On 1 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Senecio congestus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. —Moondyneclick! 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For things I didn't say? Or to provide opportunity to force pop-psychology cheez whiz? -- carol (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, for things you did say. You can pretend to be obscure, but the bottom line is that you've been engaging in ongoing trolling against Hesperian here and at Commons and your attacks are disruptive. If you wish your block to be reviewed by another administrator, feel free to use the {{unblock}} template. —Moondyneclick! 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive to what? -- carol (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is far more interesting to watch the tough ones get protected by the little fluffy kittens. I certainly wish I had thought to pack my micrometer along with a couple of books I miss -- I had no idea that the world and its participants would become of such fragility that a micrometer would be needed to measure strength. I have no problem giving the princess a break from such ruthless attacks.... -- carol (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. block extended to 1 week for continuing the attack Gnangarra 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.00001μ. sad. -- carol (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How much actual productivity will a week of non-disruption acquire for the encyclopedia? More simply, what does the encyclopedia get from this? And please be clear on this; I suggest either a numbered or bulleted list of actual measurable things the encyclopedia gets perhaps articles (with estimated word counts), illustrations, something else I haven't considered yet? If I understand the 'mindset' behind the person and the puppets, there should be actual measurable stuff for the encyclopedia from this undisrupted time, or the blocks are just puppets pissing in the wind, up a rope, or in this sad little instance up a oddly shaped plant. -- carol (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, another admin has blocked you from editing Wikipedia for one week. I have protected this page because you seem to be using it to continue with the same behaviour that led to your being blocked in the first place and if you continue like this you are going to end up being blocked for much longer. I can see you're frustrated and annoyed but my suggestion is that you take a few days off, come back after your block has expired and when you do, focus on content. No personal comments about other users, no personal attacks on others - just focus on the content of the articles that you are working on. If you continue in this vein with snarkiness, personal attacks, veiled or not, and so on, you going to be blocked again. If you want to discuss this, you can email me or another admin by using the "email this user" function but you won't be able to use this page until your block expires. Thanks. Sarah 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Moondyne gave you instructions at the start of this section for using the unblock template to ask to be unblocked, but you won't be able to use that template now due to the protection. If you want to request an unblock or for another administrator to review this situation, you may send an email to the unblock mailing list unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org stating:[reply]
your username,
the reason you were blocked,
the name of the blocking admin,
the reason you think your block is unfair.
Another uninvolved admin will respond to you and review this case. Sarah 05:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down and come to Talk:GIMP and explain with other things than pure zeal why the section should be removed. You risk being blocked if you continue to remove or revert. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How come I risk being blocked for reverting but you don't? Also, I saw no discussion of including the section. -- carol (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section was removed with a nonsense comment, so I asked you why and you haven't said why. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hadjaha is not nonsense -- except that it kind of is. -- carol (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have written on the talk page several times before and after you suggested it here. I can see no discussion of the inclusion of the comparison and I am not going to search for that. btw, do you know how to convert xwd files into png? -- carol (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well-sourced expansion of the article doesn't need to be motivated on the talk page.. The comparison with PS starts already in the lead section, where it says "It is often used as a free software replacement for Adobe Photoshop, the most widely used bitmap editor in the printing and graphics industries; however, it is not designed to be a Photoshop clone." It appears you disagree with comparing PS and GIMP, but such opinions don't have anything to do with what should be in the article or not, we have lots of sources doing the comparison. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If my memory is working -- the release of gimp-1.2 was the hadjaha release, Mon, 25 Dec 2000.[1] and it is working! -- carol (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no discussion about the inclusion of it. If you would like to discuss the inclusion of the section, that would be a better place to start then claiming it stays because of no discussion.
This is such a broken internet -- bogus emails are all over the place. I just found one that gives the appearence that Marc Lehmann knew about the inclusion of the option of the pdb into the gimp-perl plug-in -- he didn't; I suspect that he would have written the things that the pdb does himself. They started this history modification shortly after the web site me and my team designed went online; the mail was about how the original developers did not want to steal photoshop -- that letter seriously changed. The linux people I knew were seriously too proud to steal software (at least for use). -- carol (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the name of a beautiful book on biogeography that has a few pages on the Dendrosenecio that could help you get a more general background to the article. It is an inexpensive book, but, also, as you are living in America it should be available through interlibrary loan. Biogeography: An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach by C. Barry Cox, Peter D. Moore, ISBN: 978-0865427785. They are fascinating plants, well known to anyone with an interest in biogeography and island biogeography in particular. However, I am rather more interested in viral pathogens and the flora of West Africa. --Blechnic (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Senecio angulatus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Interesting background. A spăla means "to wash" and a spălăci means "to lose one's initial colour, to become more faded or discoloured (from washing or sunlight)". So spălăcioasa we might say means "tending to fade". It's feminine, like most Romanian flower names (except roses, lilies, lilacs and snowdrops, which are masculine). Another name for it is cruciuliţă - "little cross" (like in necklaces). It's all explained here if you'd like to cite a source. Also, if you're looking for more common names in Romanian, check the box right beneath where you search so it looks through the whole text, and then hopefully you can figure it out from the results, but if you need help or want to know the meaning, you can ask me. Biruitorul (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is awesome! Thank you very much! It seems fitting that roses be masculine -- one of my favorite gardening personalities called the cultivated varieties 'Yellow spot on a stick' a modern common name that I have personally adopted for them and that truthfully tells of their problems. I love the naturally occurring species of them though; they are inscrutable and persistent without taking over the landscape they live on; at least, that is how they were where I lived for several decades. The challenge of writing articles that are cited and not invented by the author has been rewarding -- simply, there is no way that I could make this stuff up and I really appreciate that url! -- looking now... carol (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been doing cleanup on disambiguation pages, and I've noticed that you've been involved in creating disambiguation pages. Cacalia, for example. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, so I wanted to point you to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Specifically, I noticed that you've been adding references to your disambiguation pages, which are actually not supposed to be there, as disambiguation pages shouldn't have any external links. If you have external links which may be helpful to future editors, they can be placed inside comments, or on the talk page. While this is not any sort of terrible violation of Wikipedia's policies, it's still best not to do, especially as other editors will eventually find your pages and remove the references. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The references started when the disambiguation pages were being removed due to articles being moved from the scientific name to the common name. I put the references there to protect from that happening. It would be nice if the editors could work on moving articles from common names to articles with the species names before worrying about (granted, such a big problem) having references on disambiguation pages. Is having references a bigger problem than having all of those articles with the common name, btw? I am curious which of the wikipedia guidelines is more important. Perhaps the editors could spend this time ranking their own guidelines for what should logically come first when cleaning up articles. Such a numbered list would be helpful to new and still learning editors like me. -- carol (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, I don't see any evidence that Cacalia is based on the same type as Adenostyles, nor that Cacalia is a nomen rejicendum. If this is the case, it means that Cacalia still contains species (whether or not they are in Wikipedia), and it should never have been turned into a "disambiguation" page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, do I thank you for answering the messages left by others? Second of all, the reference was provided to show that I did not invent the information. Third, do you have a prioritized list of wikipedia policy that I might peruse? It seems to me that any vessel, corporation, group -- whatever the word for the pack would be, should by now have a list ranked by importance. Where some policy is more important than others and still other policy is one of those impotent signs... -- carol (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, I have your talk page on my watchlist because you have damaged articles in the past because or your lack of understanding of the rules of botanical nomenclature. I'll leave to others your misuse of disambiguation pages, but you have yet to convince me that you didn't make an enormous error by doing away with an entire genus in Wikipedia just because the species you happen know about were moved to another genus. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy; it has to do with your lack of understanding of botanical nomenclature, as evidenced by your inability to know whether the references you cited actually answer my question.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hmm. Maybe you should check with the person who started the article to see how they feel about me doing away with the entire genus -- although, whoever that person is should consider him or herself lucky to have the subject watched over so well by the parent group! About damage -- there is in my mind perhaps, some damage that I caused (accidentally of course) but just to make sure we are "on the same page article, let me know which ones have you so watchful now so that I know what to avoid or to not repass. -- carol (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you're involved in some edit conflict between other editor(s) regarding what you're doing with disambiguation pages. I'm really not aware of the details of it. As to the importance of our various guidelines, there's not likely any overall agreement on that, other than the fact that our policy pages(such as WP:V, WP:NPOV) are more important than our guideline pages (the manual of style pages, for example). As a new and still learning editor, you are not expected to fully understand all of our policies and guidelines (in fact, probably almost none of us fully understand all of our policies and guidelines), but instead the idea is that you do your best and figure things out as you go along, and if you make a mistake, someone will tell you, hopefully nicely, and point you to the applicable policy. You might want to talk to people on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) about the edit conflict you're having regarding disambiguation pages, if that might help. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One day, I might be one of those impotent people who knows what policy to cite when. In the meanwhile, if I could see a list which ranks policy by either importance or impotence, it would help me to understand 1)what is the right thing to do and 2)when something works to make another policy work, should it be changed? -- carol (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is an overall list anywhere which ranks our policies and guidelines in order of importance. There is Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which might help. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by saying that I don't have the necessary references at hand to clear this up, so I'll be talking about general principles and hope that you will be able to see your references in a more appropriate light.
Botanical nomenclature has as one of its most important foundations the principle of priority, which can be simplified as "earlier names have dibs". Cacalia was named by Linnaeus, in Species Plantarum. That work stands as the beginning of botanical nomenclature, and, with exceptions, names in Species Plantarum have priority over later names (I'll return to the exceptions). So, absent any other evidence, Cacalia has priority.
What does this mean? Every taxon (species, genus, family, whatever) has a "type", a taxon of lower rank, and ultimately an actual specimen, that the name is based on. So somewhere out there is a type species, and a type specimen, of Cacalia. Let's say it's Cacalia alpina L. (that species was first described in Species Plantarum, and although it isn't necessarily the type species, it's from the same publication). Again with exceptions, Cacalia alpina (or whatever the actual type species) will always be in the genus Cacalia. It can't be transferred to another genus, because it isCacalia—it is the "name-bearing element". Other species of Cacalia, even Linnaean ones, can be transferred, but the type species never can.
Now for the exceptions: Some Linnaean names no longer have type specimens, and are so vaguely described that it is impossible to determine what taxon they should apply to. There are some other reasons to reject Linnaean names, but they are also arcane, an in any case the relevant literature should allude to them.
So just because some of the species of Cacalia have been transferred to other genera, that doesn't mean that Cacalia no longer exists. You are the one with the references, and perhaps you can ascertain whether Cacalia L. has been rejected for one of those few arcane reasons, but, lacking that, there is still a genus Cacalia (although Wikipedia may not currently have any articles about its species), and the current Cacalia page is illogical. This has nothing to do with the politics of Wikipedia, the politics of plant taxonomists, or the opinion of the person who created the article. Either Cacalia L. was rejected according to one of the few exceptions allowed in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, or else it still exists, for at least its one type species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand whether the name is used or not, but I think it has been rejected as a genus name according to the IAPT. See Propsal to Reject the Name Cacalia L. (Compositae: Senecioneae), by Gerhard Wagenitz, Taxon, Vol. 44(3), (Aug., 1995), pp. 445-446 and Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 46 by R. K. Brummitt, Taxon, Vol. 47(2), (May, 1998), pp. 441-444. When an entire genus name is done away with, it can only in one way, via the botanical code, and it is then written up in these articles in Taxon published by the IAPT. Curtis, can you read these and clarify how Wikipedia should handle these names? --Blechnic (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tossed all my paper copies of Taxon when I lost my lab in the Bio Sci dept. But these things are voted on at the International Botanical Congress, of which there have been St. Louis and Vienna since then. Each code has a section "Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda" ("Conserved and rejected generic names"), and neither contains Cacalia. And Cacalia napaeifolia DC. is used in an example in the Vienna Code. So it seems from what I can find that the proposal didn't pass. I'll see if I can track down the articles at the library.
If the genus were rejected, the current article is not far off-base, as long as the disambiguation page tag were removed, since it is not a disambiguation page. Individual Cacalia species names could be redirects to the currently accepted names.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was able to find more information online. Cacalia is indeed a nomen rejiciendum [2]. Its type, C. alpina L., is correctly Adenostyles alpina (L.) Bluff & Fingerh. The rejection evidently has something to do with its lectotypification. I'll modify the article to reflect this, and remove the dab template.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A recap to see if I understand what has happened: I misapplied the disambiguation template.(?) -- carol (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You did not clarify whether Cacalia no longer existed as a genus, or whether it was just these species that had been moved. It's not clear to me that you knew the answer to that.
You misapplied a disambiguation template. Disambiguation pages are normally to disambiguate between articles that might have been called the same thing. And, most importantly, Cacalia needs the references, and dab pages cannot have external references.
As it stands now, the article accomplishes exactly what it's supposed to accomplish.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What my novice eye saw from the information that was available online (starting with the GRIN url you pasted) it seems as if the genus still exists but contains no species. ITIS made it look that way also and Missouri Botanical Garden was kind of confusing because they list the type species still without the synonym, and there was more but my computer crashed (a rare and notable event in itself) -- mostly I thank you for cleaning that up and clarifying what seems to best described as information which is in transition at this moment in time. Heh, and it seems that the disambiguation happened elsewhere. -- carol (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be at Erysimum. I don't remember why the move seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was ages before any standard was set for plant articles. Stan (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way I know to do this is to delete the page Erysimum and then move Wallflower there and then send the redirection of Wallflower to Wallflower (disambiguation). If you put the delete template on Erysimum there is a good possibility that it will be deleted quickly (something about a request by the person who made the article....) Or, there might be another way.... -- carol (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what got me started was when I was working through some images at commons and was following wiki articles and information for the species Cheiranthus and a quick search on the word "wallflower" the first obviously floral url in the results was for Wallflower Cheiranthus allionii. The genus Cheiranthus might be a disappearing genus like Cacalia. For as messy as all the names are (both scientific and common) for all of these species, and considering that human desire to have a name or a mark that lives on, things are not so terribly messy as they could be considering the three to four hundred years spent making it, huh? -- carol (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah. I think we'll eventually accumulate all known synonyms, that will be one big ugly pile of redirects! Stan (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the commons, I have been Categorizing the redirection pages. Some of them really do have literature published under two or more of their names so, it makes some sense and it actually looks kind of good -- commons:Category:Dendrosenecio and commons:Category:Senecio being the example I think I can type without checking it.... Only a few of the Dendrosenico started life as that. It is kind of a fun mess to clean and so far (if I stay away from the fruits). -- carol (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 17 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Subularia monticola, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
You did see that I used some format stuff there? The multi-column template. Do you like that space that exists between the section heading and the list?
I have no problem admitting that my browser might not work correctly -- I built it myself from people who are writing it now. It is definitely not some safe product, tested by people who know better than mere users, etc. Except that the change you made doesn't look good in your screenshot either and it seems that you did not notice or are unfamiliar with the layout templates.
Is IE 8 broken also and that accounts for the big space between the section heading and where the list starts? I have my ideas about this, I ask that question because I am curious about yours. -- carol (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re:Templates with requests for references and citations[edit]
I appreciate your concerns for the request for citation and references concern for template, but why is it the responsibilty of the issuer to remove the template when a person who has a reference could easily remove it? My thinking is that the person who has source removes the template without issue and everyone moves on. Just a thought. Chris (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For so many reasons. Evaluation by the number of edits being one. It is somewhat easy to use software to make a lot of edits when actual research takes some time. Being able to use software to mark a page is not as difficult as being a human being who checks to see 1) if the request was fulfilled and 2)if the citation is valid. Another way to look at this is that I have some respect for the person who put the tag on the page; if your input is to be valuable, what is the way to make it that way? -- carol (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, I notice that you reverted my removal of the valued image logo from the Featured pictures candidates page. I have nothing against the image; LadyOfHats does great work. However, this one is simply not eligible to be a Featured Picture on English Wikipedia, since it doesn't illustrate an article (and isn't meant to). I don't understand your "weak and sad" comment; it's just housekeeping, removing an ineligible nomination. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I think it should be removed again. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some 'house-cleaning' happens more quickly than others, and you cleaned an example of how some images do not work and also how some systems are failing to function properly. That isn't the same as actually cleaning the house now, is it. More like dusting a shelf for a snap shot. Wouldn't it be more 'encylopedic' to look to find and replace images in articles? Kind of like cleaning the mansion instead of the one page? -- carol (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What MacArthur image do you mean?--ragesoss (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about a different version of the same question. What image do see on the Main Page which is the featured picture today? -- carol (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I see the same one you do for the Picture of the Day, Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg. It doesn't seem to be a repeat, though. It was a Commons Picture of the Day in March, but this is the first time its been English Wikipedia Picture of the Day.
You also asked, on my talk page, "How come you did not answer the question I asked here". If you mean the question about consensus, I apologize, I took it as a rhetorical question. The policy is Wikipedia:Consensus. Hope that helps.--ragesoss (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you 'imagine' that you are cleaning a house, whose house do you imagine that you are cleaning? -- carol (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As always, feel free to suggest more moves like that when you bump into them. And great work on your tireless editing as of late.
Also, you had left me a message at User talk:BotanyBot about links to Linnaeus. Could you elaborate? A bot could certainly update links, but if the redirect works, it isn't necessary to fix it. Unless perhaps there was preparation for a disambiguation page or another good reason. Cheers, Rkitko(talk) 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for doing that so quickly! And about the bot request, perhaps I am too tidy minded about web pages (not so in real life) but my instinct was to make them all point to the proper page. So, if it is no big deal then it is no big deal then -- I can get over the 'instinct' eventually, probably. Well, more than 250 links to that one -- I guess I can get over it. Thanks again! (btw, I was napping when you did that....) -- carol (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that the file history was faked, or were you just joking? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-17 13:30Z
In the 1980s, I was studying (I think -- my majors changed often in the early years there) radio, tv and film in college. One summer I read all of one authors works and decided to change my major from this to physics. This was a huge jump for me and when making this jump I 'put on the uniform' which I perceived would help my brain realign for the new kind of studies and homework. There were three things it seemed to me that distinguished a physics major from all the others. Escher, Einstein and Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd was 'out' as this was the stuff my parents were listening to and that attribute outweighs all others. I can't remember if it was me or my mom who had the door size poster of Einstein -- it was me who had the books. This paragraph is an attempt to explain the reason those category were a magnate to me at the commons. I didn't stop being a physics major, I just ran out of money and learned that I really prefer some of the mathematics over the physics, especially after what I learned in thermodynamics -- when they made a "science" out of the 30/70 rule. I am still reeling with disappointment at how that science now has almost no resemblance to the incredible beauty that is classic mechanics; where the human animal discovered a precise language that was almost perfectly descriptive and very difficult to abuse.
That image was not there. I joke but not about things like that. It isn't even that funny -- in fact, I don't find it funny at all. Here is my question to you. Is uploading and getting an image into Featured Picture status such a good thing that there would be such Users who only upload images that can be entered into it? There is at least one User name who in the 6 to 8 months I was watching FP without involvement which did not exist. Is it a good thing to find and upload an image that achieves FP status or is it a bad thing that only special/certain users can suffer the ordeal of? Or are the 'good enough' people such with a special understanding of the darker details of how the public mechanisms are being used. Or something else I haven't considered?
Do you think that because I am unable to prove this (that it is my experience with the files and my life experience are all that I have to 'prove' things with) means that it didn't happen? I admit, my memories are not perfect. This is a really simple case though. I made a list of images I would like to have prints of and that Einstein image would have been considered had it been there.
What would be the joke in such a claim? The joke of the rock at commons featured pictures is very funny to me. Clearly a joke and everyone actually seemed to enjoy it. Is establishing a fake user for every dedicated real user who wants to be involved on many levels -- is that a joke also? That kind of joke would only be funny for a few and possibly not funny for very long. I have a sense of humor; for example, I thought that this image of the Emu was funny. The university that I didn't graduate from is EMU. I think the message from the time it was nominated at commons quality images was a joke that is turning around on the jokers. My sense of humor is such that if the image was nominated about me, the nominator had no idea what he was making fun of -- my laugh was at the attempt and it is a great photograph! Knowing what I have accomplished and the people who were there actually helping; it is not so much a single pride in myself that I have but one of an involvement in a damn good set of accomplishments. I don't think that jokes which rely on other people having problems are funny, but that is just me perhaps. There seems to be a whole industry built on such stuff. There is so much in this world that is funny without being at the expense of peoples integrity, I question the mentality of those who benefit from such humor and probably they are not ever going to have an ability to lead.
Can you tell me what is funny about making a bogus file history or uploading bogus images to web sites which are supposed to be credible? It just fails on the humor meter for me and it scores high on the "in real life I am pathetic" meter. Personally, my money problems have almost always been imposed on me and usually by people less capable of the accomplishment of the task than me. That is not that funny either -- perhaps it is to you or others though.
Oh, and here is another thought, I have no idea if it is related or not, but it seems to be. If the women who were close to me had the single goal of making men look weak (and it could be argued that this was going on with several of them) does that do anything to make women look more appealing? It makes both genders look equally devolved and I can say this confidently from the view I have had of this kind of crap.
If you would like a tour of the archives and see the images that were not funny that have been nominated in the last six months or so (since Thanksgiving last year) perhaps you would find it funny and the joksters can get whatever it was that inspired them to upload the images.
And, yeah, here is something that is not funny. My money problems were caused by people who comparitivly had no money problems and there was always a woman around demonstrating the weakness of men. Yawn -- do you have any suggestion on how to get rid of the slutty or whorish women (who benefit from the weakness of men) and the weak men? -- carol (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also went for physics, hated thermo, and finished the degree wishing I had gone into math instead. As for the rest of your reply, I would rather not go off on so many tangents. Whether someone is slutty, whorish, strong, or weak in your eyes is the result of their free choice and your perception; you should not let your perception of them affect your life - instead give them as much attention as you think they should get: none. But I digress... whether or not the file history is fake is irrelevant to FPC. We could just delete the file and reupload it with a fresh new real history connected with it. As for this whole situation, there are four possibilities: the file history is fake and you believe it is because of past memories (irrational belief on your part); the file history is not fake but you believe it is because of past memories (irrational belief on your part); you're joking and wanting attention; you're serious and wanting attention (again, irrational belief). I have no experience with delusional people so I can't say for sure whether you should seek medical help, but I would still suggest it. I wouldn't go so far as to call it schizophrenia, maybe just a treatable delusional disorder, but again I am a novice to that area. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-18 19:43Z
I am only delusional enough to know that I cannot prove that the file history is wrong and I know that the 'donning of the physics' uniform/stereotype is not evidence of anything with the exception that perhaps it can be understood that I really did look at those files with an eye for reprintable images of Einstein and a whole slew of topically similar images that were uploaded and also cleaned and renovated and uploaded by me from the same while. Is it delusional that I know I cannot prove it? The women in question did not bring their 'own men' into the collegic soup then, they just grabbed at the ones who were around me. Slut and whore are interesting words that can be applied to many situations. Employment, doing a really good job on something out of love or for pleasure is kind of slutty. Doing the minimum would be kind of whorelike -- and other examples which are not so sexual as the terms were originally created to describe.
"Doctor, they think I am schizophrenic because I looked for an image and it wasn't there then they provided one and said it was there. Unfortunately, I know the software that can do this to the file system and have written such simple scripts myself. Can I be treated for this?" Do you think that is sufficient to fix what is bothering me?
No, I do not think that is sufficient. I would also be interested to see the scripts you've written to make such changes. Maybe we need to submit some bug requests. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-19 04:28Z
I think you meant commons:category:albert Einstein. Is it possible you made a similar mistake back then? Isn't it also possible that those images were on another page that you happened to miss or that for some reason the database screwed up the display of the images on that occasion? You should check out the version history after that time to see if anything turns up related to that. I still say you are acting irrationally for holding beliefs based on poor evidence, and am still not convinced that you are not doing this for attention. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-19 04:28Z
...if you just got the admin tools so you could do certain things on your own (like moving pages around to reflect correct taxonomy, etc.). I'd be more than happy to nominate you.--SB_Johnny | talk 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thought and I will consider it. The problem is then that the current admin uses the tools for what? To bully new contributors? To write 'dictates' that new contributors must follow so that they can paste links to the written dictates as they are bullying new contributors?
If I acquire the permissions to delete the pages so that the files can be moved and the histories retained, what will the currently active admin who wrote the dictates and pasted that writing so that I would follow their carefully thought about guidelines do with their suddenly freed up time?
There is an interesting situation at the commons right now. All of the images that get marked with a template that says that they need a category are being put into a category by date. I have no idea who decided to change things to be that way. I actually enjoyed manually categorizing images that were in the one big category together as it was and looked forward to doing that again sometime. I learned a lot about things that I am not always interested in enough to look at myself. The point of mentioning that here and now is this, I am kind of interested in seeing the people who decided to file things that way actually do the work with it. I have had jobs (employment) where decisions were made by nameless and faceless people who were not there to see how their decisions sucked at implementation time. I have had other jobs where really good teams of people were split up or the layout changed and the group working with it were not as good as they were before the change. No responsibility was assigned to the people who changed things and the people who broke up a good working team. And the terms of my employment, to do this one job and work with these restrictions and the goal -- that same goal was seemingly not shared by the people making the decisions.
So, when I have permission to do this stuff and start to do it, what do the other people who had the permission do with their time here? This is what I am going to be thinking about. -- carol (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hmmm. While I don't follow the admin logs on WP very closely (way too many logs per day hour minute!), on the other projects I work on most admins spend most of their time doing simple maintenance tasks. Some admins are bullies, some bullies are admins, etc.... but the policies are written by the community as a whole (though I agree that Wikipedia can be alarmingly "policy-rich" due to the sheer size of the community and project).
I guess what I had in mind for what you could productively use them for is to bring articles into compliance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), and similar efforts. Since you're the one methodically going through herbs and such, it would make sense for you to have the option to "move-over-redirect" and or perform history merges (I don't do too much of that these days because chasing down and fixing 10,000 double-redirects isn't my idea of a good time). Similarly, you could move images from Wikipedia to commons and take care of the deletion on this side afterwards.
Might be a rough ride now though, since you've apparently gained some negative attention on the admin noticeboards. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Agrostis gigantea with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Agrostis gigantea.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could perhaps do something extremely productive here, instead of protecting from the idea that there might be someone who claims copyvio, check the mathematics on Unlimited Register Machine as that was not copied from a book or web page and I have no idea of the accuracy. -- carol (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear? Heh. -- carol (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, "Oh dear" is short for "Oh dear me". I would never dream of calling you "dear", nor anyone else of either gender whom I barely know. Hesperian 06:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is exchanged between little old ladies and most recently (in the 90s) between sisters. Heh, that was an A dair dear.
I should sleep or something.... -- carol (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear [me]! What TenOfAllTrades has not learned is the meaning of sarcasm. My experience is that had you vandalized articles as an anonymous IP with copyvios, it would be reverted and you wouldn't even get a slap on the wrist, since no one would check to see whether they were copyvios and anons generally get a bye on vandalism. Admins can get a bit touchy (it's not an easy job when done right, and also not an easy job when done wrong, for different reasons), but it's yet another data point in the "Wikipedia is hostile towards editors" curve.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a template that says that I am very filled with resentment at the suggestion that it was me who requested and got my articles featured as DYK articles? I don't even think I like the acronym that is used there, actually. -- carol (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully accept there was no intent to deceive - the careful documentation of sources shows that - but you cannot do that. It opens Wikipedia to lawsuits, particularly if the material goes onto the mainpage, and puts all your contributions into doubt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a link to the lawsuit that made so many admin so in a quandary? It is so much easier to repair specific problems that really did cause a problem than it is to repair the perception of future problems. Also, perhaps you could help by checking the mathematics on Unlimited Register Machine. -- carol (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I was passing via an article of yours and saw you had some trouble with rewriting information from external websites. This can sometimes be hard to do, putting things "in my own words". If you like, I could look at helping with rewriting? Two heads are better than one! --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is wikipedia, and the way I understand it, you can do anything you want to; including making pages to complain and possibly do nothing. I am still of the mind that not citing references just gets that stupid template pasted on what are otherwise good articles and citing references gets good articles deleted. It is perhaps a situation of seeing the dust speck in someone elses eye and not seeing the log that is in the eye of the critic -- but I have no way to prove this nor any inspiration to. -- carol (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think I should poke at anything else, please just drop me a message; I'm trying to spend more time editing articles than wandering around looking at things, so a To-Do list would suit me fine. :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 11:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, a little Martin Gardner at the beginning of a new day. I would really like to keep you around! -- carol (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, I have just been informed that you are I are on good terms. As I am largely devoid of social insight myself, I must defer to those lucky souls who are blessed with perspicacity. I can only assume that we have become friends very gradually, by stealth, so that even I didn't notice. What a jolly nice surprise. You'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyhow, this state of affairs imposes a burden upon us. As your friend, it apparently falls to me to harangue you further on the subject of copyright, plagiarism and original research, in the hope that your future contributions will not suffer the fatal flaw of some of your previous. I suspect that I will succeed only in patronising you, and making a pedant of myself. Nonetheless I am required to try:
Each of your contributions is required to be an original expression of unoriginal information: i.e. what s/he said, but in Carol's words. You've got the unoriginal information bit nailed: the information you insert can invariably be traced back to a source that said it first. But some of your contributions are not original expression; in some cases, you have copied, verbatim or nearly so, long phrases or even entire paragraphs, directly from your source. This is not acceptable. You are required to glean the meaning of what you read, then use your own creative processes to express that meaning.
In practice this can be difficult, especially if the material is highly technical, and especially if you don't fully comprehend the material you're quoting from. There is really only one way to say that a plant has pinnatifid leaves, so the fact that a source uses the word "pinnatifid" doesn't mean you can't use it too. Furthermore, when the material is highly technical, there may be situations where you really have to copy a three or four word phrase verbatim, because there simply is no way to rephrase it without running a significant risk of misrepresenting the source. There is, however, a threshold, beyond which copying become irresponsible and unethical. On the wrong side of that threshold, you're effectively passing off other people's creative writing as your own.
I really did not enjoy the experience with Cherimoya and whatever was going on with Celery at the same while. It is interesting though, that I do not have the sense that I am on bad terms with anyone -- there are some start up users whose start up has an interesting timing to it and if there was any sense of it being a real person, there might be some bad terms there. I don't want to waste a lot of time fighting fiction, I would really like to see the fiction removed from what should be a great place for real people.
btw, I asked at commons and I will ask you -- how long do these administrative wikified gang rapes last? One real life ant (species unknown) was able to actually hurt me last summer; the recent events here -- 10 little pricks or 1000 little pricks; it is just unwarrented tickling for no real reason? -- carol (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can end it now by going to AN/I and saying "sorry folks; didn't realise there was a problem with the way I was contributing; it won't happen again." Or you can end it in an hour by making a few more flippant comments until someone hits the block button. If you don't like either of those options, your best bet is to keep your mouth shut, cross your fingers, go edit the encyclopedia (preferably focussing on rephrasing the material under discussion) and wait for everyone to get bored. It could be a few days. Hesperian 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sorry about the ant bite. Hesperian 00:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the person who claimed to be protecting the encyclopedia? -- carol (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OWNed? Sorry for you. Something wrong keeps happening. -- carol (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These type of copyright violations are a bannable offense[edit]
I am assuming good faith that you didn't previously really understand the policy, as others have said and explained above.
However, now that it's been explained to you, I would like to ask if you do understand it, and if you are willing to cooperate in identifying what parts of your edits have fit into the general pattern of having been very loosely modified after copying out of other sources like that.
This is a very serious issue. Those who do this sort of thing and don't agree to stop doing it and help fix what they've done are usually banned from editing in the future. There's already a thread up on ANI about doing so with you.
If you understand the gravity of the situation here and are willing to help undo the damage, please say so.
I like bananas. I think that the species and genus articles should be separated from the fruit article though. -- carol (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like sarcasm as much as the next fellow. But if you keep this up, today may well be the last day you ever edit Wikipedia on that account.
If you really want to stop editing Wikipedia and would prefer to go into Comedy, the next round of "Last Comic Standing" auditions will be coming along in a couple of months, and I'll wish you well with the competition. If you prefer editing Wikipedia, this is the time to take something seriously and acknowledge what we're saying is serious and that the next humorous step is likely off the plank. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having the assumption of good faith stretched so much possibly does have the appearance of comedy. It should be a mirror, perhaps. I am (without comedy and without assuming good faith and without imparting any hidden messages or anything beyond what I am about to say) very sorry that it does seem that the way to avoid what has happened in the last 24 hours or so is to not cite references. I was enjoying things more when I was attempting to hack the image deletion approval bot and commenting to the author about my attempt. A good part of my problem right now (I admit that I have a problem) is that I am in a defensive stance that I do not actually believe that I am in. It doesn't make sense what I just said does it? I guess that I don't actually feel like the infringement of those rules are as infringing as they are being made to be. I am sorry about that feeling. I really really do think that the banana article is a strong issue in the prestige and professional face of wikipedia -- that splitting it into three articles (maybe only two -- it has been a while since I looked at it) is the kind of productive work that wikipedia is in more need of than the policing and protection from potential problems. My last edit to the administrative thingie is quite honest also, I have been plagiarized more than I have plagiarized and it has been without citation and it was a driving force in my citing faithfully all of my references. You can quote me on that, it is a fact. And nothing I wrote to you here was as sarcastic as asking the administration to check my math. The simple things are often the most difficult to figure out.
I have what is perhaps a wrong mind right now, where I want to thank the admin for the exceedingly interesting break from the monotony of authoring articles about chamomile. -- carol (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, the species and genus articles are separated from the fruit article. Hesperian 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is awesome! I have a problem with not checking things for talk pages. -- carol (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yup... another impertinent wiki editor inserting himself into l'affaire du Carol!
Don't want to further inflame anything, so I'll keep this one short.... I hope you're not too fired up, pissed off, or upset by today's posts... I have no idea yet of the merits of some of the points, and it could well be that you are a terrible scourge, but even so, I hope you don't burn out in a blaze of something, and you'll see that I've commented on the AN/I thread that I think we've sort of gotten a bit carried away over there (and above to a degree)... it'll all come out in the wash - and hey, it's nice to meet you by the way!
I really was extremely bored with the articles I was working on and the boring went away for a while :)
Nice to 'meet' you as well; my '10 or 1000 ticklish little pricks' joke might not be the best way to go with this but it does reflect the actual mood here ;) -- carol (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heya Carol. I'm sorry I haven't been able to be more supportive during the past several days' melodramas. I run a farm and a garden/tree service, so as you can imagine I'm pretty much swamped this time of year. On the other hand, I think you've got a very good friend in Hesperian, and if you get frustrated again and need another, please feel welcome to call on me. I can't promise a lot of time "on the wiki", but I have been thinking of you the past couple days. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are sorry that you left me to be turmoiled by 10 to 1000 little pricks?
Its okay? -- carol (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is something about history repeating itself which is barely implied in the cliche about remembering it. Some history is really nice to repeat and remembering it is good for that as well. It is one of the reasons I really am not interested in them changing it -- history that is. -- carol (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you can find out who is an admin and who is not by checking Special:Listusers. If they are an edmin then they have "(Administrator)" after their name. Hesperian 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it is one user on a mission. I guess it means he is a little bigger of a prick than others, for whatever that is worth. That great editor left a link for me that started this day off very well for me.
There was a promise at one of the image contests to nominate every single gilbert and sullivan image that was available. Those contests have been interesting to look at when I take a break, but so are the recent uploads when they are not super smutty.
I don't think that the reversions are displaying text that is less encumbered with violations than mine. -- carol (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... and while I'm over at AN/I arguing that you haven't personally attacked someone, you're here calling him a big prick. <shakes head> Hesperian 05:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and I am sorry. The discussion was about the pain felt, if I remember correctly. I am quite certain that reverting from my version of the articles to the ones that were there before is the equivalent of making bigger COPYVIO or whatever the little catch-acronym is for now and I really do think that this is a slightly bigger pain. So, with no reference to any kind of pain, the concerned editor is only being concerned about my contribution to the articles. Isn't that WP:STALKING or some other WP:PROBLEM? Here is what I consider an actual problem edit I made. It just gets the suggestion of the need for a reference left on it. It is original work. -- carol (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, I'm not sure if the other advice is getting through, but you are very close to a block, either over the "prick" comment or the continued sarcasm and apparent failure to take things seriously. You may not like the way other people have raised "problems" with your work, but you need to focus on responding to what they are saying about the articles, and you need to stop commenting on other people, even if you feel they are commenting on you. I know Shoemaker's Holiday provided another long list of articles to be checked, but please just pick a few examples and talk to him or others about those examples. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pain from a small tipped object. There is a user who has picked my edit history to have copyvio problems over and I think that the user is reverting to versions which have greater copyvio problems than mine. I am using a term about hurt, how much this hurts me is similar to a pin prick. It is perhaps a reflection of readers minds if they are reading more into this. Allowing the user to target my edits personally and go unchecked reverting edits to versions which probably have more problems than mine -- perhaps a pin prick is not the correct analogy for this situation.
How can a list of names of plants which is from a USGov web site of names that a plant has been called throughout the thousands of years it has existed -- exactly where is the copyvio here? Instead of looking at what I am writing about the 'sanity' of the situation, which defies imagination and understanding, look at what is actually happening.
Minds in the gutter are a no-no. -- carol (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Pin pricks. That is not so bad, but you still shouldn't be singling someone out and calling them a larger pin prick than others - that still personalises things. About the list, I sympathise. On the other hand, substantially reproducing the work of other people in the same form is still an issue. Ethically and legally, you have to be certain that it is OK to do that. I think you are OK here, but you need to take the time to explain to others why you think the articles are OK. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still assert that I have been copyright violated more than I have violated copyright. I would like to know how much the text that is being reverted to is an improvement over what I did; I suspect not much. These plant descriptions are pastes and rewrites of each other long before I started to do this. So many of the articles I looked at here were blatant pastes of the M. Grieve book. The assumption that the text that was there before I started to add to it is not a similar or even worse violation -- this idea has only recently been considered and I had to mention it before the reverts ceased. It is a bigger pain; a sadness that one article writer can be singled out and the rules applied only at those words and not the ones before. This is ultimately very sad about the participants; unless there is something I am missing in all of this. -- carol (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, Carol! While I realize you're just engaging in your hobby of wordplay and double entendre (from death by a thousand pricks to being harassed by a thousand pricks), you really should just make an effort to hold your tongue for a while, apologize, and take things just a teeny bit more seriously if you want to continue to participate on Wikipedia. You are indeed very close to having some sort of sanctions imposed on you (remember Juiced lemon? You're right about where he was!), since you're more or less exhausting the patience of the community. You're clearly a dedicated editor interested in improving the encyclopedia, but even dedicated editors interested in improving the encyclopedia can end up being banned if they're causing problems for other dedicated editors who are also interested in improving the encyclopedia. --SB_Johnny | talk 09:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict. I think that having my articles stalked is serious. I find it interesting that it gets joiners rather than prevention. -- carol (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are off beam, describing what is happening as stalking! In the first instance, per WP:OWN, they are not your articles. In the second place, WP:STALK explicitly allows for this kind of case;
proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles
People are simply trying to clean up after a mistake. Mayalld (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) The issue is more how you're responding to people who are critiquing and/or ctiticizing you (same applied to JL). I think the "stalking" in this case started because one person noted a possible problem, brought it up on AN/I, and others have diligently followed up to see if it looks like a long-term pattern. I'm inclined to take Curtis Clark's word on the nature of the issue, though I believe that in at least some of the issues at hand you're actually more or less using PD texts, so the "copyvio" thing might not apply. But without a thorough, calm and plain English discussion of how things botanical are discussed using the more loaded English of the botanists, it's going to be very hard to keep others from jumping to conclusions.
What's missing is a calm, thorough explanation of your point of view coming directly from you. Keywords there are "calm", "thorough", and "from you". JL wasn't blocked for being bold, he was blocked for being unwilling to be civil. In fact, one of the blocks was for biting one particular newbie (namely you). --SB_Johnny | talk 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not think that situation needed that, but I don't know about the history of that user. This whole thing was initiated by people who did not feel the need to remove themselves from the administrative page and inform me that there was a problem. By the time I found out about it, it had escalated into what to me seemed to be comic proportions. I am sorry that my entry into the discussion of this problem is like this. To say that it is anything but that would be a lie. I am also sorry about the comic escalation and I have no idea that if they had come off that page and discussed it with me like decent and real people if it would have had the same comic effect on me.
Have you seen the Wellsley College 'botany pages'? Those were paste. If I am not mistaken, that college is my countries wealthy girls, the elite, the leaders and one of them was running for President recently. It was paste that assumed that the people reading it are complete morons. The nested paste which is the world of botany -- Flora of Zimbabae had an OCR scan of the book, Aluka cleaned that up. There are papers with abstracts online that are written from misspellings at Euro+Mediteranean species lists!! And yes sir (if I might assign a gender to you), I cringe everytime I cannot avoid an article about a plant name whose species tail starts with 'mac'. Thankfully, I think that I never started one of those unless there was an image from a author with an abbreviation. Heh, my copyvios are like the moisture in a square inch of air compared to the ocean of problems with the "science".
Accountability and back to wikipedia. That the situation had escalated on that admin page without review of the text that I edited over before I was even informed of a situation -- I don't think that my problem is such a problem....
Do you really honestly think that I am the juiced in this situation? If you really look at this -- and look a little bigger at the things that are not being looked at, like a person following an edit history and reverting to text that is probably in far greater violation of the whatever.
You know, about something completely different -- This is when I wondered about you today. About your health, safety and sanity. This could be a problem in my brain -- the words I wrote in articles are not though; not compared to the text that I replaced. -- carol (talk) 10:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<grin>... all's well here on SBF. Carol, I don't disagree with you about the copyvio/etc. situation (see my comments on AN/I). You just need to be more careful about choosing your words and staying on the point when things like this flare up. Yes, you're juicing. He got on the wrong side of "the law" because he refused to admit any wrongdoing, and got a bit nasty and sarcastic when someone suggested he was (over and over, with many users... again, looks similar here, though not quite as bad yet). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you see -- I have been honestly warm and welcoming to positive edits -- the minor bits of clean up that were needed. I think my questions about the reverts are also about how much the actual goal is to protect the wiki. The protection of the wiki was the stated reason this was started. If the actual goal is stress testing me, does that have to involve me being nice about senseless and stalking-like edits which are far worse for the stated goal? Is the goal to stress test me? What a bore, if that is the case. The stated goal was the protection of the encyclopedia from a lawyers scrutiny. Lawyers are so stupid they only look at one authors writing or at the content of the article? I think this situation is stupid because the content of the articles is not what is being looked at. A return to the stated goal, please. Or an honest restating of the goal. I am not the aggressor, except for that stated goal.
Well, the issue isn't whether other websites do it, nor whether a lawyer is really likely to scrutinize an article about a common weed. I think your "detractors" are more or less taking an approach informed by ethics, rather than fear of consequences (well, some maybe are, but I agree that's kind of silly). You need to argue (again: calmly and thoroughly) the point from a global point of view (e.g., "this is just how plants are described"), rather than a comparative point of view (e.g., "hey, at least I'm not as bad as that guy!"). What Wikipedia needs overall is a much better set of resources and guidelines about how to present materials from other texts in an ethical (and/or "legal") way on Wikimedia projects.
Not really. Since the reverts stop (that word is dubiously close to preverts, isn't it?) which in my opinion left the articles more filled with copyright violations than what I had left there -- the discussion, whether that was the intention or not, does seem kind of off track. The 'track' that was presented to me was that copyright violations leave wikipedia open to lawsuits. The discussion is now much more than if those same people had taken a few moments to make the adjustments to the text that would have put them in a safer, productive and pro-wikipedia frame of mind. They will have to discover this themselves though, I think they are of no mind to hear it from me.
Do let me know when if the chat there takes a turn back to copyright violations being a bad thing for wikipedia. -- carol (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to weigh in on what is looking like an increasingly ugly dispute on ANI, but having read it all at great length, I think that I am seeing a lack of a shared understanding of the underlying issues here.
Your view of what is and is not a copyvio, whilst not uncommon, is entirely at odds with copyright law.
It doesn't matter that something is published by the US Govt. Even Governments have the benefit of copyright.
If there is a copyvio, the only proper action is to remove it. The argument that it should stay until somebody fixes it or a lawsuit is filed doesn't stand up (Failing to remove a copyvio promptly after being made aware of it will make it more likely that damages would be awarded).
Changing a few words from a source doesn't change the fact that it is a copyvio. You need to write content from scratch in your own words.
If something is reverted back to a previous version that is also a copyvio, that too must be removed. You can't justify keeping a copyvio, just because another version is also a copyvio.
Once it became apparent that you had posted a number of copyvios, it is entirely appropriate to go through your contributions looking for other cases.
You need to accept that (unintentionally, I accept) you have put stuff onto Wikipedia that cannot be allowed to remain, and that it must be fixed. Your fellow Wikipedians aren't going to lynch you for an honest mistake, and will work to fix that mistake. On your part, you need to accept that you made a mistake, learn from it, and move on. Attempting to fight it, and trying to frustrate attempts to fix the problem will inevitably lead to a block. Mayalld (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is all very good to know, thank you for that. If the government owns the list of names that a plant has been called for thousands of years, I will try to remember this.
Facts cannot be the subject of copyright, but the arrangement of those facts can. You can certainly use such lists as a source of information, you cannot simply copy and paste them.
Having said that, a large part of the problem here (and it is in no small part at the root of calls for you to be blocked from editing) is your reaction to what people say to you. This is NOT about point scoring, or shooting down arguments with a sarcastic response.
How does the text I replaced measure up to the WP:COPYVIO I have been called so greatly to task for? Perhaps some paste between what was there and what it was not an original work from and how it works so much more with the goals of wikipedia. I would find it extremely helpful at this point to see what this same diligent watchfulness had made before I edited. Thanks for the time previous to this post and the time that will be spent answering my further quest for understanding. -- carol (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how the prior version measures up. I'm sure that if you cite what it is a copyvio of, it will be removed. It is, however, not relevant. Even if an article was a copyvio before, it doesn't provide a justification for replacing it with a different copyvio. Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is reverting a potential copyright violation back to a worst copyright violation not a problem? Mind you, the encyclopedia is being protected from lawsuits, not me being attacked or picked on. Reverting a lesser copyright violation back to a greater one is not helping the stated goal any. When I suggested this (me, the person who does not understand this) the reversions ceased. How come an expert did not look into that. I do not want to suggest that it is because the goal that started this is not actually to protect the encyclopedia from lawsuits -- and I won't. I will wait for you to explain how the goal of protection is being met by doing that. -- carol (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Start over with this "People are simply trying to clean up after a mistake. Mayalld (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)", and explain how a clean up that reverts to text that is probably a bigger copyright violation is actually cleaning up. Thank you again for your time and patience in explaining this to me -- I realize I must seem a little dense. -- carol (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, somebody did the legwork, and established the fact that your version IS a copyvio. They then fixed it by reverting back to a previous revision. They did exactly what WP policy says they should do in such cases. You have claimed that the prior version is also a copyvio. If that is the case, then fix it by removing that copyvio from the article. Mayalld (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good lawyer is going to eat the admin here at a picnic lunch, I think. With all due respect. Thank you for your interest and if you have a few moments to note that I have welcomed the edits that were towards the goal all should be as good where you are sitting as where I am sitting right now. Not where I literally want to sit, but in a position of where I have been working towards protecting the encyclopedia from scrutiny. Perhaps that guideline needs to be cleaned up, if total reversion allows more copyright violations than the ones being protected from. This is the actual, goal, if I am not mistaken....
I'm not sure why you bring the admin status of anybody into it. Reverting copyvios is not an "admin job", it is something that every editor can, and should do if they spot a copyvio. (Deleting copyvios that have no good revision to revert to is an admin job).
As things stand, the person who spotted your violation reverted it expeditiously as soon as it was clear that it was a copyvio, and made it extremely unlikely that anybody would sue on it. The fact that the version that he reverted to is (you claim) also a copyvio doesn't alter that. By promptly expunging a copyvio as soon as it was known to be a copyvio, WP is protected.
The position of the earlier text is that provided we expunge any copyvios as soon as we know about them, we are still safe. To date, you have claimed it tobe the case, but offered no evidence. As such, I don't know that it is a copyvio, so it isn't for me to delete it. As it appears that you do know it to be a copyvio you should delete the offending text.
You state that some text has been taken from Maude Grieve's work. I've had a quick dig into this (and improved her article in the process). Maude Grieve died in 1941, and as such the copyright on her works is complex. Her works were out of copyright from 1992 (50 years after death) until 1998 (introduction of 70 year copyright term), and any copies made of her work during that time are legitimate PD copies. From 1998, her work has again been in copyright (and will continue in copyright until 1/1/2012), and new copies would be infringing. Mayalld (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More complicated than that even -- they republished recently and added a name. That name was not in my copy, and doing that could be better than a Mickey Mouse hack of the copyright laws -- I don't have my copy here to verify all that though.
There is a problem with the methods if an act of protection makes the problem worse and it is not my problem. Typical definition of stalking is when a person is singled out by another and followed. I don't know if this is the wikipedia definition of it; but I was stalked, my articles reverted to text that was quite possibly worse at the 'crime' my articles committed -- the system of protection needs to be reviewed and not by me. I suggest that the goal of starting the discussion and escalating it before I knew it was going on was not to protect from copyright violation. It doesn't work well to explain the situation.
The Grieve book, it was one of my favorites, btw. I rarely used it for information though -- I find it difficult even to explain the reason that I liked it so much. It was a piece of time, I guess. One that I didn't know but that my grandma did. I have some very deep suspicions that this text was the sum and total of Hilary Clintons health care plan from the '90s. That is a measurement of my feelings of all the ruling class. I am also deeply sorry about this enormous feeling -- should I apologize to you for it? -- carol (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far as the new edition goes, then if the additional author has added to the work, a new copyright will have been created in that new edition. It doesn't alter the copyright status of the original edition.
As to stalking, you are really on a hiding to nothing here! This is Wikipedia, and people are expected to behave according to Wikipedia policy. It simply isn't viable for people to come to Wikipedia and decide which policies they accept, and which they don't. It doesn't matter what the external definition of stalking is or isn't, because we aren't here to argue over the meaning of words. That is part of the reason why we tend to coin words with a wiki-prefix, so as to make it clear that we are talking about on-wiki use of terms.
So far as Wikipedia policy goes (expressed at WP:STALK, what has happened here is not wiki-stalking, it is a legitimate use of your edit logs to track down edits that ought to be checked for policy violation. If you want to argue about applying the off-wiki definition of stalking, then you will need to do so off-wiki, because there is nothing that can be done about it on-wiki. Mayalld (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a person is allowed to follow my edits and revert due to a thoughtlessly prepared policy and it is not called stalking and the reason that it is allowed is due to a sense of copyright violation, yet the reverts are making more copyright violation because 1)it is not stalking but 2)it is the thoughtless reversions of one author and giving a reason which is more policy than is true -- when a lawyer is called, who is 'sued' the people who allowed the revert that was to simply another authors version and not to a more copyright safe version or the person who has the appearance of a stalker regardless to the policy claiming to be followed?
I think that in the real world, the supporters of the abuse of the policy and the activity which is stalking due to the fact that the policy seems to be just something quoted and was not the actual goal or outcome of the behavior would be blamed, losing freedoms and personal wealth as fines towards discouragement. -- carol (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As commented on the ANI thread, I am willing to be a WP:MENTOR to you. I will be prepared to act as a conduit in your interactions with other editors, especially in the manner of complaints and claims regarding your contributions - and will draw your attention that a conduit works both ways; I will take up what I consider a valid point that I believe you have missed or ignored as well as support you in a discussion. I will also step in if I consider that any party is going on beyond the standards of civility. I will, of course, be available for you to run any question past, or to comment on proposed actions. However, ultimately, you will still be responsible for your actions, contributions, and interactions with the community - I will not act in any way to alleviate you of your responsibilities in that effect.
I appreciate the proposal. The escalation of a chat there hardly seems to be what the real problem is. I just learned that I have been being assisted occasionally by one (and perhaps there are more) person who is actually in the academic world and a recognized authority on the subject I have been writing about. Interesting enough, most imput has been positive and the one revert reverted upon inspection of the facts.
If you would like to continue chatting there on my behalf, I am not sure what more there is to it. It has the appearance of escalated chat that started without me, got large without me and continued without me.
I was watching CSPAN last year, it seems that congress doesn't even show up any longer. Have you watched this congressional television? Maybe all of the good/real stuff just gets cut out of the feed before it gets to California though. I remember when CNN first started up. In real life, there were discussions about how there probably wasn't enough content (actual news worth mentioning) for 24 hours of news entertainment a day.
It has been made clear to me that claiming copyright violation and following one authors edits and reverting to versions that are probably filled with many many more copyright violations is not stalking. I have to admit, it makes me very not happy to have to decide if I need a mentor as I do not really understand how these words are being used here.
Last question first; No (to check the solution I would need to understand the problem - and I am having difficulty with the premise.) Penultimate question next; in my case, someone who has experience of the processes and practices of Wikipedia and is willing to try and shape the "proteges'" interactions into those which are closer to the model familiar with most other contributors.
I would point out that I am not an American, far less a Californian, so I have less inclination to watch US Government on TV than I do the UK, but I take the point that it often appears (and may even be the case) that "incidents" are sometimes found so that the board may be seen as being active - but it should also be realised that (nearly) everyone is very much invested in matters that concern them, and are not able to take that disinterested viewpoint. It would be best to always work on the assumption that the other party has a valid and important concern, and to address it as civilly as possible. When reasonable discourse has been exhausted it may be that another party with some experience in dealing with dispute and allegation may be required to resolve the matter - and the title of such a person might be a "Mentor". It is a service that facilitates building the encyclopedia.
I will not act in any capacity with regard to someone without their permission, although I do not need any acknowledgement from that person to act of my own violation in respect of that person as I see fit. I am presently still engaged in discussion relating to your contributions to Wikipedia and shall continue to do so until I see no further reason to do so. Should you wish for me to be a mentor, or to trial it for a period, then I will act according to your decision. If you feel it unnecessary, then I shall consider the matter concluded. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if another User asked me if I knew the word I was using, I should assume that it is just a simple question and review the word and my usage of it? Or if I make a claim that my software actually can reliably perform a task, then I should take a few minutes to substantiate that? Does a mentor do this for me or does a mentor make an issue out of the fact that a user asked these questions?
Thank you for understanding my problem with how the policies are being used here. -- carol (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This mentor would be capable of understanding whether there was a legitimate question over the word, and if you should answer it. This mentor would also be capable of engaging the questioner in what is an appropriate question to ask. If you are using software - a code, a bot - within your editing this mentor would ask what approvals had been sought and given, and if found sufficient (with knowledgeable referrals) would intervene to say that the use is legit. It is rarely the case, per AGF, that there is any issue in asking questions - but there can be in not answering or in not accepting the answer (providing the answer is honest, within policy and in good faith). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, woven through the thread about the copyright violation are claims that as a user I asked these awkward questions of the accusers there. Perhaps a need for mentoring is to be found among the list of accusers there since as a user, my simple questions went unanswered and seem to be more of a problem in that chat page than the copyright violations are.
Personally, I have appreciated the simple questions like the ones I asked and am being called out for copyright violations for in that chat. I am going to put one of my reverted articles back now, and I suggest that the article which it was redirected to be looked at for the same copyright problems that my article was. If I could be allowed to be a little more snarky here, the good help that was actually repairing the minute errors might return. -- carol (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(This is an example of how my "mentorship" would work) I would suggest that it was unhelpful to raise questions regarding the complainants editing of the same articles, even more especially if they were awkward questions, in that thread. This is because it makes it appear that you are attempting to divert the discussion, and/or make it appear as a content dispute in an attempt to divert the discussion, or are using "attacks" on the complainant to weaken their position in an attempt to divert the discussion (divert as to change the perception, as well as to avoid the issue). It is best to address the specific complaint, and once that has been concluded to raise any further issues - possibly in a new thread (and without appearing vindictive for having the original complaint raised.) Truthfully, you get better results if you keep it simple and focused. You seem to recognise this in your next paragraph. It is also better to bring up such concerns, initially anyway, in a more relevant area like the subject talkpage - since the readers will be more knowledgeable and less likely to be there for the "dramah!". Again, as a bit of gratis mentorship, I would strongly advise against revert/warring any article to make a point - the place to make your arguments is on the talkpage and not in the edit summaries. (post edit conflict - er, see what I mean?)
It is not a war. I am of the strong belief that more copyright violations exist on the page the article is being redirected to. If the claim is copyright violation, then sticking to the claim should be the task? There is a lot of policy being cited that is not being actually looked into. Did anyone check the article German Chamomile with the same set of standards being claimed against me? I see no evidence of that. Copyright violation is not the goal and it is stalking in the real world. I feel nothing but sorrow for people in the situation like that. -- carol (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase - or wildly take out of context, whatever - Winston Churchill, Jaw Jaw is better than War War. "Revert war" is a dramatic phrase to describe the act of using the revert function to make a point, or enacting a strong belief that the version preferred by oneself is the less policy violating of the one preferred by another(s). It would have been preferable for you to make the point regarding the validity of the version you contest on the article talkpage - using sources and diffs and all that stuff that is the currency for such discussions. Instead, you are now blocked and unable to influence the consensus and the version you think is problematic is going to stay up until you can change the consensus on the talkpage. Consider the "How?" as well as the "Why?" when you think something needs resolving. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was lurking today and saw this image. I ask questions of the Fictional Featured User class here because I stopped uploading images that were pointed to by a person who seemed to be established and reliable at the commons. They, instead of answering the question make an issue of the minutest details and the issue is not real like in plagarism and copyright violation are not actually being looked at. I am being looked at. It is also not stalking due to the plagarism and copyright claims and it is spurred on by people who are upset that I asked simple questions. Okay, fine. I will not edit for 48 hours and probably no one will look to see if German Chamomile passes the same scrutiny, opting instead to call it war. The words are not being used very well. A friend of mine friend was supposed to be working with a Cray computer, where ever he was, and this did not work out. There are problems that have seen online which make me think that the people I am asking these questions of should be accountable enough to answer. When they are not accountable and instead accusatory -- I think the problem is there. Did you know that the news here said that google purchased Moffett Federal Airfield? It is very difficult to sift through fake news and real news, but when an airbase makes funny noises at 3am on Sunday morning, this is at the very least notable.
If I could edit, there is an image that I would exchange on the persons talk page who blocked me; and I now get 48 hours to decide which one:
resolution seems to high though
except the encyclopedia has been put into more of the claimed danger
I do not understand the response to my last post, but I do understand your comments regarding the blocking admin. They are not helpful - even though I am fairly sure that there is a humourous intent. It might be useful to use these forty plus hours to consider the difference between truth and perception, and realise it is only the latter that is easily apparent (and reacted upon).
Also, I am an arrogant pillock so I am not withdrawing my offer of mentorship - but if you do accept you are going to have to learn to talk down to my level if there is any chance of making it work. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(tab reset) I have never had a conversation in real life that would have been improved by 'talking down'. The problem here is that I am talking around, I am sorry about that. I have no idea how many bogus images I uploaded, I only know that I stopped when I saw a real photograph of this fine old computer which was in an honest govt research room (they are not 'clean' unless they have to be, and even then, it is only the section which is needed to be clean that is clean -- photographically clean, that is). Still talking around now, my simple question about the histogram has to do with how much I feel 'hacked', like not the only person using my browser, and not the only person seeing my work when I use GIMP. Unsubstantiated and unverifiable. Yet, when I worked on Image:Blind monks examining an elephant.jpg, I used everything that I know about the digital color in images, the aging process that I have only heard rumors of and the tools that came with the software. I am fairly certain that my renovation of the old photograph of this image which should be preserved somewhere is kind of on the money with accuracy. I used all of my experience and knowlege and when I ask anyone what their experience and knowlege is, it becomes very suspicious when perhaps the answer is 'we hacked you and learned how you work'. If I were in this situation, I might very well decide to make a federal case of other minor violations -- that is how magic works, isn't it? Look here which is away from where the action is.
If you would like a tour of Featured Picture Candidates the likes of which would once again break my heart to see again, I can do this. I am missing the real people that I know so much though, the idea of heart breaking is such an understatement for this. The tour would start with a warning from a Red Hat gallery that says "Don't Fuck With Science" or perhaps something less caustic. The implication grew in my mind and what I could see from the following days was "sure, rewrite history, but don't mess with things like equations that describe how things work".
This is a lot and it is mostly without mentioning the TIVO and the direct satellite. One of my astronomy students was a character on a soap opera. I have no idea what to make of this kind of thing and I realize that even mentioning it is reason to question my sanity or ability to see. Here is the imagery that the cnpape image runs around: The real photograph, the cleaned up version that isn't at Moffett. The people who don't answer questions. And the image that is displayed here of an old and exposed building; I really enjoy the imagery that people use -- except when it is wrong or indicating a time to abuse the available technology. -- carol (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't resist commenting. The first photo is taken at a lower height than the second one. I assume that Cray subunits are always connected on the same position relative to each other and that this is the cooler angle to make a photo of a cray, and that this is what is causing the similarities? I mean, it's unlikely that an image manipulator will go to the trouble of setting the ceiling tiles on a different disposition, I mean, come on, you mean that someone bothered to change the color, amount and position of the fire extinguiser thingies on the ceiling just to fake a photo? And the first photo is done with ceiling lights and flash, while the second has hidden lamps to make the machines look cooler and not have dark places and the photographer probably used some of those white screens that professional photographers use to difuminate the light.
Also, if they say that they can learn from watching you, then they are just lying to make you nervous. Ignore them. There are tons of videos on Youtube with people showing their photoshop skills, and I didn't see any sudden increase on uber-photoshoppers. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many who are far better at graphic manipulation than I. No one said anything -- it is a feeling and I am in no position to verify or substantiate it. I will say for certain that my cpu settles down if I take the computer offline on those occasions when it seems to be running on its own for no reason here. About the photograph comparison, I think the off site image has been rendered based on information from the photograph. Note the blue gradient on the sides of the off site image and then look at the texture or lack of on the actual photograph. Thanks for looking and thinking about it though, whoever you are. May you not yourself wake up in a world that was as wrong as the one I woke up in one day. -- carol (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the symptoms you describe, you probably have your computer full of viruses and spyware. Try installing Spybot and lavasoft and making a full scan. Install also a full antivirus with firewall and scan your whole computer. Once you have cleaned your computer, you can use the firewall to see if your computer is really trying to contact the outside without your intervention. If you don't want the antivirus running on your computer (because it slows the graphics programs a lot), then you can install the antivirus, scan the computer, and then uninstall it, and then install a free firewall like Zonealarm that will alert you when your computer starts trying to connect to the internet again.
Also, try to get your ISP to install you a router/modem instead of a modem, to protect you better from internet hackers.
The photo comparison, the wikipedia photo has enough low JPG compression that the textures have been lost. If you zoom in, you wil see that all the surfaces have a blurry texture due to compression. Zooming in only causes the blurriness to increase, due to how JPG works.
Heh, a bit too late for me to not wake up on a strange world. Already did so time ago. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linux. Lately, I think that it is the people who run linux who are secure and not necessary the internet access. It is the cross-over stuff that bothers me. Minefield and even GIMP. "Wikipage" security. Heh. Like anything, it is obvious to see the competetence of who is using the tools.... -- carol (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are only secure if they are running an updated distribution, since Firefox and linux-based browsers have vulnerabilities that need to be patched as they get discovered. And, yes, a Linux distribution is more secure than a Windows distribution when they are connected directly to the internet with a modem because they have less holes accesible through direct connexions. However, if you are behind a router/modem then you are always more secure than if you are behind only a modem, independently of what you are running.
I'm not sure that I understood correctly your comment. You mean that GIMP is inferior to Photoshop? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inferior is a fuzzy word. If I was more familiar with Photoshop gui, I would probably find GIMP inferior. As it is for me personally, I had more experience with PaintShop Pro and GIMP (1.0.2 was my first version) and Photoshop7 was inferior to me as it lacked many things and I found the gui to be cumbersome. On being able to hack the United States tax payers -- Photoshop is incredibly superior and GIMP is most definately inferior. So many state and federally funded colleges, public schools and other institutions have paid many dollars for that software!
The first really funny windows/wiki software I saw being run here was the "Microsoft Word Count". Heh. -- carol (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Myself, I am phasing out Microsoft Office with the intention of using only OpenOffice on the future. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked you for 48 hours because you have decided to revertMatricaria recutita back to your version, which is quite obviously plagerised from here. Given the thread on AN/I, you should have known that you were walking along a very thin tight rope with regards to your editing - this was the final straw. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, okay. Could you add the following to the article Ficus aurea we were working on improving it. Thank you for your productive work here. -- carol (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you need assistance to know where it goes in the article, do feel free to ask here. -- carol (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The changelog mentions an improvement to the article as well. I really really think that some time needs to be spent reviewing the article that it is being redirected to, I suspect there are many more policy that is in violation of and in particular of the policy that caused the initial reversion which was warlike and by non-wiki definitions stalking. Also, perhaps a simple explanation here of what "revert" means; how copyright applies only to one author and it not be stalking and also any other definitions of words and ideas which seem to not be the same here as they are in the real world -- this would give me something productive to think about over the next 48 hours. -- carol (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, since I'm the one that proposed the AN/I that can help you get a second chance, I may as well post on your talk. I proposed that because I feel sorry for the bashing you're getting and I am willing to help you out with things in case you need it. Please reply.Mitch32contribs 13:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am really unknowing of what the acronyms mean; at the same time I am unknowing of what the acronyms mean, instigators and contributors to this situation use that "chat page" to try to "figure" out what I was doing with the articles that I was writing which I was following things that the Plant project strongly suggests and I tend to agree with. I don't know if I need an AN/I -- I am still trying to determine how seriously a to take a group of people who have 'problems' if I use the word prick and give the ability to block to a user with an image of a penis on his/her/its user page. If it is supposed to be respectable, it falls short, if it is supposed to be funny, it is not that funny. What is an AN/I? I think that so much typing of the letters COPYVIO has allowed people to forget what that means since the reversions to my text exposed more of those, unless the stated purpose was not the actual purpose.... -- carol (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AN/I is the page (Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents) where the big discussion is going on. Anyway, I do believe that people are overdoing it a bit, including on your example. If you're up to it, I have been told to keep an eye on you in case of another copyvio, but I'm still willing to work with you on things so it doesn't happen again. Would you be up to it is what I mean.Mitch32contribs 17:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, it is too warm to be doing much authoring right now. The clock that shows the time of day here says about 20 after 10 in the morning and the temperature at the closest airfield says 90 degrees F. I would probably be expanding taxonomy boxes and getting rid of uncited material in plant articles.
The 'violations' were extremely well cited pieces of text compared to perhaps 90% of the rest of the encyclopedia. Somewhere on that chat page, it was pointed out that the text I apparently plagiarized is probably plagiarized itself. Now, my mind is set on efficiency. Wouldn't it be more efficient for everyone if I were just to create a different user name and write articles that are poorly cited? That way, the encyclopedia will at least be uniformly unverifiably cited and perhaps I will fit in with the ruling class who works in the safe world of "I don't have to be accountable to anyone"? On one hand, this seems like a sarcastic comment/plan but on the otherhand, it is perhaps a plan that would work and not sarcastic.
It would help for a start, if you could tell me what the word is when a person claims that there is a copyright violation and then follows an authors history and reverts edits to text which contains more copyright violations. I have been told that the word here is not stalking, but there has been no word suggested for it. -- carol (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the second paragraph: Well, the idea of creating an account for a second reason is to do non-illegal things with them, such as vote-stacking or voicing opinions twice. If you used a second account to do things like article-writing or bot like tasks, that would definitely be allowed. As per the third paragraph, I am not sure of a word for it. Mitch32contribs 17:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
I have just been reviewing the chat page that I know about and it seems that there are people who are involved there who do not think it should be a chat page. This is encouraging. I made a small joke on the page for Featured Pictures Candidates about how to rotate an image -- that the direction is positive while going clockwise and ended with an allusion to Hitchhikers Guide (about a planet that thinks that digital watches are cool) and now I am in a world where plans are being made in the basements of municipal areas. Even in the actual heat of the day, this is not lost on me. Heh.
When I was really young, like less than 10 years old and maybe less than 5 years old, I told my mom that I thought that there was a little group of people following me around. I have no idea where this thought came from -- maybe that little alien on the Flintstones -- the television was always present in my childhood. The older I get, the more I assume this though -- it makes for a higher quality of output if I hold on to an honest belief that people will be looking at it. One of my problems with the current offers is this: I always thought that I was being overseen in the ways that are being suggested. I feel offended that my edit history apparently doesn't show that so well to the people who are claiming problems now.
It is like seeing the speck in your neighbors eye and not the log in your own though, isn't it? It is difficult for me to communicate with this being my first thought about that. Also, as proof for my above theory about assuming that people will read things -- I have a personal web site, I never watched the traffic on it. One day, just for the hell of it, we looked. Possibly 5000 legitimate hits in 4 days on a slow week. I only sometimes write for that now because writing there seemed to keep taking me farther and farther away from where I want to be and helping others more than me. When I claim that I have been plagiarized more than I have plagiarized, I mean it! -- carol (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a little hard to understand where you're coming from as I'm still a teenager and am not very good with websites. I have been through the problem of people stalking me on here too. When is was sort of new here, say November 2005 - I was a freaking screw-up. I was not really vandalising- but i was continuously adding incorrect info and being very incivil. I was really hard to deal with, and as I got more experience, I was able to work on my own and well, I've grown up a lot since then. I no longer have incivility issues, I no longer copy & paste National Hurricane Center reports in Wiki articles, but I can see parts of where you're coming from. I feel, if you are given the second chance as I have proposed on the noticeboard, that you'll learn what to do in times like this and I'm sure there will be more people on your side.Mitch32contribs 17:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what you are suggesting is that when you think that text should be written a little differently, you will mention that here? If so, I think that I have always been really pretty darn good about that and I would greatly welcome any productive review. Can you point to one of the hurricane articles? I probably would not have had a problem with text pasted from the source like that. It is a technical language and it becomes limited in how to communicate it. Here is an example, in mathematics this is a sentence: 1 + 1 = 2, it is as elegant and efficient as a sentence could ever be written. Changing the words might perhaps also change the factual nature of this sentence. They have, for the most part and as much as possible, done the same thing with the language of botany. I think that writing about the weather is the same thing somewhat.
Not to be redundant, but to isolate the larger message, here is a paste of the most important of that last paragraph: I would greatly welcome any productive review. -- carol (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I know, Hurricane Guillermo (1997) has had some copy/pastes from its original National Hurricane Center - yes this was one of mine. Mitch32contribs 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can see the compliment that was being given to a high schooler who is being 'called out' on such small infractions of rules that if actually applied would possibly throw everyone in jail including the jailers and the leaders. I saw this for myself though and was curious as well as angry about the interruption. My point about how saying that something is not here defined as stalking and not being able to provide a different word for it is the same thing as calling it stalking. But stalking a history of edits is not such a bad thing; I have 'stalked' authors and scientists, movie directors and actors that way -- just their published works. It is a compliment and my not enjoying the additional information about how they chose to live their real lives is the best way to enjoy these creative people; and perhaps makes it not stalking but admiring. The same thing for everyone, actually.
An interesting way to look at the chat page which I know of about my infractions is to wonder if it is a confessional. Where most of the accusers are confessing. Just being allowed to read the goings on there has not improved my view of it -- or whatever. Heh.
Thanks for creating the taxobox for Matricaria recutita, er German Chamomile. I've added it to the article, and requested the move to the proper name at requested moves. For future reference there's some issue about page histories that I don't understand worth shit that requires articles with redirects to be moved by an admin or something like that. If you see a redirect that should be an article, don't rewrite the redirect as an article. What should you do instead? Ask at wikiplants or on the talk page of the article that the redirect points to, because it might depend upon a lot of things that are unclear. In this particular instance it's far too confusing to say what you should have done. However, hopefully the situation will be taken care of in the near future, and the article will be at its proper name. --Blechnic (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are instructions on Wikipedia:Requested_moves on how to ask for a page move by adding a certain template to the top of the talk page of the article that you want to move --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, this whole "administrative bombing" of my articles and edits started right after a suggestion was made by User:SB Johnny that I be allowed permission to move articles, which is kind of nice because I honestly use their resources but have yet to look into their guidelines (heh). -- carol (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion on this page about Bananas, the Genus and all of the species. Chamomile is a tea and there are two different kinds. Matricaria recutita is about a species of a genus that gets its name changed a few times in its history. Chamomile is thousands of years old, with many references to it in old literature, current popular literature, pagan practice, safe for babies and elderly people and everyone in between. My personal experience with it is that its presence in hot water provided electrolites and softened the hard water that was being used there to make tea with so that a girl who was recovering from an evening of sniffing cocaine could absorb much needed fluids more quickly into her body. This girl was not me, I was the sharp girl who was also working that day. There is a Food navigation template and an herb and spice navigation template. If you review the history of Matricaria recutita, change the few copyright violations that are there -- the list of names that Chamomile has been called throughout the thousands of years that human beings have been consuming it should be not as interesting as the List of Thor-Able launches that I made, but close.
Honestly, the science of the species and the genus and the family is interesting but very different from the food. It was presented to me this way in the books and I like that. The fact that it also follows the WP:PlantGuidelines is also kind of nice. When you (and I mean you personally) are looking for a food that would be tasty and perhaps good for you, do you care what the scientists say the recent genus name of it is? Here at wikipedia, if you care, it is only a link away. -- carol (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so that I don't have to try to remember to do this when the block is up? -- carol (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a larger article it could be two, and I think it should be developed as two, because, as you point out, its ethnobotanical history is long, and as a food stuff, and medicine, it is deserving of its own article. For now, both under scientific name is fine. I'll let you do the rocket science when you get back, though. --Blechnic (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, I will add more the chamomile articles as I get the time. It's such a lovely and interesting plant. --Blechnic (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Politically, there is at wikipedia at least one food project that the German Chamomile and Roman Chamomile articles would fall under and then the plant people. I have been writing plant articles; this means I have no idea what the guidelines are for the food and herb articles. On the chance that the guidelines for the different subjects go against each other, it simply makes political sense as well. I was kind of starting to look into if Chamomile should become a single article -- I am uncertain right now about the differences between the roman and the german kinds. Also, I have to say that I am deeply suspicious about the two species of Alchemilla. The european variety is smaller and more yellow and that is the only difference between that and the United States variety. These plants -- there are probably only a thousand or so of them and not the 2 billion which have been named.... People are funny.
Btw, it is nice to just talk about these articles. :) -- carol (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matricaria_recutita&diff=next&oldid=220505079 there is very little that is wrong with this article. While using the undo link, it is possible to edit. I like that new links can be made while editing as well, so the troublesome list of names the plant has been called throughout the thousands of years that it has been known and consumed should be interesting to link to from both the article about the tea and herb and the article about the species. I would be actually, quite relieved if another person would look into the details of the rewording that is necessary there. If you make it into a list and help to think about the headings for the different table entries, it should be easy for me to expand into a nice table. Petey has just flagged German Chamomile as a plant project article. It isn't one, a plant project article was buried by a user with a photograph of a penis on his user page. Must things be this way? -- carol (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of interesting. Look at the urls for this:
My dilemma now is what to put as the author(ity) at the commons which is the international image server. Since you understand everything far more than I do, enough to allow my article to be buried in a history and scheduled for deletion in favor of that chamomile article, do tell me which information is the accurate one.
My recent goal has been to find the original published work if it is online and put that with the article. Occasionally, the work has an article about it here, which is nice -- but often those articles do not point to the online instance of it. I started to do this because of all the paste of plant descriptions that I found online. Now, you are able to edit because, while wikipedia allows anyone to edit articles, some people would rather chat about problems in articles where others can see them chat, or something like that -- and all the while, those people had the option to edit the problems instead. I do not understand this, and I get in trouble because of the way I apologize for not understanding the situation. I am unsure if I should say I am sorry for this situation, even. -- carol (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are a few in the Plant Project who love to paste a link to WP:OWN which is supposed to mean that no one owns articles, but apparently, an appendum should be written for that which excludes people who complain on chat pages about things which are usually easily and more simply repaired. WP:OWN#EXCEPTIONS_TO_THIS -- carol (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFC/USER discussion concerning you (CarolSpears)[edit]
Suggestion: After reading the request for comments, go do something else for a while before replying so you can think through your response clearly. I know sarcasm is tempting, I have that problem myself. :-) But it would be better to be calm and open; this can be resolved amicably and to everybody's satisfaction if we all work towards that goal. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 14:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the examples of what is considered to be plagiarism and not, the use of the word "victim" was I think a more honest rewording of the referenced text than switching the sentence structure around. It doesn't matter so much to me, but it can leave a person vulnerable here.... -- carol (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a plagiarism correction, you just had some of the biology wrong, such as the species name both in the taxobox and in the article--when ICTVdB gives these names, they are the used name of the virus, not that name with the "virus" changed to its viral genus as you did--see the example in the edit history with TMV--and it's always the full name, you can't omit a single word as you did in the taxobox, with "vein" instead of "vein clearing." In general, in technical articles, more specific is better, hence its only victims are plants. Also, you pulled the list of host plants and called it the affected species, the affected species is a much broader assortment of plants, and it's not always the case that hosts are susceptible to the virus, so they can't be called the "affected species," and it's important to clarify the native hosts of a virus. --Blechnic (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the edit and I completely understand that the technical parts are now much more accurate. It is also the same kind of non-original authoring technique that I used that caused the claim that I had plagiarized though. -- carol (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's not discuss this. Editors are checking 150 new articles you created for copyright violations or plagiarisms which appear to be in every single article, many written after you and I discussed not copying text. This is a monumental waste of time for other editors to have to do for someone who appeared well-educated. It's inexcusable, and incomprehensible. --Blechnic (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is inexcusable and incomprehensible. I am a "flunky" because I did not like a couple of the required classes in mathematics (however, I was doing both complicated & simple proofs and statistics for other classes), had difficulty taking lab classes once I started to teach them and I ran out of money. I am in California where I don't want to be because of an issue being made about when I said I quit a project but only was upset and usually got back to in within a few days with interesting and often funny apologies made. I have no idea how much I am responsible for the fact that I am here on wikipedia writing articles as the flunky that I am -- except for this one thing. I helped to start a really really cool wiki in 2003; I have some delusions that this English wikipedia came from that and it was not supposed to work this way. I don't like the way it is working, btw. I made the suggestion at wiki plants that we wait for the lawyers to do the plagiarism review. Lawyers who are paid by actual offended people. If the articles I write here are supposed to be of the quality for phd dissertations, shouldn't I be writing that for an actual university? See this also. -- carol (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpret my edit summaries. I did not say that the referenced sites were unreliable. I said that the citations were dud, meaning that the cited sites did not support the claims that you cited them as supporting. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those pages refer to insects eating Senecio jacobaea, not Senecio squalidus. If there's anything there about Senecio squalidus you're going to have be more specific about saying where it is. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I won't argue -- I don't think that the bugs know the difference though and some of the senecio, people haven't been able to tell the difference -- much of that is in getting all of the information together. Well, most of that problem is probably that. -- carol (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter that the bugs know the difference or not, what matters is what has been observed by science. Please don't make things up just because you "don't think that the bugs know the difference." Some of this material about S. jacobaea is classical, extensively cited, and well known science on biological pest control, involving the investigation of a number of insects on their ability to control a noxious weed that is a danger to livestock in the Pacific Northwest. S. squalidus, on the other hand, is a plant that is famous for the successful documentation of its introduction and weedy spread in the British Isles, an happening which has been followed for 300 years. If indeed, the insects don't know the difference, this will be well-documented and remarked upon, because both of these species are very well studied, but for entirely different reasons, in different locations. So find the source, it's interesting!
These are classically researched and studied species, well known in the literature and among scientists for being so well studied, but for different things. If you throw in the information about the bug eating the Oxford species, in addition to the Oregon species, everyone who knows anything about the two will start wondering if that Oregon guy is now working in England (or Scotland or Wales or Mt. Etna), or if the Pacific Northwest folks have gone mad considering the difference between a widely disperesed, multiple episodes, weed, and a single episode, well-documented, sporophytic self-incompatible weed. So find the source, I want to know what's going on, are they repeating those interesting little biological pest control studies in Europe on another plant now, but with the same bug? Post the source!
Anyway the bugs do know the difference. Senecio jacobaea, Senecio squalidus, and Senecio vulgaris are all common round here, and the first is much the preferred host for Cinnabar Moth caterpillars. I wouldn't be surprised if it occasionally occurred on Senecio squalids (I've seen them on Senecio vulgaris and, of all plants, Cirsium vulgare, but firstly one shouldn't cite an article for a claim it doesn't make, secondly one shouldn't (on Wikipedia) draw the inferrence that because a caterpillar that eats one plant it eats another (that's original research), and thirdly one should draw a distinction between regular and occasional host plants. (If you don't know which is the case "is recorded from" is a neutral presentation.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a long while since those insects were put into those articles. I strongly suspect that I was providing urls for the list of List_of_Lepidoptera_that_feed_on_Senecio. I was trying to add to an existing article and provide citations for already existing information here. Perhaps if those insects do not feed on the genus Senecio that list should be removed from the article and I forgiven for trying to make it be accurate for the species in the genus? -- carol (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In reviewing this article, and comparing it to the source text, I found that the specific descriptions of the various types of instruction closely matched the descriptions from the source. For example, the article read as follows for Zero Instructions:
Zero instructions
For each n = 1, 2, 3,... there is a zero instructionZ(n) that changes the contents of Rn to 0 leaving all of the other registers unaltered.
Where the book reads thus (Page 10):
Zero instructions
For each n = 1, 2, 3,... there is a zero instructionZ(n). The response of the URM to the instruction Z(n) is to change the contents of Rn to 0, leaving all of the other registers unaltered.
It's quite possible that the language follows similar patterns due to the limited ways in which such concepts can be presented, a fact on which I choose not to speculate. The close proximity in formatting and wording, though, was close enough to a violation to delete the article. I know it's rough going right now, and I apologize for any inconvenience; unfortunately, the article was properly tagged as a copyright violation, and I believe the deletion was proper in this case - and, note also that I have no problem with a new version, so long as it does not also violate copyright. Best, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 20:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that perhaps a real lawyer contacting the wikipedia and a review by mathematicians about the plagiarism issues. It took years for mathematicians to agree on a syntax for this kind of notation. It is a very precise language. What did the real lawyer request?
The "properly tagged as a copyright violation" claim. That is a very large claim. Having the tools to do something and knowing when to use the tools -- where is the tag for that? I actually would not mind meeting N.Cutlands lawyers, as this is such an issue that needed less than a few hours for the protection of the encyclopedia. -- carol (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That comic does not exists, the series jumps directly from #403 to #405. Probably #404 was deleted from the website for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The web page is what it is and it is funny in its self definition and also published elsewhere definition. I watched to see how the author would manage that number of comic. There was not another page that was there and deleted. The language is precise. I would be sorry to see all of the computer and mathematics articles deleted because they use the language that has been developed for them. I would be sorry if the accusers started to experience a world with a lack of precision in these places where it is supposed to be because they thought it was a game as well. Gaming should occur on gaming sites, not on information sites or in places which present themselves as a science. That is an opinion I have and I try to keep the gaming out of the places where it should not be. The measure of my success in this probably will be not found if it is plagiarism which is being the claim. The language is precise for some things. Removing the precision is not a good idea. -- carol (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for that link; that would have to be one of his best comics so far. Hesperian 23:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) The primary language that matched the source was the description of each of the four functions of the URM. The article was tagged as a potential copyright violation with a request for speedy deletion under Criteria G12. I reviewed the material, and the source, and found the concern warranted. Given that there was no previous version in which the problem text was absent, the article was deleted. This, too, is consistent with policy; the G12 criteria exists specifically for articles in which the entire history contains a violation of copyright - which, unfortunately, appeared to be the case here. I am uninvolved with any RFC, though I noted this article was linked from the current RFC relating to your conduct, and noted my action there - specifically noting that a rewrite or restoration would be possible. So, later today, I'll take the source and attempt to write a non-violating version of the article, based in large part on your work to date. I'll do this in my userspace, and I invite your assistance - but I will not restore the article until a non-violating version exists, as dictated by policy. There is no deadline, there is no urgency - but, as I indicated before, I am happy to work with you in coming up with a non-infringing version of the article.
That said, I understand that the past few weeks have probably been enormously stressful for you, and I do apologize if my actions on this article have added to that stress. However, I must caution you that accusing editors or admins of being part of a "worldwideweenie club", accusing them of being "owned?", and asking "How much is the price if you are owned?", as you did here, could be viewed as highly incivil, even bordering on a personal attack. Please refrain from such accusations in the future - while I'm not particularly offended, other editors likely would be, which is a problem. Best to you, UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am at a loss for less insulting words to describe a deletion of an article in less than 24 hours for just a few words that were perceived as being potentially plagiaristic. The viewing and reviewing of words is in a different frame of reference than viewing objects through a telescope or viewing objects through a microscope -- so forgive me the insult and do provide suitable words that describe the deletion of an article in less than 24 hours, even less than 12 perhaps and the person who does this and I will use that word to describe this situation with in the future.
Does WP:I HAVE BEEN CALLED AN INSULTING NAME have the word that describes the deletion of an article in less than 12 hours? Also, if you just put it back, it can be repaired and perhaps someone who knows about LaTeX can help with that.
It should be returned so a person who is qualified with mathematics can review it and assist. -- carol (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To keep the problems less personal, please refrain from discussing your personal life in your replies, for example, just discuss what the Wikipedia topic. "This is a wiki and anyone is allowed to edit and answer questions. Your personal revelations give the appearance of having different motives and I do not think that is the best approach for anyone to be taking ever here."
"Thank you for your consideration in this matter."
.jpg)
resolution seems to high though
except the encyclopedia has been put into more of the claimed danger
