User:Zzyzx11/Archive12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

are you serious?

Have you even looked at the history? This page is being vandalised every second. I can't do my work on it because of edit conflicts when vandals want to post things like "His last words were, "Crikey, me chest!!!!!""[1] Come on, leave the page protected. dposse 15:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

After seeing the intense frequency of the vandalism, I set it back to sprotect for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bindi Sue Irwin

Well, although you think that, and that my be true, but we shouldn't redirect a person to the father. Either delete the page or leave it. -- Yancyfry jr

Fine, I have tagged it with {{prod}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

However, I noticed that someone else just reverted it back to a redirect. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

tempate c-protected

Thanks, I hardly ever update ITN, so I couldn't recall the proper format. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi!!

Yeah, you know how it is with this crazy desert water. Hell, I can't use puberty as an excuse. Waaaay past that. Anyway, thank you SO much for the welcome-home! I have a lot of catching-up to do. - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sock or no sock?

When the user first showed up, I had my doubts, but now I have none. The evidence:

[2] (rv non-discussed vandalism. The talk page is clearly against this convention) Template:Orange County, California: Reverts to an ES edit, calls an editorial dispute vandalism, refers to a non-existent consensus on the talk page. [ User:Anaheimat, I am almost certain, is somebody else's puppet, but I'm not sure who.]
[3] (moved Canyon High School (Anaheim, California) to Canyon High School (Anaheim Hills, California): It is in Anaheim Hills-different school district than other Anaheim Schools, need the distinction) Canyon High School (Anaheim Hills, California): more of his obsession with showing the distinctiveness of Anaheim Hills. [The Canyon High article also needs a good NPOV de-fluffing. My guess is that Canyon High is where he goes to school.]
He's got a point about the different school district, but disambiguation by city is probably the standard at Wikipedia:disambiguation, the School WikiProject, and/or WP:SCHOOLS. I don't have the time to dig through those pages, however.
- Also: He and Netoholic are the only users that I've known to get into page move wars [4]
[5] (→Noteworthy Communities) Orange County, California: adds Tustin Ranch to the list of Noteworthy Communities. You'd have to check, but I think that he and his sockpuppets are the only ones who have edited this section.
Image:Tustin Ranch.JPG: He claims that he made this image, but that is highly doubtful IMHO. He has lied about taking a photo in the past (see my talk page, and then User talk:Will Beback where he apologized for the Caliber Motors copyright violation). I did a quick Google Image search and couldn't find the original, unfortunately. All it is is a Tustin Map with a very bad area fill using a paint program to show where Tustin Ranch is. He didn't even clean it up by doing pixel edits to get rid of the white pixel artifacts after the fill. Even if we can't find the source, it's still a derivative work and should be reported as a copyright violation.
Image:Cities of OC.jpg: He claims he made the map, but also readily admits that it is a derivative work from this map. It appears that he doesn't understand copyright at all. This should be reported as a copyright violation.

Since he uses Verizon DSL and he or Verizon keeps resetting his IP, a checkuser check would only suggestive, but I think that the evidence above shows that User:CA32 is User:EricSaindon2.

It's silly, but if he'd stay away from editing articles about Southern California, he could actually edit without detection. Oh well. ^Blank ^Verse 06:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that while I was fiddling around trying to figure out the correct {{User}} template to use, you were blocking 69.227.167.16. Thanks for being so alert about him. -- Gogo Dodo 05:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please note that his entire ISP range is 69.224.0.0/12 (69.224.0.0 to 69.239.255.255). As a result, it would be very difficuly to block him for extended periods of time. Scobell302 04:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am well aware that this person uses an ISP with a dynamic IP address, which means he can get a new IP everytime he logs in and logs on to his Internet service. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Canyon High School reversion

Why did you revert valid, not vandal content added to the Canyon High School (Anaheim, California) article? —X S G 23:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the page history of the Canyon High School article, I made two reversions: one on 07:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC) [6] and another on 04:09, 7 September 2006 [7]. They were made to revert the changes made by a suspected sockpuppet of a currently banned user. As per WP:BAN#Enforcement by reverting edits, "any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves." Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But not only did you revert changes made by the banned user, you also reverted changes made by me, before the user ever made any edits. Specifically I am referring to the properly-sourced section about teacher awards. I don't appreciate this in the slightest, as it took sime time to put together all of that research. I'm adding back properly-sourced material, now. Don't touch it unless you plan to improve it this time. —X S G 23:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't you, it was Soltras. Sorry about the confusion, I'll take this up with Soltras. —X S G 23:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

la

drafting it peacemeal?Qrc2006 00:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

by the way, im very frustrated, i thought there was an edit conflict due to the similarity in the names, i really wish you would have said somthing to me, cuz i tried to recreated it several times with differing names dude.Qrc2006 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

thats sensiable, but i dont think its neccisary and i think theres a strong arguement against an CFD and even if it does it could be split then. however if you do create separate ones, i think we should make sure to have a line of links at the bottom of each one, neighborhoods in other areas of l.a. southcentral, san gabriel valley etc. which are you not working on right now, id love to help out and make one of them right now Qrc2006 00:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

lol, its okay, you obviously ment well and were just a little premature and uncommunicative but oh well. hahha what was my original one called again? just kidding, allthought i was thinking should i put them all in alphabetical order or to make it look nicer, separte them by city region within the same template? that way if there is a AFC or whatever itll be easier to split it up and also might look better that way, i think thats the way im gonna goQrc2006 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

hi there again, ok some im done check it out! but yeah ive only added the actual template to the neighborhoods starting with A and B, its be great if you could add "Los Angeles Neighborhoods" to the articles between C and Y or just C D or somthing like that, just remember to put it between double braces {{ }}, thanks!Qrc2006 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ericsaindon2

Thanks for the comment, I am glad to hear your input. Please do not restart my ban on this IP, because I had to address a concern brought up on the Anaheim Hills talk page, but it was for the sake of stopping the confusion. Although I do not like the ban, I find my time here done for now. I hope to come back and work on adding infoboxes to LA Cities that do not have them since that was my next goal before the ArbCom case was addressed, but I guess that this project will be on hold. Although I still think that Coolcaesar deserves a good ban, I will back off of that too, because he will get one sooner or later with his comments, so I will let time take its course. I hope I do not have to wait out the full year, because I plan to come back with stronger, and more constructive intentions, while still working on Southern California Cities and Places in keeping with the Wikipedia Rules in mind. I has a question though. When do people generally ask to end a ban? 69.230.41.31 05:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but since there is a record of you trying to communicate to me, as well as your other recent edits, I must follow through and reset your ban again. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you may like to fix this up, the two logos' cells don't line up properly with the rest of the table. Can you help out? Thanks. --Howard the Duck 12:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I tweaked it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yay! Thank you very much! --Howard the Duck 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

El Modena, California

I was trying to do some cleanup on some of the Orange County communities and unincorporated areas. I found out that El Modena, California was an enclave of unincorporated Orange County land within the city of Orange, but when I tried to move El Modena, Orange, California to El Modena, California, I did a typo and moved it to El Modena,, California instead. I would greatly appreciate it if you could move the article to the correct title. I usually ask User:Will Beback's help for small items like this, but he's on a wikibreak. ^Blank ^Verse 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That was quick! Thank you. ^Blank ^Verse 15:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? There's some unincorperated area to the east of the El Modena High School and east of El Modena park but the rest of the area is in the city limits (more than half the area). --MarsRover 20:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Katie Couric Pic

I only chnaged the pic on the page becuase the pics you first put up were terrible and made Katie look ugly. I know shes getting older but they were bad. But this pic you just now put up is better and shold be keep up. Thanks Drewgu111

How to edit geographic coordinates?

Dear Zzyzx11, I have a technical question for you. It is found in the talk page of the article on the very beautiful town of Ouro Preto, in central Brazil. You can go directly to Talk:Ouro Preto. When you have the time, of course.

Thanks in advance, AVM 01:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You fixed it, while I got a big scare: for a while I thought that either goblins or gremlins had done it, while I was busy adding a line later in the article's text, with the correct coordinates and their link. I just saw where you applied your fix. Thank you very, very much!. AVM 02:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that RfC

I read the certification thing wrong (the "48 hours" part)... :P 1ne 04:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not copyright violation for Piedmont, CA

It's not a copyright violation to take stuff from government sites. It's called public domain materials. Please learn more about copyright law before appointing yourself the copyright police. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.72.232 (talk • contribs) .

That is untrue. All webpages on the Piedmont California website have the "©2005 Piedmont, CA" at the bottom of the web page. If you read the bottom of http://www.acgov.org/privacy.htm on the Alameda County web site, it says that "The content of acgov.org web pages is copyrighted". If all this material was in public domain, why would they put a copyright notice? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I can cite other California government cities, communities and agencies that say that the material on their web site is copyrighted. Because the Piedmont web site does not explicitly say that their matterial is in the public domain, I must follow Wikipedia's rules of copyright and remove it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- - Well, I guess you'd better go through the site more carefully, because there's a whole bunch that you missed under your interpretation of copyright law. Parenthetically, go check out copyright.gov and see if that website explicitly states that the materials on that website is in the public domain.
    - Let me clarify: Unless I am completely sure that it is in public domain (the only copyright or copyleft message on the Piedmont website is the phrase "Questions or Comments? email: aswift@ci.piedmont.ca.us - ©2005 Piedmont, CA" on http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/rightside.htm)... if there is any question in doubt... under the policies of Wikipedia, which are much stricter than the copyright laws in general, I should either remove it or rewrite the material in my own words. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 10:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      - Hmmm. That raises even more questions. (1) By your logic, are you pretty certain that everything else on Wikipedia is in the public domain? (2) Have you have asked Ann Swift about the matter? It sounds like you are basically saying that you operate as if wikipedia policy trumps copyright law. Besides, if you read the official Piedmont website carefully, you would have noticed that the history page did not have any copyright notice. Even assuming that the material in question belongs to Piedmont, I doubt, as a matter of copyright law, you have the right to assert the rights of Piedmont.

Seems that it was hard to write and clearly gather my thoughts back at 3am-4am Pacific Daylight Time so let me explain now:

Under the current copyright laws, copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist.
Under Wikipedia's current policies, only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, or licensed with or is otherwise compatible with another copyleft, makes material usable on Wikipedia unless it is inherently in the public domain or under due to age or source.
However, just because something is from a government site does not necessarily mean it is inherently public domain. Numerous California government cities, communities and agencies have a message or disclaimer somewhere on their site that say that the material on their web site is copyrighted.
The only mention of a copyright or a copyleft disclaimer on the entire Piedmont's website is "©2005 Piedmont, CA" on http://www.ci.piedmont.ca.us/rightside.htm. Therefore, we cannot necessarily assume that all content on the Piedmont site is in the public domain or under a copyleft license. As I said above, copyright exists automatically under the laws unless there is an explicit message similar to the "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License" message at the very bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org

As a result, it must be removed temporarily unless we get explicit permission from Ann Swift or whoever wrote that material. Of course, the point is moot now anyway since I rewrote the history section of the Piedmont article, gathering information from not only that site but other sources as well (which would have probably been done anyway since it does not mention a few things like the famous Piedmont bird calling contest). I apologize for any problems or misunderstandings. Regards. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. We are clearly on different wavelengths. It looks like you basically just modified matter from a plurality of sites instead of a single one for inclusion in this article. Theoretically, your action has significantly increased the number of potential plaintiffs who may have a cause of action against you and/or wikipedia copyright infringement. Though it appears that you are trying to act in "good faith," copyright infringement is a strict liability matter. Copyright infringement does not require bad intent, though bad intent may trigger damages to a punitive nature. Info regarding statutory damages for copyright infringement can be found at 17 USC 504(c).

Nevertheless, it's not worth it to worry too much about this type of matter. It's too trivial to sue over. I doubt that Piedmont or any other entity would want to spend the time, effort and attorney fees to try to collect what effectively amount to token damages from some anonymous individual or wikipedia.

If you choose to learn more about copyright law, I suggest you start with copyright.gov and/or perform a search for the term "SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY OF PROTECTED EXPRESSION." Better yet, take a course on copyright law at your local institution of higher learning. It does no one any good when an editor who does not know the law wrongfully accuses others of committing a legal wrong, even if the editor acts completely in good faith.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohmyohmy (talk • contribs) . Gwernol 19:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe you are right. I might as well revert the article back before your original edit until I get explicit permission from Swift or Piedmont itself, or properly cite and source all the content I have. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, don't worry too much about such matters. As long as you don't take money out of a copyright holder's pocket or otherwise piss off the copyright holder, it is unlikely that any lawsuit will be filed. Even copyright holders of valuable works, e.g., Harry Potter, will typically send a cease and desist warning letter before actually suing, unless there is a blatant counterfeiting or rip off on a large scale.

Besides, Ann Swift is merely the City Clerk for Piedmont. She has better things to do than to worry about finding the right city official to discuss Wikipedia's copyright policy.

Ohmyohmy

Vote to Redirect Bill O'Reilly to Bill O'REilly (commentator)

Hi sorry to bother you but I noticed you were interested in making a redirect to bill oreilly commentator. I started a new vote to have 'bill oreilly' routed directly to bill oreilly (commentator) and the current bill oreilly page made teh bill oreilly (disambiguation) page. This vote is taking place at Talk:Bill_O'Reilly#New_Vote_on_Disambiguation_page The previous vote was posted on the Cricket fan activism group to pull votes and so it seems only fair to inform people who may find it convenient to link directly to a page used more often.Mrdthree 07:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I am still not sure where you got that impression that I was interested in making a redirect before you saved your message here. All I really did on Bill O'Reilly (commentator) was to add the {{otheruses4}} tag [8]. And I just basically reformated your initial move proposal discussion on Talk:Bill O'Reilly to the standard format outlined on WP:RM [9] [10]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for ordering and cleaning up the survey. That said how do I shut one of these things down once I think its an obvious conclusion (e.g. no consensus 10-10) Mrdthree 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Because I actually voted on the proposal, it is not proper for me to close it myself. It is currently listed under the "Backlog" section of Wikipedia:Requested moves, awaiting for another admin to actually close it. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:melnikov pavilion.jpg

Hi there, I noticed you delete the above image from Constructivist architecture citing speedy delete reasons. I'm aware that there was some discussion about the PD-soviet tag and it's legal ramifications - would you let me know whether this image was deleted because of a conclusion in that discussion or just because it wasn't tagged with anything? If the later is the case - how do we undelete and add the tag, ie are you an admin? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This image was speedy deleted purely because it was a recently uploaded file that did not really have specific information on its source i.e. where exactly did the uploader get a copy of the image from. As for {{PD-USSR}}, to my knowledge, it is still under discussion and nothing has been decided yet. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Got ya, thanks. The user who uploaded that image - Owen Hatherley seems to have been inactive for a week or two. A few of us at WP:ARCH were really impressed with the article (needs referencing of course) but concerned about the images - I suspect he just forgot to tag that one with the PD-USSR tag. I've got the image reprinted in several books of mine which you could cite as source in lieu if that's important. Just a sec - I'll go and get the citation. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you are - Cooke, Catherine, ; et al. (1990). Architectural Drawings of the Russian Avant-Garde. The Museum of Modern Art. ISBN 0-87070-556-3. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) it's on page 26. Flysheet info says "Photograph credits:Plates from the A. V. Shchusev State Research Musuem of Architecture; Moscow. Oh balls! the image says "Konstantin Melnikov, Pavilion of the USSR, Exposition des Arts Decoratif, Paris, 1925, Courtesy A.Kopp". I assume you know about these things; presumably someone called A.Kopp is ascerting a copyright here? I'm quite certain however (as this is the USSR's own pavilion) that the image would have been published in the USSR in 1925. Do you have any suggestions how we can proceed from here and restore the image?--Mcginnly | Natter 02:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just been informed that the PD-Soviet and PD-USSR have now been resolved - they can't be used - There's some discussion on Template_talk:PD-USSR#Images_don.27t_need_deleting that suggests re-tagging with fair use criteria - I'm pretty sure that we can make a reasonable case for tagging at least the architectural drawings with a Fair Use-Art rationale. Could I ask you to give us a couple of days to re-tag these before deletion - many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 20:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of deletion of Images

Hi

The images you have deleted are not copyrighted. Anyway its OK. Thanks for your co-operation.

Gsrihari

What exact images are you referring to? Under Wikipedia's policies on images, if the uploader does not include both the source and the copyright/copyleft information, it must be deleted after seven days. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Also images that are "for non-commerical use only" or "is permitted only on Wikipedia" are not allowed because content here needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

See You at the Pole

Would See You at the Pole qualify for the on this day section.? People claim that it numbers between two to three million, and it is an international event. I'm not sure about historical importance though. Arguably it may meet the moderate criteria. Just wondering, cuz it would need to be put up soon if it does qualify. 74.137.230.39 01:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Skimming the page, currently there is a lack of cited references on the article, especially the "controversy" section. Anything that appears "On this day" should be a relatively complete and well-formatted article – a good example of Wikipedia content. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe by next year it could be added then. I don't have any time to research the controversy section. Another user has created a reference section though so its getting there. 74.137.230.39 02:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Interested in joining [[Wikipedia: Wikiproject American football

I noticed that you are involved in the NFL wikiproject. I started a new project at: Wikipedia:WikiProject American football to help clean up the non-NFL football articles (mostly football strategy type articles). Please consider joining this project and helping out where possible. --Jayron32 02:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

....long overdue...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Zzyzx11 is awarded this barnstar for his devotion to clearing the deletion backlogs which are ignored by so many administrators. Your commitment to staying true to your words and honouring your "election promises" is very much appreciated in this political age. Thankyou, Blnguyen \| BLabberiNg 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for your post. I've responded on my talk page, if you're interested.—Chidom ^talk 03:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

	Archives 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \| 26 \| 27 \| 28 \| 29 \| 30 \| 31 \| 32 \| 33 \| 34
Current time: Tuesday, November 5, 2024, 21:35 (UTC) Last edit: February 28, 2023, 19:42 (UTC) by MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)