User talk:NYScholar/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, NYScholar/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 1 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For tireless effort on improving Roy Dupuis!

S Sepp 21:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you NSD Student 01:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

As another Wikipedia user has deleted my WP:3RR warnings to her and related comments from her talk page, I'm deleting her remarks in this section from mine as well.--NYScholar 06:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag

Please take a look at what the article looks like, then remove the tag. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just come back from posting a reply on the talk page of Charles Jacobs (political activist) to your above request. I forgot to remove the tag, but I'll wait to see what others think of the current version of the article. It seems better to me, but there may be inaccuracies that I am not aware of. If the consensus among the several people who have been struggling with this article is that it is about as accurate as can be at this time, then I leave it to whoever is most appropriate to remove the tag. If the rest of you all agree with this comment and what I say in most recent comment in the talk page, then you can weigh in and remove the tag. I think I've corrected the typographical errors of mechanics (except for linked dates, which I left as is).--NYScholar 06:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag yesterday.--NYScholar 06:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

AASG

Hi, NYScholar, I've noticed that you've been doing a lot of work on the AASG page, and I was wondering if you were a member of the AASG, too. --PokeTIJeremy 00:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi--No I am not. I had not heard of the AASG until this past week. Having learned of its existence via the article on Charles Jacobs (political activist), whom I also did not know about until this past week, I was simply trying to make the article conform to Wikipedia guidelines, as w/ the other interlinked articles relating to him. Really just basic attempt to do responsible editing. --NYScholar 00:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion tag

Kindly review WP:CSD#Images.2FMedia and get back to me with exactly which of the image criteria there Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg meets. Upon your reply if appropriate I will add the speedy tag back on to the image. Until such time do not add the tag again, thank you. - GIen 10:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to bed. It's item 7: "Invalid fair-use claim. Any image or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted at any time. Media that fails any part of the fair use criteria and was uploaded after July 13, 2006 may be deleted forty-eight hours after notification of the uploader. For media uploaded before July 13, 2006, the uploader will be given seven days to comply with this policy after being notified." The Nobel Foundation may get in touch with Wikipedia about this matter. It's up to Wikipedia and the Nobel Foundation to sort out at this point. --NYScholar 10:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg

I believe this image falls under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law for use on articles directly related to the Nobel prize. If you disagree with it, write to legal AT wikimedia DOT org, where your email will be dutifully ignored by our legal staff, which has more serious stuff to do than deal with ridiculous quarrels on copyright. David.Monniaux 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You have no proof that "this image falls under the 'fair use' clause of US copyright law" (as revised July 2006) for such articles; a specific "exception" is cited re: the images of the Nobel medal logo and any Nobel medal in the copyright/trademark notices posted prominently on the Nobel Foundation websites relating to the Nobel Prize and the images of these medals, and that exception requires that one submit a request to use this Nobel medal logo and images of Nobel medals in writing and that one wait until such permission is "granted" (if it is) before inserting or otherwise using the medal logo and the images of the Nobel medal into or in articles about either Alfred Nobel, or the Nobel Prize, or individual Nobel Prize laureates. It is neither an image that is "free" or in "the public domain," or within "fair use" (without granted permission). You yourself have not (as of my last check yesterday) replied to multiple requests for substantiation of the "license" that you posted on the images (on your talk page). Your statement that it does conflicts with the copyright and trademark of the Nobel Foundation (as per its clearly-posted copyright notices) and, in my own view and the view of several others questioning your use of this and other images, violates such trademarks and copyrights. The copyright and trademark notices clearly prohibit your uploading to Wikipedia Commons and/or your and others' inserting in Wikipedia articles this image and logo. All of the information posted on the talk pages of the images makes this very clear, as does the guidance in (there-linked) so-called "fair use" provision of US Copyright Law (July 2006), which you are intentionally (apparently) ignoring. The way that you have presented it actually suggests that you own the copyright and trademark of and to the Nobel medal image(s), and you do not. You have not shown proof that you have written permission granted from the Nobel Foundation contact address provided in its copyright/trademark notice online to do so. Such permission must be granted by the Nobel Foundation (not by you). --NYScholar 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

See copyright infringement. This infringement of its trademark and copyright has already been brought to the attention of the Nobel Foundation. I do not use the e-mail feature in Wikipedia or send e-mail to Wikipedia. There are too many possibilities for identity theft and other identity abuses. Further discussion of this matter is best pursued on the various talk pages of the various images of the Nobel medal logo and the individual images of the Nobel medals, not in my talk page. --NYScholar 19:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Proper image handling

Let me tell you something simple: if you continue, against the advice of everybody who discussed the matter with you, to try to get content deleted for wrong reasons by arbitrarily changing licenses and using "speedy deletion" tags, I'll file a formal complaint against you. I've dealt with image license problems on Wikipedia longer before you held an account, you know. David.Monniaux 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Many editors have attempted to educate you on copyright law and the concept of fair use. Instead of entering that discussion, you have continued your campaign to have several images improperly deleted. You have been given a short block for this disruption. Please use this time to reivew our copyright policies and fair use explanations. If, at that time you still feel the images should be deleted, please take it through the proper channels at images for deletion. If you continue to remove license tags and the list the images for speedy deletion, you may be blocked indefinately. Shell ^babelfish 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions to Shell

Shell: What is "a short block?" (sorry that I don't know). If you removed the block and that is why I can post this question and the comment above and below, thank you for doing so. Could you tell me when the block was instituted and when it was removed, for my future understanding? Thanks.

Replies to Shell

Shell: You refer to "Many editors have attempted to educate" me "on copyright law and the concept of fair use": 1) a few of the same editors, including one that uploaded the image in question, may have seen themselves as doing so. I find that presumptuous on their part, and your reference quite insulting, since I am very well educated outside of Wikipedia "on copyright law and the concept of fair use," and it is indeed the very (what I regard as) misstatements about both by these Wikipedia editors and uploaders that I have been questioning. (2) Wikipedia did not invent copyright law or fair use; these are matters of US Copyright Law and Berne copyright conventions, which I have read carefully. I find what Wikipedia editors often claim to be "within fair use" to ignore copyrights posted to the contrary. As I've said in the talk page of one of the images, what constitutes "fair use" is widely debated and subject to interpretation and not totally transparent (as the US Copyright Office "fair use" provision section emphasizes; it counsels that people need to consult experts in intellectual property law, legal experts, about questionable situations claiming "fair use" due to these ambiguities in what constitutes "fair use" [and from whose point of view: that of the user? that of the copyright owner?]).

<<If you continue to remove license tags and the list the images for speedy deletion, you may be blocked indefinately.>> It seems to me that you made this comment many hours after I had marked a tag of two images for speedy deletion--I had already gone to bed and woken up and didn't check Wikipedia until Saturday afternoon ET; I don't recall "remov[ing] license tags" without first having provided full explanations [in both talk pages and editing summaries] of why I did so. I did so because the claims of the license tags seemed to me (and to others earlier) to be erroneous and misleading and that was AFTER I commented in the talk pages and initially got no reply to my comments. [Prior queries of the uploader in his talk page re: this and other images from previous W users had also gotten no replies.]

I thought I had taken these problems through the proper channels; first I tried to bring attention to the problems on talk pages, then to administrators by using tags; simultaneously, I attempted to add the requests for speedy deletion of two images to a deletion request page in Wikipedia.

After trying to access that page several several times, I was unable to get the page to post correctly so that I could add the requests on it (they pertained to two images in Wikipedia Commons: one a .jpg and another a .png version of Nobel medal images and photographs); I couldn't get one of the links to show up properly. One time, I spent quite some time posting these requests, and later I lost the material while trying to fix the link. So eventually I gave up on that, since the page would not reload properly to enable me to add requests to it (some kind of glitch). So I tried to use the talk page to explain what I saw as the problems.

I had also found a page re: deletion requests already featuring a tag saying that it was an "inefficient" process to use, so I was afraid to add to that page.

It is still not clear to me what else I could have done other than what I did do, given my concerns about the dangers (to Wikipedia and to Wikipedians) of leaving those photographs and images of Nobel medals which the uploaders appeared to have incorrectly identified in terms of copyrights and licenses, since they (still) had no reference to the registered copyright notice of the Nobel Foundation and which it (still) appears to me holds the license to all photographs of its Nobel Medal logo and images of Nobel Medals.

At the time all this transpired, the way the license was described was different from the way DM describes it now. It's a little clearer to me now than it was before that it's his photograph of a Nobel medal taken in the U of Edinburgh; the description did not say that earlier (if I recall). But I think that the description of that particular photograph could be clearer still and that some reference to Nobel medals and the logo of the medal with the engraving of Alfred Nobel (not a sculpture but an engraving on the medals) could contain the registered copyright symbols identifying the Nobel Foundation as the holders of the copyright of the "design" and the "medals" and their "images." The "design" still belongs to the Nobel Foundation; earlier DM called it a "logo" and yet the Nobel Medal "logo" is an "exception" that the Nobel Foundation makes in regard to written requests for permission to use photographs and images of "a Nobel medal" and the "logo": those are clearly stated as to require permission in writing to be "granted" prior to their use in articles about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize, and/or indiviudal Nobel laureates.

Each of the individual Nobel medals is also a "design" with the copyright registered by and to the Nobel Foundation (according to its website), and "photographs" and "images" of each of those Nobel medals is protected by its copyright (as explained in the pdf version of the copyright notice). If one needs guidance regarding "fair use" in this matter (as per the July 2006 version of "fair use" provision in US Copyright Law), then one can just ask the Nobel Foundation for it. That seems to me to be, what the US Copyright Office site "fair use" section (July 2006) calls the "safest" course of action.

Also, I would like to say that, contrary to your assumption and statement, I did not and do not regard mere discussion and debate on a talk page (that I did not initiate, by the way, but that I continued) or even the adding of tags indicating problems with licenses or the removal of clearly-erroneous licenses (which were later changed by the uploader) to be a "disruption." "Disruption" was certainly not my intention. I was initially and simply trying to bring to the attention specific statements in the Nobel Foundation's own copyright notices, which had not been referred to in earlier comments, due to serious concerns about copyright infringement, a problem that Wikipedia warns its editors to look out for.

I was and still am genuinely concerned that if Wikipedia articles post "photographs" and "images" of the Nobel medal logo (identified as such on DM's image page initially) or other "photographs" and "images" (altered or not) of the Nobel Medals (the Nobel Foundation does not differentiate among or between kinds of "images" but refers generically and generally to all "images" of its Nobel medals and to all "photographs" of its Nobel Medals) without first being "granted" "permission" (a "permit" or "permits") to do so, then it is possible that the entire articles (which people like me have worked very hard on) in which such photographs and images appear could be deleted due to copyright infringement. That was and remains primarily my concern.

As a longtime literary scholar, I understand "fair use" for scholarship and research intimately. I think that due to the reuse of Wikipedia articles all over the internet and in print too, it is very hard (for both users and copyright owners) to know whether material posted in Wikipedia and featuring GNU licenses is subsequently being used "within fair use" guidelines pertaining to scholarship and research ("fair use" allows one copy to be made by individual scholars and teachers for personal use and for classroom use only; not multiple copies to be made and distributed universally; the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (and the July 2006 fair use provision, which applies to it too) restricts and limits digital distribution of materials copyrighted to websites or otherwise copyrighted through commercial enterprises, including Foundations, which may be commercial and still be non-profit organizations (or not). [Given such unknowns, the Nobel Foundation, e.g., might not want to grant permission to Wikipedians to use photographs and images of its design and logo of any Nobel Medals in articles and Wikipedia Commons, where they have been posted prior to my raising these questions.]

I was also directed to regard this issue by Wikipedia's own concerns with copyright infringement and libel or defamation that are so emphatically posted in its policies regarding W:blp, because I have worked on some biographies of living persons in Wikipedia and read those policies very carefully. Some of the information provided by more than one uploader of photographs and images of various Nobel medals seemed to raise related red flags pertaining to copyright infringement to me (and to others who had posted comments in the talk pages of of the image and of the image's uploader well before I did).

I think what initially happened is that I clicked on one of the Nobel medal images (a thumbnail of the largest image) and it said that permission to use the image was "denied" and/or that image was already marked for "deletion" and yet an editor inserted it into an article that I had worked on (after my last editing of the article).

I had already removed the same thumbnail earlier and then found that the same image was being reinserted by a subsequent editor; when I clicked on the image, I saw a comment that suggested to me that permission to use it had been "denied" and that it was to be "deleted," and that alerted me to there being a potential problem with any and all of such images of Nobel medals. Anyway, that is my explanation of how I initially came into this debate.

It really was not a concern of mine until very recently, and that led me to check the Nobel Foundation website copyright notices (which I had read some time ago) for more information. It was then that I discovered that requests were being "required" in writing by the Nobel Foundation for the specific "exception" of the use of the logo, photographs, and images of its Nobel Medals. I do see that a photograph of a specific Nobel winner's medal placed in a case in a University might be a different matter; but, speaking for myself, before uploading such a photograph of my own or another to a Wikipedia website, I would definitely feel more comfortable (as such a photographer) just writing to the information contact address at the Nobel Foundation's copyrighted website to ask for guidance on the matter and to inform them (as they request such information) that links to their site were being presented in Wikidpedia articles on the Nobel Prize, Alfred Nobel, individual Nobel laureates, as a matter of common courtesy (if not copyright requirements).

Re: what appears on one's talk page: After I was able to edit from my IP address again, I wanted to "clean up" my talk page; I read what was on it. I understand that each Wikipedia user's own talk pages is his or her own personal talk page, and I thought that what is on such a talk page can be edited by the user him or herself. I have noticed that from time to time, people seem to delete content from their talk pages, which remains in "history" (or they "archive" it). How does one "archive" the content of a talk page?

[By the way, I have just noticed that all questions and problems pertaining his uploading of the Nobel Medal image and other images have been deleted by DM from his own talk page, erasing the evidence of these prior questions and problems and my own comments from it as well. In keeping with that, I would like to delete his remarks on my talk page, but I have refrained from doing so for the moment.]

[Updated:--This was a mistaken impression; I was looking at his user page not his user talk page. Clicked on a link that went to the wrong page.--NYScholar 05:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)]

I was told by a Wikipedia user that she could remove material posted by me (a 3RR) warning from her talk page, while posting such a warning on my talk page. When she removed the prior warning from her talk page, I removed the subsequent warning from mine (as I noted in my talk page above.)

I would like to have a "clean" talk page (removing this long comment as well. My means of communicating it to you is to post it here, at least temporarily (as opposed to on your own talk page; as it is a reply to your comment here). But I do not think that it does not have to stay here. I get the gist of your comment to me above, and I have not added further to comments on the talk page about the image or edited any image relating to the Nobels, since your comment above.

For example, I have not replied to a subsequent comment made in the Nobel .jpg image talk page even though I don't agree with it. I was Attempting to reply to it when I ran into the block and could not post what had taken me quite some time to write, so I just logged out instead and tried to request removal of the block by identifying myself by my sign-in name (while not logged on). I don't know if you saw that request or not.

As I said, I did not receive any warning prior to receiving your block. Later, I saw something that the uploader of the image posted threatening such an action in my talk page (which I thought, retrospectively after I saw it, very premature); but I only saw it also after the block had already taken effect (literally while I was asleep and not even logged on to Wikipedia).

I had thought that talk pages of articles and of images were for the purposes of discussing perceived problems and/or perceived potential problems and that Wikipedia had instructed its users to delete immediately material thought to be potential violations of copyright and/or defamatory. Subsequently, in those talk pages, these other "editors" whom you regard as attempting to "educate" me about copyright and fair use, seemed to be engaged in making decisions (consensus) without even looking at all the material about its copyright (the pdf version) posted on the Nobel Foundation website, or understanding that its statements about its copyright pertain to the "trademark" of its "logo" and to the "design" of each and every ("a") Nobel medal and to "photographs" of all those Nobel medals, as well as to all "photographs" of them (not just those posted on the website). People in that talk page still don't seem to understand that the "design" of the Nobel Medal, the "logo" of the Nobel Foundation (the Nobel medal image), photographs of the Nobel Medal, and images of the various Nobel Medals, are all registered copyrights by and of the Nobel Foundation. A news photograph of someone receiving the Medal is a different entity, and such a photograph (if in the public domain and/or if permission for it is granted) is probably best used in a feature article about a Nobel laureate in the photograph (not the Nobel Prize or Alfred Nobel, that is). I think that one thing that the Nobel Foundation may want to protect against is unauthorized persons giving in their own publications (whether copyrighted by these authors or not) the false impression that an article or an image is an "official" production of the Nobel Foundation if it features a Nobel Medal logo as if it were when it is not. That is a legitimate claim of copyright (logo, design, photographs, images). Trademarked logos (such as the Nobel Medal engraved with the image of Alfred Nobel) are generally understood to be for the use of the entities that they belong to (if not already in the public domain, which this one is not).

I have purposely posted this reply to you in my own talk page, purely by way of explanation and to get an answer to my question about the mechanics (timing) of the block, and also so as not to be considered making any kind of "disruption" relating to the image talk pages or the image pages that I have been discussing (as I see it). My concerns do, however, remain. (Sorry about some remaining typographical errors; I've tried to fix most, but I have run out of time to correct them further.) --NYScholar 01:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, here are the points:

An editor of Wikipedia took a photograph of a Nobel award, the design of which is still under copyright by the Nobel Foundation.
Said editor released his photograph under a free license, thus removing our concern about its licensing.
While the design of the medal is under copyright, it falls under what we call "fair use" on Wikipedia which is based off our understanding of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, [1]

Nothing in our use of the image to illustrate the article conveys an interest in competition with the Nobel Foundation and does not sully their use of the medals.
The images are used to illustrate an educational article and only used in an article in which they are critically discussed.
The images are not high quality nor are they actual reproductions of the medals.

Under the points above, it is our understanding that the image may be used, even absent the permission of the Nobel Foundation and said use would be found compliant with U.S. Copyright in a court of law. Its a bit difficult to respond to your entire message here since its a long wandering stream of conciousness type post. I hope I have answered the main points. I really appreciate your concern over the use of the medal photographs and please feel free to continue discussing whether or not you feel the fair use provisions apply in this case. We're just asking that you don't place any more speedy deletion tags on the images and do not remove the licensing tags currently in place. Also, you might consider trying to reduce your arguments to something simpler so that others can address your points. Shell ^babelfish 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Shell: The US Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. sec. 107 [1] is updated by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provisions pertaining to digital materials, including images, designs, artistic productions, and so on, and also the July 2006 update of the "fair use" provision (which I have linked to in the image page in question also updates that section. It is important for Wikipedia to look directly at the language of these Acts and updates of these Acts and not to rely soley on Wikipedia's own articles (composed by Wikipedians) on copyright law, the Berne conventions pertaining to copyright, and fair use. These matters are already highly ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations from multiple points of view. They are not "black and white" matters.

The current (July 2006) fair use provision statement hosted by the US Copyright Office clearly directs its readers to contact registered copyright owners with questions about their intended use of such copyrighted materials (similar re: trademark in the comparable US government office) to be "safe." Many people understand that once they request permission and if that request for permission is not granted, but denied, then they cannot use the material as requested. They can modify their uses, however, to comply with the requirements of the copyright holders. More power and discretion is given to copyright holders in current copyright law (post 1976) than existed in 1976 (prior to the use of the internet and digital media). The design and image and logo are currently in digital format on the Nobel Prize/Nobel Foundation websites; again, the pdf version of the copyright notice is quite clear about what can and cannot be done with Nobel Foundation materials (a wide range of them) and very specific about the design, the logo, photographs, and images of the Nobel medal (w/ Alfred Nobel's image engraved on it) and the other Nobel medals (for each Prize). (One has to take into account the public distribution of these copyrighted works, intellectual and artistic properties, via the internet through digital means, digital media, including the altering of photographs through Photoshop-type techniques, and so on; the DMCA pertains to art, music, video, and so on, as well as to kinds of texts developed in digital formats and "transmitted" or "published" or "distributed" via the internet.)

If you refer back to 1976, you are referring to an Act that is superceded by later US Copyright Acts (like the DMCA) and additional provisions (like the July 2006 statement) and amendments (and later comparable Berne conventions too). All of this material including FAQ is linked at the US Copyright Office website, which I link to in my comment on the talk page of the image in question. Wikipedia is making reference to "July 13, 2006" as a date marking changes in its policies re: copyright in some places (as in the marked for speedy deletion pages).

Your summary of the controversy omits the most-important part: and that is the very specific statement requiring written requests for permission to use their design, logo, images (of design and logo) of the Nobel medal(s), and any photographs of them (not just those provided by the Nobel Foundation) and that such "permits" be "granted" prior to their use in any articles about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize, or the individual Nobel laureates; the pdf version also prohibits unpermitted alterations of those copyrighted properties. DM's description of the photograph is still ambiguous in terms of whose medal it is. If it is a medal that was given to the person he thinks in the late 1940s, it is of the same current design that is still under registered copyright protection by the Nobel Foundation, which requires posting a copyright notice (quoted by them in their copyright notice and by me and others in the talk page of DM's image). For that information, you have to access the copyright notice, links to which I've provided in the talk page of the images in question. Otherwise, I don't think that you fully appreciate the causes for my raising these questions about the propriety and legality of featuring the image of the Nobel medal in a photograph (no matter who took the photograph) in the article on the Nobel Prize or elsewhere in Wikipedia. One might want to check to see what other online encyclopedia do w/ regard to such images, photographs, logos, designs of the Nobel Medal(s). If they are published in print as well as online, or even just online, my guess is that such copyrighted encyclopedia have written for and been granted permission to feature these properties before doing so if they do so. There is piracy of Nobel Foundation materials in some blogs that I have seen, but not in bonafide mainstream periodicals that I have consulted (for other purposes); such bonafide periodicals have been featuring the required copyright notices after being granted permission by the Nobel Foundation to publish the materials. --NYScholar 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply: could you answer my initial "Questions" section re: blocks? A link to the Wikipedia page re: "short blocks" would suffice if you have no time to explain.

Also, can I clean up this talk page now and delete what I want to from it? Would you have any objection now that I have responded? --NYScholar 02:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The note about blocks - I believe you'd actually gone away by the time the block was enacted and thus never even noticed it. You can see our information at blocking policy.

If you're interested in cleaning up, I'd suggest the more accepted method of archiving which is explained at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Can you point out which portion of the DCMA amended the fair use provisions? Its my understanding that section 107 wasn't altered. In fact, I don't recall any changes to that section since 1976, which is why I referenced it the way I did. Shell ^babelfish 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use provisions apply to the qualifications of the DCMA that pertain to digital formats etc. Again, for the updated "fair use" provision statement, one needs to consult the July 2006 revision, which I've already linked a few times in the image talk page. Here it is again: Fact Sheet on Fair Use. That webpage of the US Copyright Office contains links to all the sections of current US Copyright Law, via an index, which contains a link to "fair use" that goes back to this Fact Sheet (July 2006). As the fact sheet observes, these provisions are subject to interpretation, debatable, and often need expert legal advice from specialists in intellectual property law. I don't think these matters of what constitutes or does not constitute "fair use" is as simple as the previous Wikipedia editors discussing it in the talk page of these questionable images make it out to be. First of all, what is "Nothing in our use of the image to illustrate the article conveys an interest in competition with the Nobel Foundation and does not sully their use of the medals" (quoting your summary) is subject to interpretation, including the interpretation of the Nobel Foundation, which has a special interest in protecting its logo, design, and images (incl. photographs) of the Nobel Medal. If it did not, it would not have made all of those items an "exception" in its copyright notice requiring written permission being granted, a "permit." Many lawyers will tell you that the perspective of the user and the perspective of the copyright holder on what constitutes "infringement" (sullies their use, etc.) differ. The DMCA reiterates new penalties for copyright infringement (which are substantial) and also emphasizes that lack of knowledge or ignorance of copyright law (or its subtleties or updates) is not a defense in copyright suits). Also, the Nobel Foundation requests that it be informed of links to its website used by others in their articles, etc. I don't know if any Wikipedians have provided it with such information as per its request or how much it was aware of Wikipedia's articles and images pertaining to the Nobel Foundation, the Nobel Prize and Nobel laureates. Again, it would be more respectful (in my view) if the users of the images/photographs/logo/design of the Nobel Medal would contact the Nobel Foundation with requests to use them. If such requests are denied, then I don't see any damage done to Wikipedia articles. If such requests are granted, then the high-quality digital format of the Nobel Medal(s) can be featured in specific Wikipedia articles on Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize, Nobel laureates, and perhaps the Nobel Foundation and the individual Nobel prizes (if asked and granted). That, in my view, would improve these articles. They could feature the proper copyright notices. --NYScholar 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

First, that link you provided is in no way an update to section 107, simply a description of its contents. Secondly, the Wikimedia Foundation has decided what they feel is the best interpretation of fair use as it applies to Wikipedia; there are not a bunch of editors sitting around making these decisions as you imply. I understand that you do not agree with this interpretation, but we're not suddenly going to up and delete thousands of images used on Wikipedia under fair use provisions just on your say so either. Also, you need to be aware that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL which means it may be re-released by other entities. Asking the Nobel Foundation for use of images on Wikipedia sounds all well and good, but since said permission would not extend to any redistributors, this wouldn't actually solve the problem at hand. Where ever possible, it is vastly preferable to use free license images, however, in the case of something tangible under copyright, such as these medals, its simply not possible. Shell ^babelfish 03:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reply above was being posted after I had already posted but not yet saved the following, leading to an editing conflict:

Here's the section: links are active in the online version:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

All of that has to be dovetailed into the DMCA, which has all kinds of qualifications and exceptions pertaining to digital intellectual and artistic properties (digital media) and the use of the internet (a digital medium). "The nature of the copyrighted work" is particularly relevant here, because in this case it relates to "logo" "design" "images" and "photographs"--all of which have digital formats and ramifications pertaining to DMCA (including how "fair use" applies to that Act. The copyright notice of the Nobel Foundation (long, pdf file version) refers to what can and what cannot be done without permission and with permission granted and for what uses of its copyrighted works (including design, logo, images, photographs of the Nobel Medal and individual Nobel medals) are permissible. Every numbered item in the fair use provision just quoted is subject to interpretation by parties involved, yet it is the copyright holder who must object if objections are to be made. Again, the Nobel Foundation might have no objections to Wikipedians' use of its copyrighted properties, but to be on the safe side, those who are creating derivative works from them (including personal photographs of these copyright-protected Nobel medals) need to consult the Nobel Foundation for its permission. If the permission is denied, then the images etc. should be deleted from the Wikipedia articles/Wikipedia Commons (if reinserted there). That is my view based on what I've read of US Copyright Law, Creative Commons, the Berne copyright conventions, Canadian Copyright Law, the DMCA, many debates about them, and also some expert knowledge about Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Foundation. --NYScholar 04:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm out of time to try to reconstruct what I had posted after that; it's lost. --NYScholar 04:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

One needs also to refer to the linked material in 107, which goes to material found in the index of the U.S. Copyright Code (most up-to-date version). Cross-references to 106a goes to the indexed material and are relevant, as are the DMCA qualifications. (The DMCA qualifications are linked in the updated notes, beginnning with the first chapter (101) of the index; updates involving all kinds of qualifications are given throughout footnotes to this online version of US Copyright Code, including Berne conventions qualifications and updates to them.) At issue in "fair use" is item 2: "nature of the copyrighted work"; in this case (relating to "design," "logo," "images," "photographs" of the Nobel Medal and any Nobel medal): see the definition:

“Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.16 [including the linked note 16]

I don't have time, I am sorry to say, to discuss this further. I've provided what I could with the time I had. If others are interested, they can read the U.S. Copyright Code and its linked notes and cross-reference links. It is very complex. Fair Use operates in relation to the entire Code, including all the updated notes. In that sense, Fair Use has been updated to take account of any of the changing definitions and additional changes in the Berne conventions and the DMCA (and its counterparts in Berne conventions). --NYScholar 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed personal attack on me from my current talk page. Will continue to remove all such personal attacks. [Following guidance in WP:NPA; WP:RPA; added tags to talk page.] As I said: I don't have time to deal with these issues any further. -NYScholar 16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your hard work, patience and attention to detail on the often contentious Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid article. --64.230.125.2 22:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnstar. Much appreciated.--NYScholar 22:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to give you the same! Great work. Mostlyharmless 22:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you too. --NYScholar 18:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits

With all due respect to your tireless contributions, I must point out that your manner of editing is costing wikipedia a fortune and stretches out the history thread of the article unnecessarily. Most of your edits to articles such as Peace Not Apartheid are in minutes of each other. You can use the show preview button more often instead of continuously editing. In this way we can see how the article evolves and expands etc clearly. I made this mistake too until someone explained it to me. Hope you understand? frummer 03:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; I use the show preview feature; in section editing, notes do not show up; there are many typographical errors of others and my own that I have been correcting. I'm doing the best I can; very frequently, in the midst of my saving my edits, other editors have changed items, introducing more errors, and so I try to make them as quickly as possible, without long periods of editing before saving. When I do the latter, the whole article has been changed in an intermediary state and my work is lost. Wikipedia is an extremely inefficient system of editing if one is editing online. There is no point in writing a text offline and spending hours doing it, because anonymous and other editors intervene and change the whole thing or revert or introduce errors in the meantime. I understand, but this is the best I can do, given the fact that people are working on the article simultaneously (and not reading the talk pages first often at all). --NYScholar 03:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

you'll get used to it!

Hello NYScholar, frummer 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:9235 fraser antonia.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:9235 fraser antonia.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the civility policy if you would like to learn more about interacting with others. However, unconstructive accusations are considered not very nice and immediately disregarded. If you continue in this manner you may be ignored without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Calling editors "trolls", as you did here, is inappropriate. The Illuminated Master of USEBACA 06:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

A vandal ruined the entire notes section of an article. To me that is the behavior of a troll. I think that it is time for administrators to see the problems occurring in the changes that are being made to hard work done by many editors over a long period of time in the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. I was not "name-calling"; I was describing the behavior of someone who vandalized an article by adding all kinds of inappropriate comments in editorial comments throughout, instead of commenting on the talk page and who is doing so in some way screwed up all the notes in the entire article. See the article history.--NYScholar 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seen this before

Hi NYScholar. I've seen what is happening before. Some advice. Save a copy of the article as it is in your personal user space and then back off for a bit and let GabrielF or whoever have a go at the article. Then once they are done came back to it. Articles are like swings, it is better to push for a while and then let go - the momentum of the article will continue to build. Don't fight GabrielF, its like trying to stop a moving swing just as its starting its back swing, remember that the swing will eventually go back the other way and that is where you can have the most effect. The commentary around the article in the outside Wikipedia world is quite balanced and the article will reflect that. Also, it is very educational to see what changes GabrielF makes -- I hope they are for the best, but with diff's one can ensure that his trimming is balanced. But I could not recommend more highly for patience and calm on your part. Right now, the article is not linked to from many other articles -- thus, while GabrielF is editing this article, why not add references to this article from the Wikipedia articles of many of the commentators on this article. Right now, the number of links into this article from others is quite minimal, see [1]. Best. --70.51.228.233 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have printed out and also saved several versions of this article as I have been working on it, including a few versions that I edited most recently. I will not be working on this article in the near future to save time and space from what you allude to above. (updated) --NYScholar 03:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Antonia Fraser © Sue Greenhill.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Antonia Fraser © Sue Greenhill.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 23:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Morton devonshire

Is there a reason why you're deleting certain sections of User talk:Morton devonshire's page repeatedly? --Specter01010 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. See Wikiquette alerts clearly posted. I am removing all of his personal attacks against me. See tag at top of this page as well. I am asking for administrative help with having them removed from his talk page as well. They are violations of Wikipedia's policy against making any such personal attacks "anywhere in Wikipedia" and that includes on one's own talk pages. --NYScholar 04:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Please avoid wholesale blanking of sections of talk pages. If personal attacks are the issue. it is best to post a note on that talk page.--CSTAR 06:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been blocked by you, but this is the first warning that you issued. That's absurd. The person violating Wikipedia's "NPA" policy is the other user; I did post a note on that talk page, several times--including the template for Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. each time--to no avail. If anyone should be blocked, it is he, not I. --NYScholar 07:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Even though you (CSTAR) state in the 3RR violations page that you have reduced blocking my IP address to a "warning," it is still blocked. Please unblock it immediately. As you note, the offender is not me but the other party engaging in personal attacks. The personal attacks have been deleted (after I restored the material except for my user name) by someone else, not me. It appears that an anonymous IP address user (beg. 64.) has done the deletions, citing "CSTAR." Please unblock my IP address. Thank you. --NYScholar 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

You should be good to go now.

Request handled by: Tawker 07:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --NYScholar 07:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, please consult your block log, where it is noted that I did unblock you at 06:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC) --CSTAR 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I had actually checked the block log, which stated that you unblocked me, but, unfortunately, when I posted the message above (7:09) I was still blocked anyway. That is why I asked to be unblocked. Somehow the removal of the unblock had still not yet occurred, even though you unblocked over an hour earlier. --NYScholar 22:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid

[removed link in heading; it appears in comment below --NYScholar 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)]

Hello. I was recently reviewing the Request for Comment for the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. I am concerned that your conduct towards other editors of said, especially newcomers, has been hostile. In particular, I refer to your "preemptive" 3RR warning (which stretches WP:AGF) and vandalism warning over a genuine edit dispute on User_talk:GabrielF. Please be aware that although your high investment of time and energy into the article is appreciated, all contributors are equal. Also, please don't respond to polite and constructive criticism of your edits and conduct with WP:NPA warnings, and post WP:VAND warnings against users when the edit was about content, as addition and subtraction are both equally legitimate forms of contribution to Wikipedia. I politely ask that you review WP:OWN, if only to remember what to avoid. Good luck in resolving the edit dispute. AlexeiSeptimus 23:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The link that you provide above Request for Comment may be mistyped; I have gone to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment but not found anything relevant there. Please direct me to waht you want me to look at. The preemptive 3RR warning (which was a courtesy so as to avoid a reported 3RR warning), turned out to be justified and that was acknowledged by another user (an anonymous IP user in a comment since deleted by an administrator from another user's talk page and talk page archive due to WP:NPA. There are about two to three users (depending on who the anonymous IP users actually are) who have been involved in participating in such PA in another talk page that was reported for breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette. That happened several days ago. --NYScholar 01:34, 18 January 2007

(UTC)

After a lot of searching, I finally found what you appear to be referring to here: [2], and I replied at that link. --NYScholar 11:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I did return to his talk page and found my earlier "preemptive" 3RR warning; as I say above, I intended that as a courtesy, so that I would not have to report him for violating 3RR if he kept deleting material added by me and others to that article. He is not a "newcomer" to Wikipedia. Again, as I say below and as both I and others responding to his editorial deletions of pertinent material from the article about a book (the author's own statements about what he regards as its "main points" for example; the author's "thesis" statement; the author's statement of "ultimate purpose") have stated, he is engaging in POV editing by removing the point of view of the author of the book which he does not want to appear in the article about the book. To me and others, such edits do not appear to be "good faith" but rather POV editing. (Editing out/deleting the author's point of view, which is a fact about the book.) He or another user deleted the table of contents of the book, ostensibly for "copyright" reasons; I found a link to the publisher's version of the table of contents and supplied it instead as an alternative. I do not see my conduct as anything but productive and non-personal. I have been consistently concerned about maintaining the neutrality of the article and with avoidance of POV editing of it by others. --NYScholar 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the comments that that particular user has directed toward me. He may claim that my "conduct" toward "newcomers" is "hostile"; however, that has not been the case. He himself is apparently not a "newcomer" [His user page history says he's been editing with this identity since Dec. 2005; relatively-speaking, most would regard me as more of a "newcomer" than he is; yet he is not "welcoming" me!]. I am not aware of any "newcomer" whom I have conducted myself toward with anything but the utmost civility, courtesy, and restraint. (Again, re-read the entire record of the current and archived talk pages relating to that article, and do not accept simply what that particular user or his friends say; they are acting in consort with one another, it appears to me.) That user said that he had been away for a few days. During the time he was away, all my editing comments on the article in question dealt entirely with content. He returned and (once again) directed personal remarks against me. My warnings to him re: WP:NPA are totally legitimate. I politely ask you to review his remarks, others' responses to him (up to my last visit to the article talk page in question; I have not visited that and related articles or their talk pages today at all yet), and the fact that, in my own view, he has not been editing that article in good faith. [As I have stated in the talk page, the edits that he has made amount to deletions of material with which he disagrees and does not want to appear in the article, resulting in POV edits.] He has been deleting material that others (not simply I) have restored. Another editor warned about WP:OWN, not I (directed to still yet another user); I think it applies to him as well. If anyone has been "hostile" to other users (including me), it is he. I made a proposal via a "draft version," sought consensus, had consensus (until my last check, but still have not made a rename/move attempt), saying that I would wait several days before doing so (if there was consensus). He opposes the proposal, even though it resolves one of his recurrent complaints about the length of an article. I have no interest in engaging any further with either him or with others who have made personal comments about me rather than focused solely on content of the article(s) in question.

WP:NPA says clearly that one must focus on the content not the contributor. That user has not been following that admonition. In my own view, he has made no "constructive criticism of my edits" at any time that I am aware of. The edits that he has made that I am currently aware of amounted to deleting pertinent material and supplying nothing constructive in its place. Other editors restored what he removed. Later, I restored material so that the draft version that I was proposing and the current article would be parallel enough to compare w/ regard to a splitting proposal.

I have not visited the article in question before seeing this message, and I have absolutely no interest in becoming further embroiled in his or others' efforts to take it over (which is apparently what he and they are doing). I have also not seen his talk page, and I have no interest in visiting it either. --NYScholar 00:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I really was not interested in visiting that user's talk page, because you directed me to it, I did so. I do not know what you are referring me to. All I find in the recent comments is a gratuitous reference that he makes to me ("I might have reason to see what other articles User:NYScholar has contributed to....") in response to another user's (not my) comment to him. That is uncalled for, it amounts to another personal attack, and I would appreciate either you or another administrator (if you are an administrator) warning him against making such comments about other users (like me) on his talk page or elsewhere and requesting him to delete that remark. If he does not do so, I am asking you or a(nother) administrative to delete it. This is really unpleasant behavior on his part. --NYScholar 00:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

After finally finding the Responses request item ([3]), I commented as follows (but moved comments here due to request for brevity on that W page:

<<No action on renaming/moving this article has yet occurred as I have proposed an alternative version (splitting of the article in to parts to shorten it (it is currently 90 kilobytes if whole; half of that for each of the split-off versions) and am still awaiting further development of consensus. Please see the specific comments about that. They were posted over the past several days. This is the first time that I have seen this listing. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I may have been too optimistic about this problem being outdated. [User] is once again engaging in deleting pertinent sources supporting statements in the article without discussing the matters at hand on the talk page of the article (parallel objections have been made by (an)other user(s) to the same editing modus operandi by (an)other user(s). I posted a cross-ref. to the pertinent discussion that preceded his latest deletion by way of further explanation. Such deletions are highly misleading, in my view. I do not object to the deletion merely because it is a deletion of a source (any source); I object to deletion of the particular source on the grounds of the source's obvious pertinence, notability, reliability, and verifiability. I see a pattern in such deletions: they attempt to suppress (censor) information relating to developing more neutral point of view in the article; they favor inserting POV via such deletions by suggesting the absence of the material.--NYScholar 09:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)>>

Kenneth Stein

A page has been made for Kenneth Stein. I thought you may be interested in expanding it. --Shamir1 06:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've made some corrections and added citations in notes and a References section, moving around some of the external links. Unfortunately, this is all that I have time for, as I have other non-Wikipedia work projects to do. --NYScholar 20:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries & marking edits as minor

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 05:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In my view, my changes have been minor. I have restored material deleted by other editors which I already explained in detail in my editing histories and/or on talk pages. All one needs to do is to consult both the editing changes and the talk pages to see what these what I consider minor edits are. The intervening editors are the ones who have been engaging in major revisions by deleting hours of my work. --NYScholar 06:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

please self-revert on Middle East Quarterly you've broken 3rr. <<-armon->> 11:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

see the talk page of the article and exert some respect and honesty in your editing. Your own multiple reversions of my previous work and your own multiple reversions of the work of others caused the problems.--NYScholar 22:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits, again

I've previously let you know[4] that marking major edits (i.e. more than spelling or formatting fixes) as "minor" can be considered disruptive. Many editors prefer to only check edits that are not marked minor; if you make substantive changes and mark the edit minor, they may believe you are trying to sneak one past them. I strongly urge you to stop marking all of your edits as minor. Here, for example, you created a new section complete with a citation; few editors would agree that edit is "minor".

I do see that you have started using edit summaries, though, and other editors will definitely appreciate that. Always remember that Wikipedia is a cooperative project and take due consideration for the needs of fellow editors. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. I have been contributing far more editing history explanations than any other I have encountered in 2 years in Wikipedia. I suggest that you take a look more closely at the editing histories. I do not want my edits to be listed in a manner that anonymous IP users and all kinds of violators of Wikipedia editing guidelines can take advantage of. My editing is scrupulous. These continual messages are a disincentive to my doing any work on Wikipedia. To me it feels like continual harassment. Read my editing histories in the articles that I work on. Format changes are minor. Transforming external links that people strew into Wikipedia articles without any concern for prevailing citations formatting and generally without any explanation at all into full citations are format changes that are a service to Wikipedians. I think that you should spend your time complaining about the multiple anon. IP users and trolls who simply change things without any explanation at all. My explanations of tags are on the talk pages of articles and jive with the editing histories. If that is not good enough, then you are asking more of me than I want to contribute. In my view, I have done more than enough to improve Wikipedia articles that I have worked on. I suggest that you be more appreciative and less compaining.

Note that I archive material on my talk page and there is a message about that. I am not going to say that that is what I am doing every time that I do it. The message is clear enough. --NYScholar 07:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, I did not want to distress you or discourage you from contributing. I do, however, think that everyone contributing should do so in a cooperative mode and communicating by edit summaries is part of that. The advice in Help:Minor edit applies to all editors of Wikipedia equally. Obviously there is a never-ending supply of vandalism, but I don't think that should discourage me from suggesting ways that dedicated editors could improve their approach to the process and community. As for archiving questions before they are even answered, that is something I would classify as rude -- I have to go searching for my own question before I find your answer! The majority of editors will either reply in place or on the talk page of the editor who has contacted them. Generally I would conclude that if this is the way you approach communicating with other editors, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the type of project you should be participating in. If you wish to cooperate and communicate with other editors, however, then certainly you will remain welcome. Please devote some thought to how this project works and how best to interact with other editors. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Could you edit your signature (in 'my preferences') so that it contains a link to either your user page, or to your user talk page? Thanks. Alai 23:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I do not want to do that. My preferences are my preferences. --NYScholar 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter Page

I hope it is okay to ask you to take a look at the Palestine Book summary on the Jimmy Carter page. I trust you to be objective and I respect your work on the book page. Jiffypopmetaltop 20:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the invitation. Since reviewing that section, I have made some revisions to it, following guidelines in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I hope that those revisions improve that section. Here is the current link to it: Jimmy Carter#Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.--NYScholar 22:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

article talk pages

Do not remove other editor's comments from article talk pages. Especially do not do this when they are not personal attacks and when you are in a conflict with the other editors. Continuing to do so may be considered extreme incivility and disruptive, and may result in a block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the editor removed my tags and thus all the contexts for my tagging an article from the article itself in an entirely dishonest fashion. Then she posted extremely-negative references to me personally, attacking me, the contributor, and not even commenting on the content issues. I removed the obviously-personal attacks (justifiably).

I have posted a warning both at the top of my own talk page and in the article talk page: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. . The editor, who most unbelievably in my view, is an administrator believes that she (I think she's a she) owns the article despite Wikipedia sanctions against that attitude. She needs a crash course in Wikipedia:Etiquette and just plain etiquette in general. She's got a real problem that turns up time after time. She can't handle anyone else editing articles that she works on. She needs to get off her high horse and pay attention to the same Wikipedia guidelines that everyone else has to pay attention to. When I make changes to articles, I cite Wikipedia guidelines unless they are purely typographical corrections or corrections of format (in my view). I explain my changes. Many other people (including that editor) do not. She believes that she can just wipe out correct work and make it incorrect to reflect her own points of view despite Wikipedia:NPOV. I think that her administrative status needs to be reviewed. She abuses it. --08:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is a well respected administrator with over 45,000 edits. She and I are both well aware of the NPA policy, as well as that of WP:OWN. Making claims that she is abusing administrator privileges are somewhat hypocritical when your remarks in the above paragraph clearly claim she needs etiquette lessons, violate policy, etc. You have not provided any diffs. My cautioning above was in keeping with WP:TALK about what can and cannot be done on an article talk page. Her comments were not personal attacks. You should not have removed them. It's very simple. Furthermore, telling me what she believes is rather incivil as well. Do you know what she believes? I don't. You don't. Only she does. We can merely guess at it. Anyway, may I remind you to stay civil and just calm down. It's just the internet, this isn't a big deal. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I must remind you, there were no personal attacks. If you can show me some please cite a diff. Disagreeing with something she did is not a personal attack however. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, both of you stop edit conflicting me!!! ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 08:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, I have watched you take ownership of articles like no one else on Wikipedia, disfiguring articles with tags, making endless and often pointless citation changes, and if challenged always reverting three times in a row, and continuing in that fashion for months until everyone else wanders off, too fed up to deal with you. You're not going to do it at Daniel Pipes. If you feel a source is lacking, go and find one yourself. If you're not prepared to do that, leave the article alone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing further to say to the user above. I don't care how many edits she has, I know what I think of her. And it's not something that is printable here. So I will restrain from saying anything personal about her at all. I will just point out that she appears to me to be out of control in taking control. --NYScholar 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

incivility.

This is in regards to your recent edits at Talk:Daniel Pipes. Please remain civil. I have tried to reason with you during this conflict with SlimVirgin, but if you continue to be disruptive and tendentious I will be forced to block you from editing until you can cool off. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My responses are and were clearly to the "incivility" being initiated against me by another Wikipedia user, who, in my view, threatened me personally. (That is how I interpreted what she wrote: see Talk:Daniel Pipes.) I have not been "disruptive"; I am sticking up for myself, which I have a right to do. The other user deleted content that I had provided without any justification for doing so, calling my work names in the editing history ("disfiguring"). I have no interest in these petty squabbles. Please stop posting these messages on my talk page. They are unnecessary. I know the difference between civility and incivility. Apparently, some other editors do not. Please stop acting as if I began this problem. I did not. See the editing history in the article, which is, indeed, the subject, not me. Why are you or other administrators not posting these warnings and threats of blocking on the other user's talk page? (Maybe you are; I'll go over to see.) --NYScholar 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, despite the "incivility" initially directed against me by the other user, I find no warnings at all on the other user's talk page; just "entertainment" at the grief that I am being caused. How unfair! Hope someone else besides me notices the lack of evenhandedness going on there and here. I myself am finished with it. Who would want to edit anything in Wikipedia when this is what one is up against? No wonder there is so much dissatisfaction with Wikipedia among academic scholars like me. Who has the time or interest in dealing with it anymore? --NYScholar 09:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the best solution. Perhaps when you've cooled off you can come back and take a better look at things. As an "academic" scholar, I'd assume you have a thick skin and an objective mind. When you've calmed down a bit, perhaps I'll be proven right. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 10:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I doubt that you will be "proven right." If I interpreted comments addressing me personally as attacks, that is how I interpreted them. Academic scholars do not generally have "a thick skin," by the way; especially those in humanities fields like literature tend to be rather sensitive souls who are offended by personal comments against their work. I am quite calm, by the way. Just very, very annoyed at what I have had to put up with from another user who is an administrator and should know better. --NYScholar 10:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

incivility.

This is in regards to your recent edits at Talk:Daniel Pipes. Please remain civil. I have tried to reason with you during this conflict with SlimVirgin, but if you continue to be disruptive and tendentious I will be forced to block you from editing until you can cool off. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruption

Do not move old talk posts into the main namespace again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[N.B.: In place of continuing discussion in Wikipedia about matters of intellectual property, including copyright, and trademark, and issues relating to "incivility" and "vandalism," which I have neither time nor inclination to do, I have added some useful resource links to my current talk page for others' convenience. (As I have explained several times elsewhere, I do not use the e-mail feature in Wikipedia; nor do I engage in any e-mail correspondence with Wikipedia. I still do not wish to do so.)] --NYScholar 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→