User talk:Termer/Archive Oct 2007

Calm down

Xil has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I understand you might have had bad time, but, please, don't spill the occupation war into innocent articles. Tagging an article which happens to tell widely accepted version of history as POV just because you believe that "The USSR was not governed by the rule of law" is.. um.. perhaps you should read WP:AGW---- Xil...sist! 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'm taking it very calmly and I'm always having good time. The only thing I'd have to add to the previous perhaps that WP is not a place for fairy tales like the articles about USSR are written you have mentioned here.--Termer 01:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Venedes

Hi,

I noticed you added merge template to the Venedes article under the explanation that the article refers to the same ethnos as Wends. I believe your conjecture on this is wrong. Please read the article on Venedes carefully as it attempts to explain very precisely where the difference between the two ethnic groups is and why Slavs came to be referred as Wenden by the Germanic peoples.

Perhaps one of the reasons that may have led you to the conclusion Venedes=Wends is the rather ill-chosen title Venedes itself (I'm not sure whether this ethnonym actually exists in the English language), since the article actually refers to one of the many ancient IE groups known under the name of Veneti. I would instead propose a new discussion that the article be moved, perhaps to Vistula Veneti or Northern Veneti. Regards --Jalen 16:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jalen, thank you for your post. Please read the relevant talk pages, it's been discussed there in depth. Including the fact that Venedes is not used that much in English.--Termer 01:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the ethnonym Venedes is quite unusual for English. At least as far as I am concerned, I haven't encountered it English literature. Most authors speak of Veneti. I would therefore propose that the article be moved to avoid any further confusion. Perhaps Northern Veneti would be a reasonable solution.

Since you still seem to believe that some scholars equate Venedes and Wends, I suggest you read this excerpt [1] of the book the Dawn of Slavic by Alexander Schenker, pages 3-5 (Were the Veneti Slavic?). If you understand German, you may also consider reading one of the references of the Venedes article, namely the doctoral thesis by Austrian scholar Roland Steinacher Die Gleichsetzung der Ethnonyme Wenden, Slawen und Vandalen vom Mittelalter bis ins 18. Jahrhundert (it is accessible as an external link in the references section). Particularly noteworthy is the chapter die Vorgeschichte der bezeichnung Wenden on pages 28-35. Regards, --Jalen 07:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jalen, that's cool, lets take it to the talk page. I think Wends has mad a good progress since. But Venedes would need some work to set things straight. Thanks!--Termer 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I have added the RM tag to the Venedes talkpage. For now, my suggestions are Northern Veneti or Vistula Veneti. I've also invited user Olessi who has participated in previous discussions to voice his opinion. Regards --Jalen 07:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Calling my edits "a mess" is uncivil. Please be more careful in your edit summaries. DrKiernan 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't refer to your edits but to the section in general. in case you admit creating the mess then please do not edit subjects you're not competent in the future. Thanks!--Termer 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your response is also uncivil. DrKiernan 07:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your opinions.--Termer 07:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The "correct" response would be "I'm sorry you were offended by my edit summary; it was not directed at you personally but at the section only." DrKiernan 07:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was offended by your ignorant edits indeed but I'm willing to put the matter behind us and apologize in case you feel offended. Thanks--Termer 07:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Which of my edits was "ignorant"? DrKiernan 07:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the edits I've made after yours, hope, should do the talking. Please let me know if anything. I'm off for now. --Termer 07:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As your edits are in agreement with my edits, and with my opinions, I don't see how they explain your combative attitude or your accusation of ignorance. DrKiernan 07:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that we're in agreement and perhaps it's the best to call it a misunderstanding. Good night from LA for now!--Termer 07:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Learned Estonian Society

Hi, I responded on Talk:Learned Estonian Society. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, rewriting is indeed the best option. But why do you still think the text is in the public domain? I really would like to know to either stop me wrongly deleting articles or to prevent more copyright violations. Garion96 (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is at a public domain site. Please feel free to email the society janetl@ut.ee or the University directly in case you have any doubts that the article on WP might have been a Copyright violation.

Regarding copyright violations, I do not wish to get into WikiLawyering but please, in case you ever have come across for example Dover publishing and their practices then you should know what can and what can't be considered a copyvio by any laws. By these internationally accepted standards your opinion A barely rewrite does not make it any less of a copyvio has no basis whatsoever even if the article was rephrased from a text of a copyrighted commercial web site or from any source that could be considered an intellectual property. The best anybody could get out of it would be calling it plagiarism not Copyright infringement.--Termer 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

PS.In any case as far as I'm concerned you have violated Wikipedia:Copyright violations procedures: If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored. ...if all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there.--Termer 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Than we agree to disagree. I work with copyright in my daily job and I can quaranty you that, despite the barely rewrite, legally it was a copyright violation. If the text on that site is Public Domain it might be different, but we need proof for that. You are free of course, to send them an e-mail and forward their reply to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org (Wikipedia:OTRS, If they confirm it is PD I can undelete the article.

Regarding Wikipedia:Copyright problems. It was listed there since 2 September, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 September 2, and the article was tagged as such. A non-admin in error removed the tag. So even per procedure the deletion was correct. Garion96 (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The consensus on the talk page was clearly -"not a copyvio", therefore once again, I don't think it's worth arguing it over... --Termer 22:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't trump copyright concerns, but yes, we simply don't agree. Garion96 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

-the consensus is meant to be there to make sure if any "copyright concerns" have any basis. You have deleted an article that included facts that never can be copyrighted and the statues of the society that are copyright free according to the copyright law §5 you have claimed does not apply in this case. Therefore you have violated the Wikipedia:Copyright problems, the most you could have done following the policies would have been removing any text according to If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed. It doesn't say anything about deleting an entire article that includes things that are not copyrighted by any means.

Now that’s fine that you work with copyright in your daily job. So do I. I'm highly payed professional working in the entertainment industry in Los Angeles and am fully aware of the nuances anybody would need to know about any copyright issues. But since opinions of anonymous wikipedians do not count in cases like we have here, we should drop this kind of arguments from both sides and stick to the facts. And these were, copyright does not apply to facts and the statues of the organization and its official translations. Therefore currently I can't even restore the article because you might claim again that the things listed in the article are copyrighted. The only thing I can do really is just to “keep good faith” that you’ll realize your mistake and restore the article and only remove any text that can possibly be considered a copyvio. Thanks!--Termer 04:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

True, our daily jobs has got nothing do with it, so that was indeed pointless of me to bring that up. I think it is a copyright violation and will not restore the article. You are more than welcome to take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, or to start the article from scratch. And no, facts are not copyrighted, I never said they were. The article, on the other hand, consisted of whole sentences and paragraphs copy & pasted from the source text. Since I see no evidence the source text is public domain I deleted the article as a copyright violation. Garion96 (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole sentences that were copy pasted were the statues of the society, once again, that's why there was the copyright law pasted up there to show that these are not copyrighted. everything else in the article was altered or rephrased.--Termer 10:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The example sentence I stated on the talk page to compare was not in the statutes at all, only in this. Please take it to deletion review or start from scractch. Garion96 (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Round five, like I said, in case some content might be copyvio, it should be removed from an article according to the policies, it doesn't justify deleting the entire article that include facts and statues of the society that are not copyrighted by any means. Thanks--Termer 17:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)