this weekend, is NOT the claimed sources, but against whatever standard reference works I can find at the university or metropolitan library -- Britannica, Groves, Current Biography, and/or whatever encyclopedias they have lying around. If I find ANY copying at all, I'll know to stop looking, since it would mean that you lied about whatever entry had the plagiarism and you can safely be presumed to have lied about the rest. It's a zero-tolerance standard, but if you're being upfront, one you should have no trouble meeting.

So, as the lawyers like to say, you would like to amend any of your previous statements? Now's your chance. --Calton | Talk 11:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the plagiarized articles? Cough up those, too. Any suggestion that there aren't any won't pass the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 11:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I admit that "John Abbey," "Rigadoun," "Jeu-Parti," and "Trouvère" are copied from The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians.--Primetime 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being honest about those. Can you please review your entire contribution list and let us know which others there are? -Will Beback 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's everything.--Primetime 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you mentioning Anna Cora Mowatt, which was quite obviously copied. Are there any articles that were partly copied? -Will Beback 02:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Anna Cora Mowatt" was not copied, but I didn't object when you deleted it because I thought it might satisfy you. I spent an increadible amount of time on every one of the articles and it is very traumatic for me to see any of them deleted. If you knew how bad it feels, you might not even do it.--Primetime 02:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your utterly wrong-headed sense of entitlement has been noted and logged. Try it out on one of your professors and see how far it gets you.
This attempt at guilt-tripping is no more convincing, by the way, than the "it's-not-hurting-anyone", "I-give-money-to-Wikipedia", "you-need-me-to-watch-obscure-articles", "you-can't-prove-I-did-it", or any of the other non-starters you keep floating up as excuses.
Anna Cora Mowatt" was not copied...I spent an increadible amount of time on every one of the articles Including the ones you cut-and-pasted? Permit me to doubt that claim of yours, since your credibility is now nil -- I might point out that you were claiming to have written John Abbey -- citing alleged sources and even sounding confident when I said I was going to look it up in Britannica -- until I called your bluff and said I was going to check the specific place you stole it from (Grove's), which was when you folded like a cheap suit.
(I also note that one of the alleged references for John Abbey (Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeoamericana) is also used for 5 other articles. This, shall we say, gives me pause.)
Your M.O. has been to deny or obfuscate until the evidence is undeniable or discovery is inevitable. This isn't a game, and you're not setting the rules: this is, as far as I'm concerned, your absolute last chance because of your utter lack of credibility, and if stuff you actually DID create winds up getting nuked, it'll be because of your game-playing, not because we're just being a bunch of meanies. If anyone's time is being wasted, it's ours -- and I want to minimize that.
You got a problem with this? Try out your claims on Jimbo Wales and see how far THAT gets you. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, what gives you the right to make personal attacks on me? ("Folded like a cheap suit . . . quit whining," etc.) I thought you had a fetish for Wikipedia policy, but it seems as if you only like the ones that enable you and your publishing-house buddies to delete stuff. Second, the articles I admitted to copying (e.g., "Fyodor Sologub," "Trouvère") took me weeks to format. I carefully checked for links, added italics, headings, etc. All of that added up to quite a few hours of work.--Primetime 04:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks? File an RfC, kid, see how far it gets you. And your newest excuse really takes the biscuit: you're claiming that your making your plagiarism look nice is something praiseworthy? See this? It's the world's smallest violin, and it's playing just for you. (And, frankly, examining what you did, I doubt you did all that much work.)
Kid, what little benefit of the doubt you have left is hanging onto the cliff by its fingernails, and your rationales are getting more and more ludicrous: "you and your publishing-house buddies"? I mean, I can't even figure out what the hell that's supposed to mean.
What you should have figured out, however, is that continuing to insult everyone's intelligence is not getting you very far. Try actually being candid without it being forced out of you, try being honest without it having to be enforced, and try actually responding to the issues actually put to you without obfuscation, misdirection, and/or irrelevancies. I'm this close to just saying the hell with it, delete 'em all and let God sort 'em out, since your insincerity is making me 99% certain every bit of substantial text you've contributed is something you swiped. You're getting the chance to make a clean start: don't blow it.
Copied articles must be deleted or Wikipedia would eventually be sued out of existence and all of us would feel bad - apart from disagreement over the value of copyright laws. Art LaPella 04:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So long as Wikipedia does not encourage the copying of material, it is not liable. The people who actually run Wikimedia--the trustees--would have to be found negligent in any lawsuit. It is the individual user who is liable in cases such as these. Wikipedia could not have been found liable in my case because it hasn't acted improperly. That's why I wrote on Calton's talk page that there was no reason to do what he was doing. Even if Wikipedia were sued for a copied article and found liable, it might be awarded $5 by a jury for the lost revenue from any copying.--Primetime 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your rationale is that's okay if you're not caught? And the attempt to catch you is a Bad Thing? I thought you were a college student, not a lawyer: which state bar are you admitted to? What? You're not?
Fine, if you can to play Junior-League Johnny Cochran, so can I: lack of encouragement means bupkis as far as neglience goes, what counts is not enforcing copyright when it's in the power of the violator to do so. If Wikipedia can, but doesn't, that's negligence. Claiming that you never said that kids could play with your firearms won't help you if you leave a loaded shotgun lying on the kitchen table and a kid shoots someone.
But Amateur-Night-in-Dixie legal analysis aside, it's indisputable that you have no right -- zip, zero, nada, nil, bupkis -- to expose Wikipedia to legal consequences for your actions -- and Wikipedia has every right to protect itself by deleting anything and everything you put in and giving you the boot if necessary. If you do cost Wikipedia money (and it's more than your imaginary "$5", since attorneys aren't free and they bill by the hour, whether or not they go into a courtroom), the normal business practice would be to pass the cost along to the one who caused the damage. That would be you, and at $200 an hour (plus the $5 from that imaginary jury), that adds up: you'd wind up eating a lot of Top Ramen over the next several years, what with the money coming out of your wages each month. --Calton | Talk 11:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, so long as Wikipedia just discourages the copying of material, it isn't liable because it's not being negligent. Thus, there's absolutely no reason to become paranoid, to "assume" copyvios without proof, or to search books in libraries. Wikipedia is not exposed at all, and no company would even consider suing us because that would open themselves up to countersuits for legal bills.--Primetime 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primetime says he spent "an incredible amount of time" writing articles including Anna Cora Mowatt. Even more incredible is the amount of time he must have spent researching it:
  • See also Imogene McCarthy, "Anna Cora Mowatt and Her Am. Audience" (unpublished master's thesis, Univ. of Md., 1952), especially useful on her Richmond life, which is also touched upon in Marion Harland, "Personal Recollections of a Christian Actress," Our Continent, Mar. 15, 1882, and in Marion Harland's Autobiography (1910)...For genealogy, see William O. Wheeler, comp., The Ogden Family in America (1907). Birth record from Archives Municipales de Bordeaux; death record from Gen. Register Office, London.
It must have taken a lot of time to go to the University of Maryland for the thesis, to dig up an 1882 issue of Our Continent, and to obtain birth and death records from the archives in Bordeaux, France and London, England. Yes, "incredible" is the right word. -Will Beback 04:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it all back

I was wrong. It's wrong to copy material onto Wikipedia without attribution. I'm sorry.--Primetime 04:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness isn't possible without penance. Please provide a complete list of the articles and sections of articles that you plagiarized, so that the harm may be undone. -Will Beback 05:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And he's only half right: It's wrong to copy material onto Wikipedia, period/full stop. Let me close off the "I-put-footnotes-at-the-bottom-so-that-counts-as-attribution" attempt at a loophole right now. And yes, there's a difference between copying and quoting: look up The Chicago Manual of Style (15th Edition), sections 11.1 to 11.4 if you want to know more. --Calton | Talk 05:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is Michael Snow doing?! Those aren't copyvios!!!--Primetime 05:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you going on about? --Calton | Talk 05:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He just started to delete all of my articles as if I just admitted they were all copyvios, or something. In response to your comment above, copying any copyrighted material without paying royalties is wrong, and I'm sorry for any copying I did.--Primetime 05:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this again, without the weaseling or attempts to find some sort of handle you can hang a loophole on: It's wrong to copy material -- onto Wikipedia or elsewhere -- and pass it off as your own work, period/full stop. And yes, there's a difference between copying and quoting: look up The Chicago Manual of Style (15th Edition), sections 11.1 to 11.4 if you want to know more. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Snow is righting your wrong, "taking it all back", for which I am grateful (and I bet Calton is too, we'd both resigned ourselves to doing it [thought there may be yet more].) Primetime, you've been given many opportunities to give us a complete list of plagiarized articles, but you never have. Snow is correct that at this point we can only assume that virtually all of them are not original writing. Please realize that this matter goes beyond mere copyrights into the fields of plagiarism, intellectual honesty, and editorial accountability. You've been given many chances. I'm sorry it's turned out this way. -Will Beback 06:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the section heading, I read this as a general concession and apology regarding all of the suspect articles. Perhaps I misunderstood, but I must say that since everything Primetime has "written" is suspect, it's probably the way we need to go anyway. --Michael Snow 05:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note the immediate resort to sockpuppets to reintroduce the material being deleted, consistent with Primetime's tactics on Wiktionary. --Michael Snow 05:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop talking about Wiktionary? I've always tried to keep a good reputation here. I never apologized on Wiktionary like I just did here.--Primetime 06:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies -- or the lack thereof -- are irrelevant in comparison to your actions. So far, your actions are depressingly familiar. --Calton | Talk 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the same editor here as you are on Wiktionary, and you'll be the same editor no matter which name you use. You have a reputation, but it is not good. Wikipedia is not therapy, nor is it the confesional. -Will Beback 06:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, two admins (Jimbo and Calton) both said that I should be blocked until I condemned copying material from other publications onto Wikipedia. I have done so, but I'm still blocked. You are starting to act as if you hate me, Will (especially in those e-mails). And I thought that we were friends. The reason I copied any material onto Wikipedia was not because I wanted to hurt anyone, but because I sincerely believe that people shouldn't have to pay to read a good article. They shouldn't have to trek to a library, either. I honestly thought that I would eventually become a hero here. I mean, look at "Joseph Jacobs," the person who wrote "The Three Little Pigs." Also look at "Salvatore Quasimodo," a nobel laureate with 4 sentences about him. Encyclopedias less than a tenth of our size have much more about these people. I had no idea something like this would happen. As for the legal thing, I've replied to Calton's previous comment about that in the "comments" section above.--Primetime 07:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, two admins (Jimbo and Calton)... Oy. Jimbo isn't an admin, he's the local God King constitutional monarch, the guy who founded Wikipedia, so effectively what he says, goes. And I'm not an admin, I'm just a busybody.
...both said that I should be blocked until I condemned copying material from other publications onto Wikipedia. Wrong wrong wrong. For the umpteenth time -- and don't pretend it hasn't been said to you before -- mouthing pretty words is utterly insufficient: you have to help fix what you did.
I honestly thought that I would eventually become a hero here. You mean by stealing other people's hard work and passing it off as your own? Like Kaavya Viswanathan? Like Jayson Blair? Like Ben Domenech? You think this is a defense?
Also look at "Salvatore Quasimodo," a nobel laureate with 4 sentences about him. Encyclopedias less than a tenth of our size have much more about these people. Then why didn't you actually write an entry? God almighty, there are already over one million articles here -- of various levels of completeness and quality -- that people have, collectively, almost all written without resorting to cheating. What's the hurry? What's the necessity for the shortcuts? Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind holding off for about a week or so? I'm moving this weekend, so I doubt I'll be able to get to the library soon, but I want this to be utterly airtight: so far, Primetime hasn't been very good at covering his tracks, and I suspect it uncovering the thefts can be done fairly easily once I get to the library. --Calton | Talk 05:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'm not going to push on for now, but it should be clear that Primetime still cannot be trusted. --Michael Snow 06:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I don't trust him any further than I can throw him: I'm just looking to eliminate the slightest bit of wiggle room for him.
Come to think of it, go ahead and delete away. I neglected to copy the text Primetime introduced, but I just snagged Salvatore Quasimodo and Ramón Menéndez Pidal while I had the chance, so that should be a good start. If it's not too much trouble, could you send me other deleted bits if I need them? At this point, it's becoming less a required process and more an intellectual exercise to satisfy my curiosity. --Calton | Talk 06:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having a several-day long correspondence with Primetime, in which he made yet more lies, all the time trying to convince me to trust him. He made promises which he immediately broke, and statements which were untrue at the time he made them. I think that this user's "contributions" should be viewed with a strong prejudice that they are copied.
Though we've focused on the freshly created articles, Primetime's primary article was List of ethnic slurs. After pressure (mostly from me) to enforce a sourcing requirement Primetime had started to add citations, and new entries, supposedly from several reference books. We should check his additions and the citations there, including those after his block. -Will Beback 06:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, it finally occurs to me, that he told a direct lie regarding John Abbey on the WP:AN/I page: I'd been focusing on his obfuscations and lies by omission, giving him a sliver of the benefit of the doubt ("Maybe he just doesn't understand!" Shoot me, I'm a liberal.), but that realization changes my thinking somewhat, to "assume plagiarism for everything". --Calton | Talk 06:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil a.k.a. Human

Ok, we've got some puzzling behavior here. Ok, trust is hard to make and easy to break. But I'm not happy with the tone that's being taken. No one has any excuse to lay into someone on Wikipedia, and we'd all do well to try a bit harder to be nice, eh? Carry on with civility and caution, but a slight streak of meanness appears to be bubbling up here that should be curbed. - brenneman{L} 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It all has to go

Case in point: Retentivity

Primetime gives two sources for this, both from Stan Gibilisco. I looked up the first, Physics Demystified, on Amazon, which as you may know has this very handy "Search inside the book" feature. So I decided to try searching for "retentivity" to see if the term is discussed at all, and if so, whether the excerpts could actually provide enough source material to support what Primetime added, or if there must have been another source. Keeping in mind that we've seen both fraudulent claims that the material comes from one source while copying from another, I had no idea what I would find, or whether I would find anything at all.

So here's what the search yielded. What appears to be Gibilisco's section discussing retentivity starts: "Certain ferromagnetic materials stay magnetized better than others. When a substance such as iron is subjected to a magnetic field..." Here the excerpt provided by Amazon breaks off, and picks up again on the next page with: "... more magnetic. Now suppose that the current is shut off and that 19 G remain in the rod. Then the retentivity Br is Br = 100 X 19/135 = 100 X 0.14 = 14 percent Certain ferromagnetic substances have good retentivity..."

Corresponding passages in the original revision of the Retentivity article provided by Primetime, with brackets indicating portions where the text differs in any way: "Certain ferromagnetic materials stay magnetized better than others. When a substance[,] such as iron[,] is subjected to a magnetic field..." and continuing after a few sentences with "...more magnetic. Now suppose that the current is shut off[, and 19 gauss (1.8 mT)] remain in the rod. Then the retentivity [is given by]..." At this point the equation, using the exact same numbers as Gibilisco, is rendered in <math></math> format. Picking up again: "[Various different] substances have good retentivity..."

It would appear that the only thing Primetime has really done is convert this into wiki format and add commas according to taste, with the occasional word change thrown in. On this evidence, I conclude that it is time for what we already suspected was necessary, and intend to finish the job. All of Primetime's substantial contributions to these articles need to be removed, and Primetime should remain banned until we are persuaded of a sincere apology and serious remedial education in copyright law. Taking note of Will's comment above, I agree that whatever Primetime added to List of ethnic slurs ought to be double-checked against any source claimed as well. --Michael Snow 16:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually prove that many of my articles were written from me. I have MS Word documents for some I turned in as assignments. Others were written with significant spelling errors, which would not be found in any publication.--Primetime 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you can copy them into some other format and add spelling mistakes in doing so is not proof of anything. At this point, the reason I've removed all of this even though we're not always certain where it came from is because I see no prospects for a satisfactory proof that they weren't copied. --Michael Snow 17:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, works for me. I'll not bother looking anything up any more: "Retentivity" was one of the article he's claimed -- multiple times -- that he wrote himself, even after having been given specific opportunities to retract the claim. Which is proof, essentially, that nothing -- nothing at all -- he says can be believed.
Sorry, but you dug the hole yourself, Primetime. God help your future career if this is how you do or did things in college. --Calton | Talk 21:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look: one of the article's he just deleted ("Second Spanish Republic") had a bunch of spelling mistakes and factual inaccuracies that were later corrected by other editors. That's proof it wasn't from a book. I'm going to restore it. Let me know ahead of time if anyone is planning on deleting anything more and which articles you're planning on doing.--Primetime 22:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean there's more? Like perhaps User:Primetime/stub articles to which I am the principal contributor? Oh, and look what I found - Qa (unit) was a verbatim copy of Britannica. Looks like I have more work to do. --Michael Snow 22:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete "History of the Spanish Language." That's from a paper I wrote! I'm telling you "Second Spanish Republic" isn't a copyvio, either! It wasn't a practice of mine to add spelling errors to articles. There's no need to assume anything, either. You're not accomplishing anything by deleting these. You are hurting me, though. You're also deleting my public-domain images and pronunciation aids I added to the articles as well as the additions of other users. You also deleted an article someone else wrote about my family--the Maxwells. I'm going to kill myself. --Primetime 23:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not accomplishing anything by deleting these. Oh yes we are: we're protecting the integrity of Wikipedia, both morally and legally, something which you've shown nothing but contempt. And given that you've done nothing but lie throughout this whole affair, by commission AND omission, exactly why should a single word you say -- including "and and "the" -- be believed?
You are hurting me, though. To repeat, you dug the hole yourself, Primetime. --Calton | Talk 23:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Message (via User:John Sovell)

I'll gladly review your case, but it seems from the comments above that you have lost a lot of trust (it must be pretty serious when Jimbo blocks you). Can you give me a specific article whose deletion you object to so that I can take a look? I've only glanced at a few from the lists on your userpage. Copyvios of any kinds are serious violations of our rules and we must proactively seek them out (this point is non-negotiable, don't go there). Even if we cannot prove that a specific article is a copyright violation it may still be best to delete it (it's impossible to be sure that any article isn't a copyvio). You should have thought about all of the time and work you'd lose before you started copying material.

Finally, evading blocks is definitely not permissible so I have blocked your new account. Please respond here, use e-mail or our mailing list for future requests. BrokenSegue 02:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Thank you for responding, though. Two articles that have been deleted or shortened substantially that I can prove were not copied from a publication were "Second Spanish Republic," added with spelling and factual errors that were later corrected by others. Another is "Sergio Marchionne" for the same reason. Further, my contributions to "History of the Spanish language" were from a school report that I can e-mail to anyone on request. These are the only ones I can prove weren't copy violations. Many other articles they deleted or shortened (e.g., "Chester A. Crocker," "Jean Corelli," etc.) were never proven to be copyright violations. They assumed they were. They even deleted an article about my family name, "Maxwell (surname)." That article was taken from the disambiguation page, and was started by someone else. Thank you again for responding. Primetime 03:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to prove anything isn't a copyright violation. Sadly, I don't have time to look over those cases at the moment (it's quite late here). I'll take a look at it over the weekend. Although, (and I can't find this policy at the moment) I believe it is policy to delete contributions by indef blocked users, so even your non-copyright violations can be deleted. BrokenSegue 03:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this is a speedy deletion trigger. However I've never seen this applied to a user who's under a "community" ban before, although Banning policy doesn't make any distinction. - brenneman{L} 05:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be different if the editor was banned for personal attacks or vandalism. Since he was banned for sneaky plagiarism, speedy deletions of his "contributions" seems appropriate. -Will Beback 06:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-Page Templates

So, the most important thing anyone needs to know about me is that I've been blocked, huh? That must be why those big boxes are up on top. The fact I've spent six years of my life learning Spanish, or that I've spent 5½ years in college means much less to Will.--Primetime 01:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the most important thing anyone needs to know about me is that I've been blocked, huh? Yes. Next question? --Calton | Talk 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope everyone sees how trollish these people are acting. Will Beback also wrote me some nasty e-mails where he said things like the following:
  • I don't know what your field of studies or profession may be, but I hope it is not a field where intergrity counts for anything.
  • I don't 'think' you are a liar, I 'know' you're a liar because you've both proven it and admitted it.
  • you are now persona non grata.
  • I suggest you take up a different hobby.
    • That's beside the increadible remarks you just made. Does any human being deserve to be told this and that the most important thing about them is their contributions to some online encyclopedia? Does any human being deserve to be addressed in this manner? You don't even know who I am, yet you think you know my life story. If you have the slightest shred of integrity left, you should take back your pathetic remark you just made.--Primetime 01:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Yes. Irrelevant. No -- and seeing you use the word "integrity" may be the very definition of chutzpah. --Calton | Talk 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The block is the most important fact about your Wikipedia user ID, because it makes your education unusable to us. I'm glad your standard is "integrity" - that means you will judge Calton and Will Beback primarily on their unchallenged facts, before discussing their tone. Art LaPella 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Art. Yes, I would be happy to discuss facts. In fact, I'm still waiting for a response to the proof I provided that "Second Spanish Republic," "History of the Spanish language," and "Maxwell (surname)" are not copyvios. I also have proof that "Kigelia" is not a copyvio nor is "Paolo Fresco." They don't seem interested in that, though. They're more interested in violating the no-personal-attacks policy.--Primetime 02:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Proof"? Bad typing/probable OCR errors constitute "proof"? Doesn't rise to the level of "benefit of the doubt", let alone proof. Any benefit of the doubt, anyways, you used up a long time ago, since you've directly claimed to written things that were proven to be copied. So go away and let us fix the mess you created.
    (Real proof to counter plagiarism charges, by the way, involves things like your notes, your rough drafts, and the exact sources of your information, among other things. Are you prepared to offer up those and other documents? I'm thinking, in this case, "other documents" includes detailing which classes these materials were allegedly written for, and notes or e-mail from the instructor you're supposed to have turned the papers into, demonstrating that that they were done so.) --Calton | Talk 02:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. I have notes and powerpoints for "History of the Spanish language." The references were also named right in the article using footnotes, and one of them is available online. I would prefer to strike out my name if possible for privacy purposes, however. For "Maxwell (surname)," the opening was written by someone else, as it was copied from the "Maxwell (disambiguation)" page. Another part is from "Maxwell (family)" article in the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica found on Tim Starling's Wikisource page. Some parts may resemble two name dictionaries (from the OUP and A Dictionary of American Family Names), but single sentences are not protectable under copyright law--especially when cited. I didn't take notes with "Paolo Fresco," but it had structural errors that were later corrected that an optical-character recognition program would not cause. It also had sources named. Finally, "Second Spanish Republic" had factual errors besides spelling ones. You have my e-mail address, so e-mail me so I have yours and I will send you everything I have. This includes copies of the disputed articles that I saved on my hard drive.--Primetime 03:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And the classes these materials were allegedly written for, and notes or e-mail from the instructor you're supposed to have turned the papers into? --Calton | Talk 03:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a grade slip from the instructor I can scan and e-mail to you for "History of the Spanish lanaguage." I hope that's enough, because I would have to reveal my school I went to in order to tell you the class. I may provide you with the information if you swear confidentiality (i.e., not to e-mail the material to anyone else, or reveal my name, school, instructor, etc. to anyone else). E-mail me with instructions on what is absolutely necessary and I will comply.--Primetime 03:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the plagiarized articles contained lists of sources that were also copied, so that tells us nothing. Also, we have no way of knowing that the school papers weren't copied to begin with. If you had given us an accurate list of copied articles as we requested then we might trust your assurance that some articles weren't copied. But you kept claiming that articles weren't copied which you later admitted copying or were discovered to have copied. That means we can't trust your word in these matters. Copying and pasting text from a private email does not enhance your image of integrity either. Nor does sneaking back with sock puppers. You have been personally banned by Jimbo Wales for an indefinite period. That means you are not welcome to edit here any longer. If you want to show integrity then you can do so by respecting that ban. -Will Beback 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Interproject coordination from English Wiktionary

    Latest sockpuppet: wikt:User:Yurejkf (kindly self-identified in this comment.) --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and don't think anyone hasn't noticed some of your more recent Wikipedia sockpuppets, Primetime, such as Hgfdf (talk · contribs) and Jyurjf (talk · contribs). --Calton | Talk 06:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    If he needs to put it somewhere else, then why did you put it back, you idiot?

    Hmm, maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm certainly not a thief. In any case, when he does set up a page in his user space, I'll leave notification here, for the benefit of the people having to clean up your mess. Also, you removed warnings of your latest sockpuppetry: not good. --Calton | Talk 06:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm a thief like Robin Hood. The only person making a mess, really, is you. You get a kick out of tearing pages out of an encyclopedia because it makes you feel important. I think it's pathetic that you're a copy editor and the only thing you can figure out to do is troll.

    About the "sockpuppets" though, everyone knew they were me, and I didn't even try to hide them.--Primetime 07:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In the opinion of Wikipedia's leaders, legal advisors and resulting policy, we need someone to tear copied pages out of an encyclopedia. If it makes him feel important, he's entitled to it. Art LaPella 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a thief like Robin Hood. No, you're a thief like Kaavya Viswanathan, Jayson Blair, and Ben Domenech, someone who craves the credit for creating things without the actual talent for doing so.
    You get a kick out of tearing pages out of an encyclopedia because it makes you feel important. The first part of the sentence is not even wrong ("tearing pages"? Please), and the second part is just ordinarily untrue. My general purpose is set out in the motto at the top of my user page, It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. I can imagine why you'd have a problem with that, as you encapsulate at least 2-and-a-half out of 3 of those categories.
    About the "sockpuppets" though, everyone knew they were me, and I didn't even try to hide them. Speaking of incompetence. I don't think the Pee-Wee Hermanesque "I did that on purpose" defense will really fly.
    At this point, it's pretty clear you're utterly beyond redemption, so I'm going to go ahead and suggest that this page be locked, since it's serving no actual pupose. Just go away and take up a new hobby or something. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I never have nor will I ever stop editing on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. The fact that I edited here for two years, trying so hard to improve Wikipedia means little to people like you. The fact that I've already been blocked and my work savagely destroyed is not enough, either. I still deserve to be humiliated with those boxes on my userpage. They serve no purpose other than additional punishment. Even that isn't enough, though. I still deserve to be insulted on my own talk page as well. That's how petty and self-centered people like you are. Your parents must not have been good enough to teach you that it's wrong to kick another man while he's down.

    When I said that your actions were pointless, I meant it. You haven't even chased me away. The lessons you have taught me are completely different from those you were hoping. In any case, I do not think you represent the Wikipedia community because you aren't a contributor. Your opinions are meaningless to me, because I have absolutely no respect for you. In fact, you literally make me sick.

    In my opinion, non-creative information does not belong to anyone, and some bland narrative is hardly the type of writing copyright law was designed for. Your extreme elitist views are just what the mulit-millionaire Jimbo was hoping for.--Primetime 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you are trying to destroy all Wikimedia projects by introducing copyrighted material into them all, because you're jealous of Jimbo and hate him personally? I don't see how that is relevant to your defense. --Connel MacKenzie 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Destroy them by expanding them? Only someone like you could make something like that up. I have nothing against Jimbo personally, although I disagree with fantatical interpretations of policies he's made, especially ones designed to save his own ass.--Primetime 18:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Primetime - I agree with Calton. Pages that have been stolen from other encyclopedias and pasted into this one should be ripped out. This is intended to be a straightforward record of human knowledge, assembled in good faith verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the NPOV and licensed under the GFDL. Copying material from other sources, and then lying about it, violates the GFDL and also breaches the assumption of good faith. The poor of 12th century northern England may have welcomed the stolen gifts of Robin Hood, but 21st century Wikipedia neither requires nor tolerates stolen contributions. As I write this the words beneath here say, "Content must not violate any copyright..." Whoever hits the "Save page" button after copying material from non-free sites is not contributing to the project, any more than a spraypainted scrawl contributes to a wall. Instead they create work for the janitors to clean up. Please recgnize that this project has norms, standards, and policies. You've violated them without remorse and so are no longer welcome here. Nor are you welcome in our sister projects, which adhere to similar standards.
    Although we are asking, no, requiring, you to stop editing here, that is not a reflection on you as a person. Encyclopedia-writing is an esoteric field, and not everyone is cut out for it. It's an awfully nerdy thing, so I wouldn't feel bad about it. There are far better ways to spend ones time, and those of us who do edit here are truly pitiful. Consider yourself lucky to be rejected. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Proof that "J," and "C" Aren't Copyvios

    The following are page scans from A New English Dictionary, volumes 2 and 5, published in 1893 and 1919, respectively. It appears that Oxford University Press copied them straight into it's Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989).

    • Title page from A New English Dictionary, vol. 2, (1893)
      Title page from A New English Dictionary, vol. 2, (1893)
    • p. 1 from vol. 2 of the NED
      p. 1 from vol. 2 of the NED
    • Title page from vol. 5 of the NED, 1919.
      Title page from vol. 5 of the NED, 1919.
    • "J," p. 531 from A New English Dictionary, vol. 5. (1919) p. 531
      "J," p. 531 from A New English Dictionary, vol. 5. (1919) p. 531
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Primetime&oldid=57393209"