User talk:Ptmccain/Archive July 27, 2006

Thanks for that proposal

You'll see I have asked some questions. While I have a couple of changes I'd propose, I'd suggest they be dealt with in an environment where changes are made only by consensus; in other words, I believe I could convince SV in particular, as the original author of a couple of phrases, that there are better ways to do certain things. So, if this is a proposed complete resolution, I think it sounds very good. Sam 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I propose it as a complete revision, though objective analysis of it reveals it is a modest revision, retaining most of what SV did with it recently. I put it up on the talk page for discusssion after it was reverted, but I did sincerely believe SV and I had reached a consensus on trying to indicate persons' affiliations. I notice the person who reverted it was not a participant in any discussion. As the present form of the article now stands it contains an error in describing Rabbi Bernbaum. I also tried very hard to be respectful of SV's concerns about the wording. I even removed the person who seems to have been a source of concern on the part of some editors: Netto. But I notice that my revision was simply reverted with no discussion and my placement of the article on the talk page has now been described as "clogging." I believe it is still good to rise above the pettiness and let it be seen for what it is. I'm doing my best to be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF and I truly wish others would. But it would appear that one editor in particular, whomm I suspect actually of being two editors, is doing all he can to try to keep stirring up conflict and strife on the page. It's clear to me from the history that several of us have fed into that by responding in kind, me included, but that was not the right approach. That's why I believe the advice on WP:CIVIL is extremely wise. In such cases the best response is simply to ignore the person, forgive them, and respond as kindly as possible. Perhaps the editor will cool it, or if he persists, this then will be a matter to be taken up by Wiki administrators.Ptmccain 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

Looks like I stepped in it :) Well, I'll take a look and get up to speed before I make any other changes. --Trödel 20:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite easy to do, I assure you. Thanks for your interest in the page. By the way, I would appreciate your response to my question on why you believe use of the SH automatically means the article is not NPOV? That's the real point, I think. Ptmccain 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep saying that using a recognized source means their can't be a POV issue. First I'm not sure what you mean by recognized - if you mean that it is on the template messages page then there are plenty of POV sources on that page. E.g.: {{Catholic}} This source is also on the Template Messages page but that doesn't mean it doesn't present things from a Catholic point of view.

I'm trying to outline some of the neutrality objections - but things just can't happen as quickly as needed. Generally I try to take a m:eventualist attitude and make the change I can and rely on other good editors to do the ones I can't. Like I said I jumped in a little to quick because of the issue of using source template messages at random places in the article rather than in the References section - but as Slimvirgin said that is a style guide not really a policy. However, using it outside the references section really makes the article unencyclopedic imho. I've got some time now to continue to get up to speed on Luther and the issues. --Trödel 16:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Troedel, I can understand what you are saying. I believe however that the WP:NPOV policy indicates that when you post a POV tag you are to, at the same time, provide the specific reasons for doing so. I've learned a lot in this regard. That is, you are to give very specific reasons, and examples, of where you believe statements in the article are in violation of NPOV, otherwise you really shouldn't use the POV tag. And, if you haven't noticed, given the rather, let us say, "energetic" level of participation on the Luther pages, putting a tag up without properly and specifically giving reasons for doing so is likely to add to the "energy" leavel on the page. So, based on what you have said, I would respectfully suggest you take the POV tag down until you are ready to put it up again with a thorough explanation. The whole SH thing began when SV posted a section on the talk page called "plagiarism" and thereby created a rather hostile environment on the issue, with other editors chiming in accusing fellow editors of "plagiarism" when, in fact, it was a simple matter of the source tag being removed accidentally by one editor some time ago. I completely concur that we should cite references as much as we casn, and you'll note my edits today have done that. The accusation that large chunks of the encyclopedia were simply brought in wholescale, verbatim, doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. That issue really was more about edit warring than substance though. So, getting back to the POV tag, if you check WP:NPOV carefully and read up on what is expected when using the tag you will see that you really have not used it appropriately at this point. Respectfully, Ptmccain 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you and I are coming to a consensus - although the article identifies that some of it came from SH - since at least some of the language coming from SH looks to be verbatim:

"There was no longer hope of peace. HisLuther's writings were now circulated most widely, reaching France, England, and Italy as early as 1519.1619, and s Students thronged to Wittenberg to hear Luther, who had been joined by Melanchthon in 1518, and now published his shorter commentary on Galatians and his Operationes in Work on the Psalms,[38] while at the same time, he received deputations from Italy and from the Utraquists of Bohemia

Hopefully, today, I have done more good than harm, unlike yesterday. --Trödel 19:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Per your last note - I understand what you want. My approach, once I realized there was no summary of the dispute, was to identify the areas of dispute (provide my own summary) - which was the list I provided. And then review the language, which I am doing now. If I think the changes are uncontroversial - I'll just make them to the article. If not - I'll bring them to the talk page. --Trödel 19:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm chuckling a bit at your comment. Assuming something is "uncontoversial" on the Martin Luther page is quite a risk to take! You might want first to post what you are proposing to do and solicit and invite comments before you do it. I tried to make changes on a section based on what I understood to be an "ok" on the discussion page to do what I did, but wrath and woe on every hand came down as a result. Now, I've simply got the same proposed form up for discussion and have indicated I'll be putting it in the page in a week or so. The loudest voices have not bothered actually to discuss anything, but they at least have their chance to do so. For what it is worth. If you want to run it by me here on my talk page and just avoid the Luther page altogether, that's fine by me. Happy to help.Ptmccain 20:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

glad I could add some levity - by uncontroversial I meant copyedit stuff like this change --Trödel 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. If it is only that perhaps it might survive! <g> Ptmccain 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

no wonder you're so quick on this one - I just found this reference "Concordia -the Lutheran Confessions : A Readers Edition of the Book of Concord" by Paul T. McCain - and then the same name is on your user page - I guess I should have read the your userpage ;) --Trödel 20:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to stick with what I know about rather than try to insert myself into issues I know little about. Wikipedia is plagued with the myth that the egalitarian "everyone is entitled to edit" approach. I have an interesting article on my main user page that you might find interesting reading, by a guy who was a co-founder of Wiki but then left apparently disillusioned with project. Ptmccain 20:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read Larry's full note on anti-Elitism as well as read the very lengthy explanation of how he thinks strong collaboration could work better and on what projects (see full text. And while I think that creditionals ought to be given some weight in evaluating information - creditials and expertise are the most useful in access to references and presenting good discussion points. The problem I see is that there is really no way to do two things on wikipedia that are really needed and thus the chaotic nature remains: 1) some locking mechanism for complete articles, pending new information, which is needed for good articles that are complete but not on many people's watchlists so subtle vandalism slips in over time; and 2) a mechanism to recognize expertise. --Trödel 20:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo! However, Wiki doesn't lock down pages because the theory is that through this magical process by which people who may be less informed than a box of rocks on any given subject will somehow be able to work wonders on articles. So, in this sense, Wiki is very non-encyclopedic in nature. And by encouraging anonymity and eschewing what it regards as "elitism" Wikipedia actually ends up shooting itself in the foot. But it is fun to work on it and may help some folks who otherwise may have no idea where to begin to look for information. The most good might be that Wikipedia might provide a starting place for further study and reading on any given subject. And, given the nature of how discussion pages go and page histories, users can see when and where are points of contention and be warned that way. Thanks for the thoughts.Ptmccain 20:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The smile

Was for all those who helped me get through an edit war.Also to those who I was fighting with

The nonsense: Was a help request obviously showing my confusion.

The page colour: Is none of your buisness. No one has complained. Many have helped get it this way.

The Caps: MEAN nothing to me. ARE you saying that every time I CAPITALIZE a letter I am yelling? If so I just yelled i, capitalize, the, mean and are.

My warning: Is to back off unless you have done full research on what you are talking about.

The above: Is a friendly warning. I am not being uncivil but I am quite irritated.--Qho 18:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You better not have deleated all of my smilies or I will call the admins on you.That, is vandalizm. Seriously I just got this war overwith a few hours ago. I am not in the mood so please, dont push it.

Luther

I've responded on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, since you expressed the point that you have had problems following the Talk page at Martin Luther I wanted to be sure you got my note.Ptmccain 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your image uploads

Hi. While looking through some of the non-free image categories, I noticed that you uploaded several images using the non-free "Creative Commons Attribution NoDerivs 2.0 License" ({{Cc-by-nd-2.0}}). Since you are the author of these images, would you consider changing their license to a more free license such as the GFDL or a more-free CC license? Specifically, I am referring to Image:StMaryChurch.jpg and Image:EinFesteBurg.jpg, although there may be others I have not gotten to yet. Thank you for your consideration. --BigDT 13:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me the tag to use? I don't know much about any of this, but am happy to change it. Thanks. Ptmccain 13:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

{{GFDL-self}} is the best one to use, in my opinion, because it exactly matches the license under which all of our Wikipedia contributions are released. Another good one is {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}, which is a free license very similar to the one you had selected before. Thanks. -BigDT 15:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thank you. Ptmccain 16:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I figured out that this is the license I want to use on these images. {{Cc-by-nd-2.0}} Thanks for drawing all this to my attention. Ptmccain 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, licenses, such as that one, that do not permit derivative works are not considered to be "free" licenses and cannot be used on Wikipedia (unless they also qualify for "fair use"). {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} would be very similar to the one you are looking at, but would permit derivative works as long as those derivative works credit you and are released under the same license. If you have no objections to doing so, please consider retagging images you own as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} so that they can continue to be used on Wikipedia. BigDT 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's odd since the tag is one suggested by Wiki, among the menu of choices. Can you help me understand this?? Ptmccain 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the drop down list on Special:Upload? Looking at that list, I see two choices under "Creative Commons" - "Attribution ShareAlike 2.5" (which maps to {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}) and "Attribution 2.5" (which maps to {{Cc-by-2.5}}). The "no derivative" licenses used to be considered free licenses - I don't know when that changed - a year or so ago I guess - so it is distinctly possible that some places, they continues to be listed as free licenses as an oversight. This page - MediaWiki:Licenses - is where the licenses displayed in the dropbox are configured. There is some talk on the talk page - MediaWiki talk:Licenses about adding the "no derivative" licenses as "trap" licenses. In other words, their existence there would encourage uploaders to select the actual license, rather than lying about it and picking a false license. Then, the users would see a message telling them that their license is unacceptable - if it's their own work they should change it, if someone else's ask permission, etc. At any rate, it's possible that at some point, you saw the "non-free" licenses listed as "trap" licenses just like how you see "non-commercial" as a choice right now. (Please note, I'm not endorsing trap licenses, I'm just trying to answer your question as to why it might be listed.) I hope that helps. At any rate, you would retag your images as {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}}), there will not be a problem. Something you can do is add to the page that you would appreciate an email if someone uses your image. (You cannot make it a requirement - that would make it non-free, but you can request a courtesy email.) That way, you can discuss with the person the kind of derivative work they are creating. The thing to keep in mind is that if someone is an honest person using your image, they are going to give you credit for the image whether you ask them to or not. If they are dishonest, all of the copyright restrictions in the world aren't going to stop them from doing whatever they want. So in the end, what tag you use is more of a formality in terms of practical value, but for legal reasons, the formality has to be followed for Wikipedia. This has been kindof a long, rambling message - I hope it helps. BigDT 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks! I'll get to this later tonight. Ptmccain 18:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove other people's talk page comments

Unless someone is being disruptive or worse, we do not remove selected comments from talk pages. If you want to archive the whole page, do so (though doing it to squelch an ongoing conversation will generally earn you even more annoying conversation.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of you to take time out of your busy schedule to give me such wise counsel. You may wish also to consider advising Jayjg of his obligations under WP:CIVIL and WP:GF, since has been clogging a useful discussion with remarks that are unfactual, untrue and that continue to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. I'm sure as an administrator you would not want to give the impression you are being inconsistent or applying Wiki standards of behavior selectively, depending on the circumstance or discusssion, which may, or may not, advance and support your editing interests and POV. Thanks.Ptmccain 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)