User talk:Ian Salisbury
"Free content"
[edit]One of the freedoms required for WP to consider an item free content is the freedom to make and distribute modified versions. Because the Crown Copyright waiver does not grant this freedom, material covered by it is not considered "free".
Such material was once welcomed at Wikipedia, most notably publicity shots with permission to use but not to modify. However such publicity shots are no longer welcomed, because it is considered they inhibit people coming forward with their own completely free and unrestricted content. This thinking is the main motivation behind WP:NFCC #1.
However, this argument as such really only logically applies to material which is replaceable -- ie to a photo of an actress with limited restrictions which could be replaced with a photo of the actress with no restrictions.
There is also a strong motivation only to use content on Wikipedia which would not limit a commercial republisher's ability to reuse Wikipedia content -- hence WP's rejection of "noncommercial use only" licensed material.
But you might like to ask at WT:NFC whether, apart from impoverishing Wikipedia, there is any purpose served by limiting material which is not replaceable by any more free image, nor restricted in its commercial re-usability, but only restricted in that it cannot be modified.
You are likely to find a cadre of die-hards who take the view that every and any "non-free" image on wikipedia is a stain on the project to be removed. "Our m:mission here is to create a free encyclopedia" is a typical slogan. But if you can push past unreasoned sloganeering, to get people to ask themselves what actually empowers people and helps their freedom - showing people a non-replaceable image with restrictions, or no image at all - it is possible that more realistic down-to-earth Wikipedia pragmatism may prevail. It is not likely to be an easy path though. People will try and shout you down with well-worn mantras, rather than think from a fresh perspective about the underlying rights and wrongs of this particular case. If you go this route you might therefore be well-advised to also sanity-check your views with ordinary editors at any relevant wikiprojects first, rather than go into the lions den with the hardened image-warriors at WT:NFC by yourself.
You might also like to check, but my understanding is that (in most cases) Crown Copyright only lasts for 50 years. So it may be that copyright has actually expired in the images you are interested in, and they are now public domain, free for anybody to use or modify as they wish. Jheald (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Busy right now, but I'll follow your suggestions and return. As you know, I do have a problem with barnstar Wiki-warriors! Salisian (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Took a look at WT:NFC and ran away - not for me! So at User:Carnildo's suggestion (see File:1931 Act ed.jpg), I have taken the matter to User:Jimbo Wales. Salisian (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
The Webbs
[edit]Thanks for the comment - by all means restore it if there's enough historical significance to merit a full Sidney and Beatrice Webb article, I was just saving the reader from having to click through an extra, unexplanatory page. --McGeddon (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The article Society of Construction Arbitrators has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non notable organization - tagged since Apr 2008
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lionel (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Notice
[edit]
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ian Salisbury. Thank you. Lara 03:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
December 2010
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)- Timotheus, you've stated one week on the template, but the log is reading two weeks. Lara 12:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I do not accept this ruling but shall not contest it. I have seen that Lara has apologised to Warren Whyte, which at least is something. Lexigator does not own a computer, and as he is a contributor of some note I shall deal with the ways and the means of dealing with that when I am permitted to do so, be that in a week or a fortnight, or sometime later. Salisian (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- I obviously picked the wrong drop-down for the block length - fixed. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomination of Society of Construction Arbitrators for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Society of Construction Arbitrators is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of Construction Arbitrators until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Ian Salisbury. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)