User talk:Dirtlawyer1/Talk Archive: General

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

   * The five pillars of Wikipedia
   * How to edit a page
   * Help pages
   * Tutorial
   * How to write a great article
   * Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (********) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Richmond96 t • c 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DATE compliance

Hi. Please see WP:MOSBD for the correct way to format lifespan brackets. In particular, and in relation to Ray Graves, Locations of birth and death are given subsequently rather than being entangled with the dates. Thank you and Cheers, CP 17:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let it be written; so let it be done. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hornbook -- a new WP:Law task force for the J.D. curriculum

Hi Dirtlawyer1/Talk Archive: General,

I'm asking Wikipedians who are interested in United States legal articles to take a look at WP:Hornbook, the new "JD curriculum task force".

Our mission is to assimilate into Wikipedia all the insights of an American law school education, by reducing hornbooks to footnotes.

Each casebook will have a subpage.

Over the course of a semester, each subpage will shift its focus to track the unfolding curriculum(s) for classes using that casebook around the country.
It will also feature an extensive, hyperlinked "index" or "outline" to that casebook, pointing to pages, headers, or {{anchors}} in Wikipedia (example).
Individual law schools can freely adapt our casebook outlines to the idiosyncratic curriculum devised by each individual professor.

I'm encouraging law students around the country to create local chapters of the club I'm starting at my own law school, "Student WP:Hornbook Editors". Using WP:Hornbook as our headquarters, we're hoping to create a study group so inclusive that nobody will dare not join.

What you can do now:

1. Add WP:Hornbook to your watchlist, {{User Hornbook}} to your userpage, and ~~~~ to Wikipedia:Hornbook/participants.

2. If you're a law student,

Email http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Hornbook to your classmates, and tell them to do the same.
Contact me directly via talk page or email about coordinating a chapter of "Student WP:Hornbook Editors" at your own school.

(You don't have to start the club, or even be involved in it; just help direct me to someone who might.)

3. Introduce yourself to me. Law editors on Wikipedia are a scarce commodity. Do knock on my talk page if there's an article you'd like help on.

Regards, Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rhodes Scholars

Thanks for your contributions! I've sort of "run out of steam" on the topic; it's nice to have some "fresh blood" making some useful additions. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more careful with your comments

Hi there. Your comment here, especially the part "you are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law" has been understood by another editor as an legal threat, i.e. that you are threatening to report them for such an alleged offense. Such threats are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia and result in an immediate block . As such, you might want to more careful when making such claims to avoid being sanctioned for comments. I have no problem to assume that you have not intended to make any threat at all but I wanted to inform you about this policy here and ask you to be more careful in the future. Regards So Why 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats (?)

You are dangerously close to making legal threats, in contravention of the WP:NLT policy. Using your supposed "requirement" as a supposed "lawyer" to warn another user that they are coming close to "acting like a lawyer" is being used as a threat to dissuade discussion/action by that editor. I urge you strike the comments using <s>...</s> ASAP, in order to retract those statements. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins, I am a practicing lawyer. I have no idea who you are. I am happy to post the Model Rules Governing the Practice of Law, but that will probably be seen as a "legal threat" of some kind.

No reasonable person would interpret my comments as "legal threats." Hammersoft has over-reacted in a highly emotional way to being told that he is giving out bad legal advice regarding copyrights. The "no fair use" template invites an answer and a legal justification for the continued use of an image. That has been provided. The answer is contrary to Hammersoft's expectations, and he is clearly used to bullying other editors and takes great pride in winning these minor dust-ups. Please review the comments on his User and Talk pages. His comments and present over-reaction speak for themselves. I have no interest in picking a WikiPolicy fight with him, or anyone else, but he is wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, and has now stated that he will not accept the explanation (and supporting U.S. Copyright Office documentation). Who the heck made him an intellectual property attorney?

I suggest that you reconsider the moral support you are providing him. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can construe your comments as a legal threat, you would be best to retract them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is no moral support here, BWilkins was simply trying to inform you to use a less ambiguous language (see our policy at WP:NPLT). Our policy does not only forbid real threats, it also forbids deliberately using language that may be understood as such a threat. So far, noone (other than Hammersoft) has assumed that you have done so deliberately and this message merely served to inform you about this policy and to remind you to write less ambiguously.

What Hammersoft has or has not done (and I know he can be quite difficult sometimes because of his point of view regarding copyright issues which is quite different from current consensus) is irrelevant to your behavior. If Hammersoft violates any rules, he will be sanctioned accordingly but that's not important to your use of language, hence these messages. Regards So Why 21:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, SoWhy. My point is no reasonable person would perceive my response to him as a "legal threat." Do you perceive it as a threat? If so, please explain why. I do not believe that I have engaged in any "behavior" which contravenes policy or good manners. Merely saying that someone might perceive my "language" as a "threat," without any real basis, is just plain goofy, and a clumsy attempt to split the baby. Hammersoft's overwrought response and escalation speaks volumes. He is clearly used to WikiBullying other editors and is not used to being told that he is wrong with supporting chapter and verse.

Now, I must apologize to you, because I must leave for a 6:00 PM EDT meeting. However, I would very much like finish this conversation with you when I return this evening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you, sort-of-lawyer to lawyer, is to avoid the discussion of law on WP. Hammersoft was not representing the views of WP in his comments, only his own. Wikipedia employs a dedicated lawyer, Mike Godwin, to deal with any matters IP related or otherwise, and you are not, as an anonymous bloke over the internet, qualified to give a legal opinion any more than Hammersoft is. Ironholds (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds, thank you for one of the more reasonable responses that I have received regarding this tempest in a teapot. Your comments are well taken. From your Talk page and use of British vernacular, I would be curious to know whether you are either an Anglophile American lawyer or a UK barrister or solicitor. I did a semester as a law school exchange student in England, and I have very fond memories of my time in the UK and my British professors.

I was asked to get involved in the WikiProject University of Florida by a classmate who wanted to see our alma mater better represented on Wikipedia than it was by the several less-than-scholarly articles covering UF-related topics. Frankly, I was appalled by the quality of writing and signed on to clean up about two dozen high-priority articles, so that folks seeking information about UF would not think less of the university when they read the Wiki articles about it. That's why I'm on Wikipedia----I'm on a short-term mission to satisfy

As for today's contretemps, you are correct, sir, I should not be positing legal opinions on copyright, or any other legal matters, anonymously, on Wikipedia. I am a Florida and Georgia-licensed corporate and commercial real estate lawyer. I am not a U.S. IP specialist by any means, and, even if I were, it is professionally inadvisable to hand out anonymous legal opinions. When the other gentleman in this matter began to lay down his understanding of the "law" hard and fast, without any knowledge of the underlying facts and circumstances of the particular artwork or photo, it was apparent that he had absolutely no grasp of the dozens of circumstances and exceptions to the hard-and-fast copyright "safe harbor" rule that he was quoting as law and unchallenged Wikipedia copyright policy. I picked up the telephone and called a law school classmate who practices IP law full-time in Seattle. There are literally dozens of scenarios where the 1946 sculptor's copyright has probably been lost to the public domain . . . .

The artist's failure to register a U.S. copyright in 1946-1947; the failure to reserve copyright with a circle "c" icon on the artwork itself; the failure to renew the copyright in its 28th year (1974) according to then-applicable copyright law; the fact that the artwork was a commissioned "artwork for hire" in which the artist's copyright is presumed, as a matter of law, to be transferred to the owner and commissioning party (the State of Florida) in the absence of a written agreement to the contrary. These are just a handful of the probable exceptions to the 1923 "safe harbor" rule cited by the self-appointed enforcer of Wikipedia copyright policy. BTW, as it was explained to me by someone far better versed in U.S. copyright law than I ever hope to be, in the absence of a copyright registration or the reservation of circle "c" rights, the presumption is in favor of public domain use of the artwork's image. What's the practical significance of this, you ask? In the absence of a registration, the artist can only demand that you cease and desist in the use of an image of artwork IF he actually has a retained copyright. In the absence of a registration, damages are not available as a remedy unless the user of the image has actual knowledge of the existence of the artist's retained copyright. If the artist has a retained copyright, he can demand that the user cease in its use.

Furthermore, the self-appointed enforcers of Wikipedia copyright law, like Hammersoft, seem to have a very crabbed view of the American concept of "fair use." Most American IP attorneys start by analyzing whether the use has any commercial or pecuniary value to the user. In the absence of commercial use, which is supposedly absent from all Wikipedia encyclopedia articles, a colorable argument can almost always be made that the use of the photograph or image of the artwork has an educational aspect thus qualifying it for a "fair use" exception. The hard-and-fast position taken by Hammersoft makes the "fair use" doctrine pretty darn close to meaningless, and, yes, as a laymen he is unqualified to be making such determinations. If Wikipedia is going to permit "fair use" exceptions to images still subject to possible copyrights, then Wikipedia needs to have individuals who are qualified to evaluate those exceptions which are put forward by image uploaders and article editors. Otherwise, just adopt a strict rule and cease any pretense of evaluating "fair use" exceptions.

Anyhoo, Ironholds, thank you for reading my extended vent on your Talk page. I feel much better now. If this issue cannot be resolved in the Wiki copyright forum, I will take it up with Mr. Godwin. As a former corporate general counsel myself, I am sure Mr. Godwin has far bigger issues to resolve than my very small complaint, and I will only approach him as an absolute last resort.

Thank you, once again, for your comment and understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently some way down the long route to becoming a barrister - I'm qualified to practice in a massive zero legal jurisdictions :P. Wikipedia users normally deal with fair/free use decisions in a "broad strokes" manner because most of them aren't lawyers, which can be a bit infuriating because of technicalities that can turn the validity of their decisions on its head. Still, there are some excellent users who can help you with this sort of thing - User:Geni has an annoyingly good grasp of US intellectual property law as it relates to images for someone with a Chemistry degree. If you'd like a third opinion but don't want to bother Mike, I'd go to him or (possibly) User:Jdforrester, who has a good grasp of copyright law and used to be the Wikimedia Foundation gopher. He has a rather long response time on his talkpage, though. Best, Ironholds (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir. This is exactly the sort of advice and referral to the in-house experts that I was seeking in the first instance. If needed, I will gladly seek out Geni and Jdforrester for further discussion and advice

Since returning to the office around 9:30 PM EDT, I have been following the discussion among the Wiki copyright experts on the discussion page (without commenting myself). It seems that one of the Wiki greybeards has found a related "public domain" rationale for the use of images of public statuary. Apparently, there is ample evidence from third-party sources, including the Smithsonian and one or more art registration services, that the statue in question has long been in the public domain based on its public display for 60+ years. There's even an already approved photo in WikiCommons.

Good luck with your qualification as a barrister. Very different standard of practice in the UK and the USA. We get much more formal education than you, but far less practical experience, before the powers-that-be unleash us on the unsuspecting public. I have been a corporate and commercial real estate transactional attorney for 12 years, but I have come to dip my toe in real estate and construction-related litigation from time to time. The substantive law is easy given my transactional background, and fortunately I have friends who help keep me out of the civil procedure ditch by looking over my shoulder.

If you're ever on this side of the pond and in need of a pint, please consider this a standing invitation to take advantage of our Southern hospitality in Atlanta. I have several Oxford classmates, including one attractive female lawyer, who would feel honor-bound to fill your glass. Cheers----and get some sleep, my peace-making friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :). I travel to Atlanta relatively regularly ("relatively" for someone on a student budget) and should I return any time soon I may well take you up on that offer. I've got to say I rather prefer the American system - one can't adequately cover all the relevant law in a mere three years of academic learning. The practical learning is all well and good, but one has to know what he's going to put in that skeleton argument he's spent two years learning how to write :p. Ironholds (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1: Just a reminder than Wikipedia is a community. In order to remain collegial, I recommend you strike the "offending" comments using <s> </s>. This will help to put the situation behind you, as I expect you will work with the other editor in the near future. Please ensure that your tone does not escalate in the future - even though you may be a lawyer, you have no jurisdiction or extra powers on Wikipedia, just like the fact that I'm a journalist by trade does not give me special status (see also WP:EXPERT). Thanks, and happy editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BWilikins, I accept your "collegiality" comment in the spirit in which it was intended. Please see my comments on the administrators' incidents page. In the interest of ending this teapot tempest, I will strike, as suggested, with the understanding that my original language will still show through the strike-outs. In the spirit of collegiality, will you not counsel Mr. Hammersoft regarding his own overwrought reaction and intimidation tactics? From my perspective, the attitudes shown by his User and Talk page comments and the mocking tone taken with regard to other editors is evidence of a lack of maturity and little man syndrome. Frankly, bullies don't like it when you push back. My last words on the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been a much better statement if you had left out the Personal Attacks. After all, quite a few people attempted to explain to you why it was not unreasonable for Hammersoft to take your comment as a legal threat -- it wasn't just something he saw. The spirit of WP:NLT is "no chilling effects".

Sir, I am trying to be a good sport about this, but there is a real need to acknowledge the poor attitude, abrasive manner and insulting language of the other party in this dust-up. We did not arrive at this point because I chose to pick a fight. I asked for help on the appropriate page, and Mr. Hammersoft chose to defend his position on that page to the exclusion of offering help or allowing anyone else to do so. Why the heck do we have "help" pages if they are only going to be used to restate the original application of the policy in dispute? And, yes, it irritates the beejeebers out of me that I am being cast as the heavy in this matter.

Side note: I am doing something wrong in the insertion of the strike-out codes----can you correct for me? I am really ready to be done with this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's ok as it currently stands, yes?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sarek. I figured it out by trial and error----I now understand the "nowiki" disabling codes. Sometimes, we learn by doing.

Dirtlawyer1 ... thanks for doing that. As you can now see, if you're getting into any kind of "dust up", there are all kinds of people who can help - incivility goes to WP:WQA, long-term issues go to WP:RFC/U, and immediate action requirements go to WP:ANI. We're not here to hurt, we're here to help, and editors are recommended to not take things into their own hands. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins, I appreciate that. Frankly, I asked for help from the copyright community board, got none, and felt like I was being stalked by the other gentleman, who appears to be on a single-handed quest to enforce what he perceives to be Wikipedia copyright policy (and not necessarily the current consensus, based on the comments of others). If there's one thing I've learned from my 12 years as a lawyer, sometimes it's better when you don't get your own way . . . you just need to listen and be receptive to the other guy's side of the story. (It can save your client money, and the lawyer a lot of heartache.) I wish the Wiki copyright enforcement brigade would adopt this as their credo. BTW, I had a very pleasant encounter with another copyright enforcer, Rockfang, who was very helpful in resolving a university sports team logo issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One minor thing I want to add: can you please make sure you fill in an edit summary for all of your edits - it helps people understand what was done - even stating simple things like "reply", "comment", "added reference" is extremely helpful to all! Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins, I will endeavour to accommodate you. Several of the articles where the bulk of my recent edits were absorbed were effectively "scratch" articles, and I got out of the habit of including the edit summaries because they were redundant of the sentence or paragraph that was being added. I promise to be better about this in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirtlawyer1, I've let go of the issue and have no desire to kick the dust back up again. I am here because nobody has drawn your attention to an important policy of ours, except by oblique reference. You have referred to be as a bully, having a lack of maturity, squeeling, overwraught, stalking you, "on a single-handed quest", and suffering from "little man syndrome". As I know you are aware of my userpage, you are also aware that insults have no negative effect on me. Rather, to me they are badges of honor. So, I take no insult from your epithets. SarekofVulcan noted some of them as being personal attacks as well, and that is the oblique reference. I don't care if you feel the insults were warranted, don't want you to apologize for them, etc. I really don't. I'm not trying to start something anew here. I do feel it necessary, given that nobody else has done so, of drawing your attention to our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. In general, you may wish to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]