User talk:Ohms law/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ohms law. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 14 |
At the RfC, you said "I'm leaning more towards 'in need of a comprehensive review' than 'content with it'." in the "Satisfied" section. I wonder whether this was an inadvertent misplacement Tony (talk)
- Maybe, I'll take a look again to make sure, but... I intended to pick the middle one, but I'm leaning more toward "we need to do something" than "just leave it alone", you know? If it was a 1 - 5 scale, with 1 being "don't touch it" and 5 being "total revamp", I'd go with 4 (3 being the only position available, that's what I voted on, but the explanation was that while I voted a "neutral" position, I'm more apt to support limited changes than not). Does that explain it better?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Logos on rivalry pages
Sorry man, but the FUR for those articles really isn't valid. It works on the baseball articles because the letter marks aren't copyrightable. But using team logos in that fashion does go against NFCC. I agree that it looks nicer, but that isn't a valid argument for keeping the logos, alas. The best solution is to try and find an image of the two teams facing each other. Cheers! Resolute 03:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- humm... I hear ya, but I don't see the distinction (well, I sorta do, but...). It's not as though I'm adding the logo to some off the wall page, for one thing. The rivalry page is intimately about both the Rangers and the Devils... to my mind, if the logo's are acceptable on either team's page, then they're perfectly acceptable on the page about the two teams. I think that we're being far too cautious with team logos, when we're saying that we can't use them on articles that are about the team (I don't think using the logos on player pages, or pages that aren't directly about the teams. Pages on team seasons however, and pages about time interactions such as this one, are obviously acceptable to me). And besides... well, I don't know, maybe I shouldn't mention this (I'm not looking to drag all sorts of people into this), but... Hammersoft acquiesced on this point back in January 2010 (after adding a good FUR to the image pages, at least), and the logos have been used there ever since until... looks like June 3rd was the first time you removed them (first time ya noticed?). If he went along with it...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC) - Oh, and baseball logos as logos are perfectly copyrightable. MLB and the individual teams hold copyright and trademarks for their logos. The lettering is stylized, which makes them distinctive art. There was a court case, settled out of court (for unspecified terms, after it became apparent that MLB was gonna win, if I remember correctly), over just that issue.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)- I'm thinking of things like the LA logo for the Dodgers. The Commons page for it says that while the logo is trademarked, it is not copyrightable as it is "simple geometric shapes or text". If that is incorrect, then it is something that may require correction on Commons. And yeah, I did remove them on the first time I noticed, after I AfDed another rivalry article. I do agree that we are a bit too strict on non-free use, but I'm still of the opinion that an image of game action between the teams would be superior to the logos. That said, it is interesting that Hammersoft was fine with their use. On that basis, I'm willing to withdraw my objection to their use, but will otherwise remain neutral. Cheers! Resolute 04:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- IIRC, the Dodgers logo was a central component to the lawsuit... I'll have to dig that up. I know that MLB claims copyright on all team logo's (though the individual teams), so... I'd think that the Commons use should be looked at regardless. Commons ought not to be hosting things like that (team and company logos) anyway, in my opinion.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)- If it is in copyright, I absolutely agree. That said, things like the Yankees NY logo might have expired copyright given it was created pre-1923. From a legal standpoint, I know that Wikimedia's general council has historically held the view that we shouldn't be too worried about weak claims to copyright (such as those who claim that colourizing a black-and-white photograph or digitizing a photograph would generate a new copyright), it is possible that Wikimedia would support the argument those letter marks are not copyrightable, regardless of MLB's claim. But, if we have doubt, it might be valuable to start a discussion on Commons. Resolute 04:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, and don't, worry about any but the most egregious instances of copyright infringement. The WMF can, will, and has dealt with issues that cause complaint. Not that we should let people upload whatever they want, with a "let the WMF sort it out" attitude... I don't want them spending my entire donation on hiring people just to deal with copyright claims and DCMA notices, after all. We do a more than adequate job on ensuring extremely limited infringement, primarily due to the fact that we're trying to be Free. The problem in my mind is that it's on Commons, which is supposed to be completely free. I just glanced at the commons page, which claims that the image is public domain, which is a claim that is so clearly wrong that it's farsical! The Yankees can claim copyright on their logo every year as well, and the US Congress passed a law extending copyright back well before the Yankees existed (most people call it the Mickey Mouse extension, since it's believed that Congress acted a the urging of Disney)... although, it's possible that we could claim that the logo used on some of the earliest Yankees uniforms and material is public domain... maybe. Anyway, I was looking for the stuff about lawsuits over logos... there was a thing last year where the Dodgers sued some private hamburger joint in Brooklyn because they used the same stylized font that the Dodgers use (slightly different logo, but same concept). I think the one I was thinking about was brought by MLB itself though, against some sports website.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I wouldn't, and don't, worry about any but the most egregious instances of copyright infringement. The WMF can, will, and has dealt with issues that cause complaint. Not that we should let people upload whatever they want, with a "let the WMF sort it out" attitude... I don't want them spending my entire donation on hiring people just to deal with copyright claims and DCMA notices, after all. We do a more than adequate job on ensuring extremely limited infringement, primarily due to the fact that we're trying to be Free. The problem in my mind is that it's on Commons, which is supposed to be completely free. I just glanced at the commons page, which claims that the image is public domain, which is a claim that is so clearly wrong that it's farsical! The Yankees can claim copyright on their logo every year as well, and the US Congress passed a law extending copyright back well before the Yankees existed (most people call it the Mickey Mouse extension, since it's believed that Congress acted a the urging of Disney)... although, it's possible that we could claim that the logo used on some of the earliest Yankees uniforms and material is public domain... maybe. Anyway, I was looking for the stuff about lawsuits over logos... there was a thing last year where the Dodgers sued some private hamburger joint in Brooklyn because they used the same stylized font that the Dodgers use (slightly different logo, but same concept). I think the one I was thinking about was brought by MLB itself though, against some sports website.
- If it is in copyright, I absolutely agree. That said, things like the Yankees NY logo might have expired copyright given it was created pre-1923. From a legal standpoint, I know that Wikimedia's general council has historically held the view that we shouldn't be too worried about weak claims to copyright (such as those who claim that colourizing a black-and-white photograph or digitizing a photograph would generate a new copyright), it is possible that Wikimedia would support the argument those letter marks are not copyrightable, regardless of MLB's claim. But, if we have doubt, it might be valuable to start a discussion on Commons. Resolute 04:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- IIRC, the Dodgers logo was a central component to the lawsuit... I'll have to dig that up. I know that MLB claims copyright on all team logo's (though the individual teams), so... I'd think that the Commons use should be looked at regardless. Commons ought not to be hosting things like that (team and company logos) anyway, in my opinion.
- I'm thinking of things like the LA logo for the Dodgers. The Commons page for it says that while the logo is trademarked, it is not copyrightable as it is "simple geometric shapes or text". If that is incorrect, then it is something that may require correction on Commons. And yeah, I did remove them on the first time I noticed, after I AfDed another rivalry article. I do agree that we are a bit too strict on non-free use, but I'm still of the opinion that an image of game action between the teams would be superior to the logos. That said, it is interesting that Hammersoft was fine with their use. On that basis, I'm willing to withdraw my objection to their use, but will otherwise remain neutral. Cheers! Resolute 04:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on WP:Hockey. Take a look at the page and ensure I haven't done anything that is violating any of the rules of Wikipedia. I don't believe I have engaged in WP:OR. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Logo RFC
While I see you're trying to exhaust all the team logos, I recommend maybe focusing the debate on one sport and trying to identify process, legal issues and the like for the RFC. That is because the advice given needs to be generic across all logo use, but a profession sport team provides enough examples of the discrepancies that one might encounter.
Following the RFC, it would then make sense to get a community involved project to work through all other logos in an organized manner to move and tag them appropriately. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sound advice... I was thinking of culling some of them out already, but I wanted to try to get them all on a single page first, just to get a broad overview of what we're dealing with, you know? I'm also slightly concerned with being overly selective... like, "we do it this way for WikiProject <so and so>, so what you're saying here doesn't affect us" kind of thing.23:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Just make sure that in the RFC, you're saying you are using a specialized case or two (of different pro sports) to show what you believe are inconsistencies for how logos are handled and that you think there can be a more consistent handling of these across all logos but deriving from this initial set. --MASEM (t) 00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
China
Hi; just so you know, I asked a question about your comment and vote at the Talk:China requested move. I just wanted to be clear that you're aware the article about the modern state commonly known as "China" is located at People's Republic of China. Thanks! Mlm42 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- No worries; reading other people's votes, this appears to be a common misunderstanding (and hence why the pages need to be moved). Mlm42 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
BLP1E
You said, "I see that there's a similar discussion already underway on another noticeboard" when hatting the chat on ANI - which other noticeboard did you mean? Chzz ► 23:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- The one you started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, of course!
It's not exactly the same, but the overlap is fairly significant.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)- Ah, gotcha, thanks! It's all a bit all-over-the-place; sorry. Chzz ► 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. That's what really motivated me to hat the sub-section. Too many questions, all inter-tangled, here. We'll get around to addressing everything, I'm sure (...or, not. You know how it is just as well as I do).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. That's what really motivated me to hat the sub-section. Too many questions, all inter-tangled, here. We'll get around to addressing everything, I'm sure (...or, not. You know how it is just as well as I do).
- Ah, gotcha, thanks! It's all a bit all-over-the-place; sorry. Chzz ► 23:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Re. "not so resolved" on the ANI,
I'm commenting here, not elsewhere, because really this is just a comment to you, Ohms law;
My own concern over Anders Behring Breivik not being a redirect is based on what I believe to be a firm policy, BLP1E, and - despite everything I've read - I can't understand why it isn't. Thus, of course, I think ErrantX was right to redirect it; whether xe was right to protect it is another matter, and I'm not so sure.
But...unless I'm totally misunderstanding policy, we have a situation with an article on a living person in direct contradiction to a BLP policy.
I queried the AfD closure with the closing admin; it seems to me a very inappropriate SNOW closure, but xe refuses to accept that BLP1E is a policy. Please, see User talk:Utcursch#1E.
Thus, I have two unresolved concerns - the article itself, and the fact that utcursch seems to have a very different understanding of BLP policy to myself. And I don't really know how to deal with those concerns, or where.
One option would be DRV - but, after the days that would take - followed, presumably, by another AfD. That'd cause DRAMA and it's quite possible that by the time it concluded, the article subject will have moved beyond BLP1E (due to increased coverage, more RS relating to his life unconnected to the event itself) - so, probably a waste of effort.
I'll probably do nothing - but I'd like to know your thoughts. Chzz ► 01:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- I just replied on BLPN, I posted a question related to all of this on Talk:Anders Behring Breivik, and the reply that I posted on ANI was really in direct response to what ErrantX said. What I see there is a threat to disrupt the encyclopedia (over BLP, again). If that is indeed the plan then it's best to know now, whether that confirmation comes here or at ANI. If there's some mistake (which I hope is true), then that should be straightened out as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Consensus regarding User:Nmatavka
User:Cunard has commented on my talk page at User talk:EdJohnston#User:Nmatavka restrictions. You're the one who undid my close, so the next action should probably come from you rather than me. Do you want to reply to Cunard in that thread? He observes that six editors supported the restriction and 5.5 days had passed. I myself was considering whether to block Nmatavka for undoing the result of the MfD, but a restriction sounded like a milder remedy. Your recommendation of what to do next is invited. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Question
Is this indeed the current policy "no inline attribution... but you can add it if you think it's important and others don't actively remove it"? Could you give me a link to it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, it's called "consensus". There's no specific policy, but there is a sitewide editorial behavior policy for Wikipedia:Consensus.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
responded at my talk page...
Could you please respond with evidence that I knew that someone else had made the change before I did, and that I knowingly and willfully knew that I was not the first person to make the change in question? Because if you cannot prove that I commited a violation, your baseless accusation is willfully damaging to my reputation, and I will not stand for someone recklessly and willfully accusing me of things which I did not do, and which they have literally zero evidence of happening. Please read further on my talk page, and either provide evidence that I knowingly and willfully committed the act you accuse me of, or please retract your (what I can only assume to be) intentionally misleading and damaging statements. --Jayron32 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Additional comments on the background behind my actions at my talk page. Thank you for your prompt attention! I appreciate your willingness to communicate over this issue in a rationale manner. --Jayron32 23:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
delete it now. (7474) 1992 TC exist, which name is more properr and it refers to the same object — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArgGeo (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you're telling me about this, or why you couldn't take care of it yourself, but I went ahead and redirected one to the other. It looks as though User:Rich.lewis created both articles, on the same day, for some unknown reason. Oh well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
MickMacNee
FWIW, Mick's user page merely contained a service ribbon, generated by {{Yeoman Editor Ribbon}} and no other content. This was the case from January 2011 until it was deleted by his request. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- Holy crap, you've gotta be kidding me. somehow, some way, I really fucked up here, because everyone apparently thinks that I am saying something that I'm really not intending to say. This appears to be a hyper-defensive reaction on the part of many of you, which to be blunt strikes me as a new level of crazy in my experience here. Weird.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 12:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)- I can't speak for other admins, but was happy to let you know what was on Mick's talk page. I've got the tools to be able to see deleted pages, and there was nothing there that needed to be kept secret, which is why I was happy to let you know what the user page consisted of. Once ArbCom enacts its decision, we can all move forward less one source of irritation. Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how I'm going so wrong here. It's not about what was on his page... it never was. It's not even about the page being deleted, necessarily. ...This is just weird. Surreal, even. Oh well, it's not as though I care about all of this that much.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand how I'm going so wrong here. It's not about what was on his page... it never was. It's not even about the page being deleted, necessarily. ...This is just weird. Surreal, even. Oh well, it's not as though I care about all of this that much.
- I can't speak for other admins, but was happy to let you know what was on Mick's talk page. I've got the tools to be able to see deleted pages, and there was nothing there that needed to be kept secret, which is why I was happy to let you know what the user page consisted of. Once ArbCom enacts its decision, we can all move forward less one source of irritation. Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:USER block notice issue
Thanks for your link to the current discussion on my talkpage, as I would probably have never have realized there was a parallel discussion to the Village Pump one if you didn't tell me. Speaking of which, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_users_be_allowed_to_remove_current_block_notices.3F is currently re-opened to allow further comments, it seems, so it might be prudent to voice any opinion or concerns about the past closure there, where it will matter the most in affecting the current policy, rather than the under-watched policy talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by November 18, 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
It appears your bot is editing logged out.
See this and about a dozen other edits by that IP.
If that is your bot, please log it back in. If not, please contact an admin so that the IP can get blocked.
Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 02:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Crap. Thanks for the heads up.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
BAGBot: Your bot request Ohms Law Bot 3
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ohms Law Bot 3 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 08:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
RFAR on Abortion
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 25, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice discussion about improving meta
There is a steady stream of great en;wp contributors who want to reform meta; thanks for your good-faith suggestions, and I hope you spend enough time working on practical ideas to follow through on them with some of the veterans of Meta and other Foundation-wikis that deserve merging. – SJ + 04:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A revert of a change you made to WP:TITLE
Hi, I've started discussion about reverting a change you made to WP:TITLE back in May regarding "recognizability" here: Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Clarification_of_recognizability_lost. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
| You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited. |
|
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:NGC objects templates
Category:NGC objects templates, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cocoaguy ここがいい 18:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Recognizability poll
Ohms law, since you participated in previous discussions on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ohms law.
I mentioned on the iss talkpage here that some time ago you had appeared to have objected to the insertion of the ENG:VAR template on the ISS talkpage. I was pointing out (trying to) that there had been objections to the manner in which it was inserted, which is a separate issue to the variant itself, or whatever has become of peoples modern feelings on the issue.
I had been looking for the solution to the ongoing bad feelings that appear to exist on that page, trying to find ways to make old editors feel welcome to return, and had figured out some possible solutions. I found that there was confusion somewhere here I guess, where I also mention your comment, and so I tried tallying things in relation to the insertion of the template.
Anyhow, I'd like to invite you to review anything that I have said about your comments, I was meaning to do this but got a little distracted, I apologize. Do please note I'm not looking for support or otherwise, I just don't like talking about people behind their back. Usually I am more prompt and leave little notes like this on peoples pages. Resistance is futile ! (if it's less than .001 ohms) Penyulap talk 04:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)