Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrownBot (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 5 September 2008 (Inviting user to the 5th DC Meetup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is a user talk page at the English Misplaced Pages, originally located at http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:B. If you are reading it at any other location, it is unmonitored and may be out of date or otherwise invalid. Comments left here have not been verified and should not be deemed to be reliable.

Because of privacy concerns, I no longer maintain separate archive pages. One of the worst policy decisions Misplaced Pages has made is to allow user and user talk edits to be indexed by search engines. This creates a space that is largely unmonitored for libel and nonsense, but is nonetheless the top g-hit for any relevant search term. For previous comments on my talk page, see 2007 Dec 30, 2008 Jan 21, 2008 Feb 26, 2008 Apr 20, 2008 May 10, 2008 June 13, or the old archives.

Please note that I am User:B on meta, but not on most other projects. As of June 2008, there are users named User:B on 63 projects of the Wikimedia Foundation, but only twelve of them are linked to my account. On Commons, where another user has had the B moniker since long before I claimed it here, I contribute as User:UserB and I may occasionally edit from UserB locally as an unintended consequence of unified login.

"Creationist nitwits"

Sorry I was referring to whatever nitwit decided there was a cause celebre for journalists (I presumed it was a creationist). If you're a creationist and thought I was referring to you, I apologise. I know you wouldn't import your personal beliefs to Misplaced Pages. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 03:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jon Courson Aritcle

It appears that you are the administrator that deleted the Jon Courson article. If that is so, I believe that there is some confusion.

The information on the article was not derived from copyrighted material. It may be very similar to the information in the Nelson catalog, but that information is not copyrighted. Both the Misplaced Pages article and the Thomas Nelson information are derived from readily available biographical information on Jon Courson (including information found on many of his books).

Because there is no copyright infringement, it seems that the Jon Courson article should be reinstated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.142.14 (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the material is "readily available", any creative work authored after 1978 is AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted. The author does not have to say "copyright 2008" and the author can even say "please feel free to copy this". It doesn't matter - the work is AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted. Misplaced Pages only reuses content if (a) the copyright has expired, (b) the author explicitly grants a license under the terms of the GFDL, or (c) the author explicitly releases all rights to the work. Unless you can demonstrate that the original author of that text explicitly released all rights to it, we cannot use it, regardless of whatever other people may be reusing it. "Copyright" is not the same thing as a "trademark" - with a trademark, if you don't enforce it you lose it, but with copyright it remains copyrighted even if you decline to enforce your rights. --B (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the bio is not creative work so it is not subject to the copyright laws. Since people's bios are just factual information, wouldn't you have this same issue with essentially all Misplaced Pages articles on people? You are certainly going to find the same information somewhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.142.14 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

That is incorrect. You are correct that facts are not copyrightable, but the presentation of those facts is creative. If the article were, say, a bullet list of churches that he had served in, that's not copyrightable because there is only one way to present a bullet list of that information. But this article was in prose and there are countless ways to convey the same information in your own words. It is a creative work and is subject to copyright, regardless of how often the author enforces that copyright. I have reviewed again the original text (any admin reading this may see ) and it is far more than an uncreative listing of facts. --B (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the person that gave the bio information to Thomas Nelson. It is not their original work. I did not put the origianl article on Misplaced Pages, but I have edited it a couple of times for accuracy. Since this bio is not Thomas Nelson's original work, it seems reasonable that the article should stay on Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.142.14 (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Whose original work is it? Regardless of whether it is Thomas Nelson's original work, it is somebody's work and whoever that person is would need to explicitly grant it into the public domain or release it under the terms of the GFDL in order for us to use it. --B (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You can tell I'm a bit new to this so please bear with me. If I understand what you are saying, then it seems that every single article on Misplaced Pages needs someone to explicitly grant it into public domain. Is that true? If it is true, what is that process for doing that and how do you know that the person doing so has the right to grant it? If it is not true, then why is it being applied in this instance? It seems like the article is rather innocuous so I'm not sure why this is an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.142.14 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are contributing your own, original, work, which should be the case most of the time, you are automatically agreeing to license it under the terms of the GFDL. The GFDL is a viral license that permits redistribution as long as you credit the authors and do not add any restrictions of your own. The vast majority of Misplaced Pages content is user-authored so no further statement is needed beyond your implied agreement with the website's terms of use. In the case of non-user-authored content, if it is from another GFDL website (like Wikia), we can provide attribution on the talk page or in the page history so that GFDL requirements are satisfied. Sometimes, we will incorporate text from a source where the copyright has expired (such as Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition). Because the copyright has expired, it is fine to use that text. Beyond that, if anyone wants to incorporate text that can be found anywhere on the internet, the copyright status needs to be verified. You can see Misplaced Pages:COPYREQ#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries for a sample assertion of authorship and statement of permission. If the author of this bio wants to grant permission for its use, they can forward this or a similar statement of permission to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org and volunteers from the Wikimedia Foundation will review the submission and add a note to the article talk page that permission has been confirmed. --B (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Word clouds

I emailed the site owner, and he clarified the site's FAQ - see . The images produced using the application are CC-by-sa; only the site layout itself is CC-by-nc-sa. Phew! Neıl 龱 14:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bill Blankenship

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bill Blankenship, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bill Blankenship. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

Interesting

In case you weren't aware, you better see this. As I suspected. BTW, thanks for your support.OrangeMarlin 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy excrement. That's unreal. --B (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, has this place gone completely mad? Secret meetings apparently were so secret that no one met. Hmmmm. OrangeMarlin 22:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I have read it, color me paranoid, but the version Kirill gives sounds unlikely. When Kirill says that arbcom did not have prior knowledge, implying that they had not even read any of this before, somehow I doubt that FT2 is stupid enough to make this all up, post it, and not expect anyone to complain. I would say it is much more likely that he suggested these ideas, there was some discussion, he said "anyone object to me posting it", and everyone was on vacation and he took silence to mean consent. That's my best guess, anyway, FWIW. I suppose it's also possible that arbcom expected everyone to rejoice at the pronouncement and when that didn't happen, they decided to just let FT2 take the fall for it. That's the extreme paranoia in me, though. I expect the truth of it is closer to the former. --B (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever the case may be, it appears that there are going to be consequences to all these dramatics. I'm not sure it's going to make me happy one way or another. OrangeMarlin 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head even more by FT2's reply here. In response to my question that could be paraphrased as "how can you call it unanimous if Kirill is obviously objecting", FT2 replies with "You need to read Arbcom's founding documents. That was a principle from the beginning." What in the world was a principle from the beginning? Ignoring objections and calling it unanimous? I must really be missing something here. --B (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he doesn't care too much to get involved. His friends are watching movies. You'd think if he were doing something this important he would help the conversation along. And once again, I ask, if FT2 had unanimous support, wouldn't they show that somewhere? The only comment is Kirill, and that was strong non-support. I'm sure I'm going to be taken out behind the shed for calling someone a racist (which appears to be less acceptable than actually being a racist), but I believe that if I were allowed, I can and will make a case that those accusations were accurate to some degree. Exactly what is FT2 afraid of? Being wrong? OrangeMarlin 00:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Kirill's latest comment provides some fodder for Kremlinology. FT2 said that no one opposed the decision. Kirill says "there was neither a majority nor a vote". These statements don't contradict each other... Guettarda (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

fully off topic comment on cla/sv/fm

the arena football playoffs comment....I seriously laughed out loud....I don't even know if they are on a tv channel I get....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like they change networks on a yearly basis. I see it occasionally on ESPN, but unless you just happen to catch two good teams, a lot of times it's just a blowout and really hard to watch. --B (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, you listen to ESPN Radio

Ever since I got my XM radio a few years ago, I have to admit I listen to sports talk 24/7 (give or take some sleep time). Colin Cowherd is always on during my morning commute! OrangeMarlin 22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I listen to Colin Cowherd daily. Sometimes I will listen to Mike Tirico afterwards and he is probably the most brilliant of them in terms of his sports knowledge but the problem is that they don't give him his own show and it really isn't as enjoyable when he's just playing referee. One of my coworkers usually has Jim Rome on but he really drives me crazy (Rome, not the coworker) ... the manual buzzer is just plain annoying. --B (talk) 03:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My brother is a big Jim Rome fan. Or is that clone? I'm starting to enjoy Scott Van Pelt. He's got funnier stories about sports. I happen to enjoy Tony Kornheiser, but then again, he's Jewish, liberal, and is friends with James Carville. I think you live down in that part of the country, so you might avoid him just because of his politics. LOL. Honestly, my interests in sports are Baseball, Ice Hockey, Syracuse University (anything, women's ice hockey, for example), and....well, that's about it. Lucky for me, SU grads are endemic to ESPN, so if SU does anything, it will be there. Hockey is a bit of a problem these days. Cowherd may have mentioned the Stanley Cup playoffs, but if he did, I wasn't listening!!!! I drive a lot in the LA area, so without sports talk, I'd be bored. I love music, but my mind needs a bit of stimulation. OrangeMarlin 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football July 2008 Newsletter

The July 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you examine the article "Independent National Socialism" for bias?

I am asking a number of administrators at random to review Independent National Socialism which is sourced completely from a white nationalist webpage called Stormfront, which has anti-Semitic and other xenophobic material on it. A user is claiming that this website is acceptable for use. I believe that this source is not reliable and could be original research, but you you believe that this website can or should this source be relied upon for the article? Please post your determination on the talk page of Independent National Socialism. Thank you for reading this.--R-41 (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My error

Thank you for cleaning up my mess. I came to the page because "User:Gogoskam" was in the list of Italian porn actors. Watching what you did, I now understand how to use the "nowiki". I'll go on to making new errors now. I'm sorry you had to deal with my most recent one. David in DC (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on the talk page of the Cla68 case proposed decision

Yes, I did see your submission of evidence concerning Felonious Monk. It could result in sanctions for him, if considered serious enough. That's something that could have been resolved at any time by normal dispute resolution--culminating in arbitration if necessary. This case, I hold, is about something far more serious. I'm sorry if my concentration on the larger issues makes me appear myopic or deaf to other concerns. Fortunately I'm not an arbitrator so I don't have to balance these concerns in the best interests of the encyclopedia. --Jenny 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, previous arbitrations have included warnings for FM, so if that didn't solve the problem, I don't know that community action is capable of doing so. Also - and I may be alone in this philosophy - there is very limited damage that a non-admin can do, so I'm less concerned about Cla68 than you are. I'm far more concerned about the danger of having an admin that straddles the line and plays the game just well enough to not be desysopped. There's a lot of harm that can be done there. I have a very low tolerance for abuse of the admin tools and the drama that their misuse can create. --B (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection request

There's a pending request at WP:RPP#Current requests for unprotection for Talk:In popular culture. Just FYI. — Satori Son 14:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I protected the page because it was a repeatedly recreated nonsense page. I have no objection whatsoever to its unprotection if someone has a legitimate need for it. --B (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. A shame they didn't come here first... — Satori Son 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Video777 etc.

Looks good to me. Thanks for the prompt action. Best, Gwernol 14:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks for looking after my talk page and taking care of the vandal. His contribs aren't very productive, to put it mildly. Next time I think he should be indef'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User rights management

Hey B, I must be really out of the loop...what the hell is a "Account creator"? (yes I know, dumb question....but....) Just curious... Regards, nat.utoronto 04:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The privilege exempts you from the limit of creating 6 new accounts per IP per day. It is used by users who handle requests for accounts from users caught behind a range block. --B (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Was there a discussion to add this user right? (not that I want to get rid of it, just for general knowledge... :) ) Regards, nat.utoronto 00:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0

Considering the shocking and grossly inappropriate threat by Tasc0 (talk · contribs) (now banned), would it be worth restricting the use of the emailuser feature on his account aswell? Rudget (logs) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary unless he abuses it. A blocked user's only avenue for contacting the blocking admin is email and he may also wish to contact an individual arbiter via email. If he abuses it and starts sending harassing emails, I imagine that it will be rather quickly disabled, so the risk isn't very high - he could only do it once. --B (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine, we can wait and see. Thanks for the swift reply. Rudget (logs) 16:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity request

Done. --SB_Johnny | 11:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --B (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Lou Holtz

I guess I need some clarification on BLP, particularly the NCAA violations section on Lou Holtz. Do I understand correctly that the objections are a) in only one of the three cases was Holtz directly responsible for actionable violations and b) in that case, the only support is "buried" in a long report and not easily spotted by the reader? In the college football media, it's generally understood (I would argue) that coaches are held responsible for the NCAA compliance of the programs they represent, but is it fair to say that on wikipedia that is not the case, that they are only responsible for the actions they directly took? I ask because that doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern across other similar biographies (in other NCAA sports, or of players). If that's the rule I'll obviously follow it. (I apologize for putting this in the wrong secetion, but I read the guides and could not figure out how to create a new section) Ny1995 (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To make a new section, click the "new section" tab at the top of the page. You should see tabs that say, "user page", "discussion", "etit this page", "new section", and "history". The "new section" button is the one you want. (It might just be a + sign instead of "new section" spelled out - I have some extra buttons from scripts and I'm not sure if one of my scripts changes the name of the button or not.) As to answer your question, you may want to see WP:COATRACK. "Guilt by association" is not a good thing and drawing the conclusion that Holtz is responsible for everything that goes on under him is outside the scope of Misplaced Pages's mission. If we're going to talk about Holtz's NCAA violations, we need to have reliable sources that discuss Holtz's relationship to them. The one at Minnesota, for example, was talking mostly about basketball, which has nothing whatsoever to do with him. Every school has NCAA violations from time to time and most of them are minor. For example, several years ago, Virginia Tech self-reported to the NCAA that a coach had bought a dietary supplement for some of his players. The players paid for it so it wasn't an extra benefit - he just collected money at team meetings and ordered the supplements online for everyone that paid him. But the NCAA says that the coaches can't have anything to do with it, so that's a violation. So even though, yes, Frank Beamer is ultimately responsible for what his subordinates do, he probably didn't even know about it and this has nothing whatsoever to do with writing a biography of Frank Beamer. So we don't include it. The question with Holtz is similar - does this have anything to do with a biography of Lou Holtz? --B (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Understood and thanks. In the case of the Minnesota violations, Holtz was found 'guilty' of personally giving money to players/recruits on two different occasions. Perhaps instead of just referring to that finding I should have included the specific passages from the NCAA report. The South Carolina violations are more debatable, since they included "lack of institutional control" which leaves things very much open to interpretation as to who is guilty of not asserting control. I think the current edit, which says he was found not culpable, is not accurate (especially given the Minnesota findings) and the rewritten summary of the Notre Dame portion of the story is highly biased (deleting references to the woman in question's status as a booster and describing imperissable benefits as an attempt to impress football players). And in the end, I felt and others do (though it's obviously not universal) that while 1 incident may be 'guilt by association', 3 incidents in succession presents a pattern that is important in assessing the career of the coach in question.Ny1995 (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever looked at the NCAA rules? I swear college programs ought to have an attorney at every single team meeting, shadowing the coaches, so that they don't violate rules. Of course, now I have to rant. These major Division I programs make tons of money off of athletes, yet tries to run their system like a bunch of socialists (yes, when it comes to capitalism, I tend to be a capitalist), literally enslaving the scholar-athlete (used loosely) to the school. It makes no sense to me. Of course, a football player can sign an MLB contract to play minor league baseball. Go figure. OrangeMarlin 17:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

One of my coworkers had a great idea for reforming college athletics. Give every scholarship athlete an additional period of time (2-4 years) after their eligibility ends that they can continue to be on scholarship and let them drop down to a half-time schedule while they are playing. That way, we quit pretending that these football players, who rarely spend very much time on academics, are student athletes and we give the ones that aren't going pro an honest chance at getting a real college education. --B (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To make extra money while I was in graduate/medical school, I used to tutor the basketball team on science. This was about 30 years ago, players used to stay in the program for 3-4 years, and they had to pass their classes. Today, I doubt anyone cares, so maybe you're right, let's stop the pretend academics and move along. Or follow Navy or Army, who are true scholar-athletes. Well Ivy League too. OrangeMarlin 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons

Just noticed that you've been working on a page similar to this one in your sandbox. Wanted to give you a heads-up that I've ?completed one and that it's in the Featured List process right now. If you'd like, once it passes, I can incorporate some of your work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to incorporate anything I have done. (Legal mumbo jumbo: I release my edits to that sandbox page into the public domain and you are free to copy/paste any content I have created there without worrying about GFDL attribution/history requirements.) I started working on it based on the ECU article, but never got a chance to finish it. --B (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll be incorporating your coaches column, I think. It's a good idea, and one I hadn't thought of. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, could you check my math on the number of wins/losses? I've added everything up a few times, but my totals don't match those of the 2008 media guide, which says that Tech has 648 total wins. I'd appreciate the help. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg

Hello,

As a participant in the deletion discussion, I wanted to let you that this is now at DRV. JGHowes - 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. I've notified all participants in the IfD of the DRV filed here. Dreadstar † 02:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another input request

See User_talk:J_Milburn#Age_groups_in_Scouting_and_Guiding. See my talk too. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment at User_talk:J_Milburn#Age_groups_in_Scouting_and_Guiding. --B (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_July_31 Granada and Crystal City. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 09:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP Image question

I was contacted by the subject of an article asking for my help posting a picture of him in his Misplaced Pages article. He didn't want to to release it to the public domain because he didn't want it to be used for commercial purposes. I uploaded the image, but the closest tag I could find was the non-free fair use in tag, but naturally, that won't work because he's alive and a free equivalent could be created that would adequately give the same information. Is there any other way for us to include the image without releasing it to the public domain where it could be used for commercial purposes? Thanks! Dreadstar † 07:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The GNU Free Documentation License is the best alternative and if protection is a concern, {{GFDL-1.2}} (which is immune from potential future marrying of the GFDL and Creative Commons licenses) is the best alternative. It can be used commercially, HOWEVER it can only be used under the conditions of the GFDL, which are too annoying for most commercial uses other than online encyclopedias. ALL content on Misplaced Pages is recreated on HUNDREDS of commercial websites (see Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks/All for a complete list). Anything used here is going to be mirrored and that is one of the reasons that we cannot accept content with a non-commercial use restriction. The GFDL contains enough restrictions that your average, run of the mill, commercial content provider isn't going to want to mess with it. You may want to suggest {{GFDL-1.2}} to him, but be careful about giving anything that could be construed as legal advice. If he wants legal advice about the practical implications of the license, he should consult his own lawyer. But to answer your original question, no, there is no way to use it under a claim of fair use or to completely restrict commercial use. The only alternatives we can offer are (1) no photo, (2) a random amateur photo that someone contributes under a free license, or (3) a quality photo that he contributes under a free license. Jimmy Wales said awhile back that (and I'm paraphrasing here) that we are big enough now that we could request #3 and receive it in a lot of cases because it is preferable to the alternative. While that's probably a true statement of fact, I don't like the attitude one bit ... but it is what it is. --B (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response, this is great information! I'll contact Josephson and suggest using {{GFDL-1.2}} and pass along your comments. Thanks again! Dreadstar † 05:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Update, the subject decided to just remove the image. Dreadstar † 14:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football August 2008 Newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX

The new magic word __NOINDEX__ disables search engine indexing on a page. See Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2008-07-28/Technology report. This could be added as a parameter option to {{userpage}} or similar templates. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  - 13:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Way cool! It's going on all my user pages and subpages! — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lakan

This is to inform you that I created the article Lakan, which, on further examination, I discovered had been previously deleted by you under the db-blank or db-empty rationale. My current version has quite a few flaws left, I'm afraid, especially since there is not much online discussion of Pre-colonization philippine history (the records of that time for the most part did not survive.) I shall be scouring my books for better references soon, but in the meantime, I am asking for your blessing as the admin who deleted the old article to get it going again. Yours. Alternativity (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're fine. The deleted article was a misplaced user page of Lakan (talk · contribs). Your article is unrelated. --B (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Cool! So that's what happened. Now I know. Thank you very much for that backgrounder. Cheers! :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Trend

See , what do you think of this? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry

Since this: Image:TomandJerryTitleCard1.jpg is PD, is this: Image:Tomjerrylogo40s.jpg? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily, if they were a part of the same film and the copyright was not renewed on that film, or some such thing, they would be - but just from the information given, there is not enough to draw a conclusion. More importantly, what is the basis for believing that Image:TomandJerryTitleCard1.jpg is public domain? The deleted en-wiki revisions show that it was tagged as non-free when it was here. Looking at that user's other commons contributions, they probably have no idea what they are doing and it is really a copyrighted image. Barring some logical explanation, I'd be more inclined to delete the commons image and restore the en copy with the copyright notice. --B (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do that, can you help write a FUR that will stick for one of these in William Hanna, where I now have the Commons one? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite beat you to it. If you come up with a FUR that'll stick, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject College football September 2008 Newsletter

The September 2008 issue of the College football WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)