User talk:Chick Bowen: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:04, 20 January 2007

To leave me a message, click here.

Archives

I've noticed your work recently.

You seem like an expert on copyright law - about which I know very little.

Question. If a make a copy/image of a Book Cover of a book that was published in the USA,

let's say in 1915 (I'm aware of the 1923 cut-off date), which Tag do I put on it?

The Public Domain tag? or the Bookcover Tag? Ot BOTH!! --Ludvikus 06:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question--it's the public domain tag. The reason is that the bookcover tag explicitly says that the publisher holds the copyright and we're using it for fair use, and for a PD cover that's not the case. I'll add a note about that to the book cover tag itself, I think. Chick Bowen 06:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published in the United States???

Here's another question on copyrights. Assume a Russian book, bearing the city of Moscow in its copyright page.

Ordinary meaning is that it was NOT published in the United States!

Or are we to assume that it Circulated in the USA -- therefore published in US?

In other words, how does the 1923 year kick in for a Russian book published in Moscow in 1915?

If the book was never physically published (printed) in the USA,

is it still subject to copyright protection?

I think not, but I'd like to hear your explanation. --Ludvikus 06:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publication is defined as the country in which it was produced, but the U.S. doesn't recognize all forms of copyright elsewhere. But the case you're talking about is absolutely PD, yes--see Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights#Dates of restoration and terms of protection. If the copyright holder in Russia is known and he died before 1953, it's PD. If the copyright holder is anonymous and it was published before 1953, it's also PD. Chick Bowen 07:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'll be away for a while, but if you have any more questions you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use.... Chick Bowen 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block of Buttboy666

Buttboy666, who you blocked, has made an {{unblock}} request on his talk page. Please respond to it.Eli Falk 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fanny Hill Book Cover

Thanks for the notice, duly noted. RichMac (Talk) 21:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be deleted

See this [1] Dakshaaayani 08:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Context? If this has to do with my unblock of Malber, I have nothing more to say about that than what I have already said--I unblocked him because I felt the block was inappropriate under the circumstances, but I do not endorse his behavior. Chick Bowen 02:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC case

Hello there! Early in 2006, you blocked Nomoretears (talk · contribs) and Lizards (talk · contribs). Since that time, I have been steadily work against possibly sockpuppets of these users, who I believe may be one in the same. The final straw was when MoreronCantContributeHeOnlyErases (talk · contribs) was created recently to discredit me on my user page. I have now filed a (lengthy) WP:RFC case at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MoreronCantContributeHeOnlyErases that involves the two users mentioned above that you had blocked. I felt it would be good to inform you, just in case. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 22:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are either the same person or meatpuppets of each other, yes--some Phish cooperative or other. Looks like this has been resolved since you posted this. Chick Bowen 02:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian

I think the time is ripe to either undelete or recreate the Wikipedian article. I can do a good job of having it comply with WP:Rules. Though Oxford Dictionary haven't included it yet like they did with Google (verb) it is likely they will when it meats their standards. In the meantime WP:N is applicable in allowing its recreation because if you 'google' the term you will see it has been referred to quite prominently in various news sources. Cheers. frummer 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah--after much digging I discovered how this relates to me--yes, I proposed the merge in the first place, though I did not perform it. It was not a good article at the time; if you can rewrite it better, you're welcome to give it a shot--you don't need my permission--though of course someone else may merge it again. I think the less we write about ourselves the better, but I understand that my view is not universally held. Chick Bowen 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Stoffer Edit

You told me that I should not do things like that, when in an episode of Electric Playground she states this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mosenmori (talk • contribs).

If so I apologize. But you should provide reliable sources for these things. Chick Bowen 02:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your edits on Benjamin M. Emanuel hold

I certainly hope your edits to drop the slanderous material from Benjamin M. Emanuel are allowed to stand I tried to do the same at 19:31, 10 January 2007 Wowaconia but in little over an hour they were reverted by an Admin at 20:38, 10 January 2007 Mel Etitis. If your edits hold I won't call for speedy deletion, but if they are reverted to put the slander back in, I will follow wiki-standards and do so. User:Mel Etitis argued in Talk:Benjamin M. Emanuelthat "WP:V#SELF simply doesn't rule out the reference to a blog, it rules out the use of blogs as (the sole) source for what articles say about their subjects. if the article said that he was a murderer, and cited a blog, that would be wrong; if it says that he's accused of murder in a blog, that's very different." I was unable to dissuade him of this and worry that he'll continue to revert away edits that drop the blog material.--Wowaconia 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmer

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. I am leaving this identical message at ExplorerCDT's page as well. Chick Bowen 07:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your intentions, I have not reverted anybody's work here. As part of a content dispute, ExplorerCDT has repeatedly removed my edits despite repeated efforts to meet his criticisms, and has done so on no fewer than a dozen occasions, let alone three. Any assistance in mediating this standoff, or any pointer on how to get an edit in without it being reverted, would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 07:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at your talk page. Chick Bowen 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you describe is most certainly a revert. Please read WP:3RR once again. The solution is to arrive at a consensus on the talk page of the article. If that fails, pursue dispute resolution. Chick Bowen 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If repeated attempts to update an article to meet the demands of another editor, only to have them removed, is a WP:3RR violation, then I may well be guilty as charged. On the other hand, there is something fundamentally wrong with a policy that grants someone who is blocking changes veto power to prevent further edits. I am walking from this article for now to allow appropraite administrative action to be taken with ExplorerCDT. Alansohn 08:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Boynebridge.jpg

The deletion was requested not because it was non-commercial-use-only (the "non-commercial" clause doesn't apply as the image was uploaded before May 2005), but because the editor of the website this image was taken from said there is no implicit permission at all, even for non-commercial use. Is there a way you could make the deletion log say the deletion was due to "copyvio" instead of "non-comm"? May be, restore and re-delete? Thanks! -- Paddu 19:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Chick Bowen 20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, I meant to say "author has denied that claim". Hmm. I guess I can do it again if you'd like. Chick Bowen 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be OK, I guess. I took some time to realise the error. Thanks anyway! -- Paddu 05:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of Messy Stench

Did you read the discussion page on Messy Stench before you deleted it? If you had you would have seen it was being debated and several editors expressed that they were confident of the subjects merit and were working on improving the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.5.12 (talk)

I always read every AfD discussion carefully before closing it. In this case, there was only one registered user arguing for the article to be kept, and though a neutral editor had supplied some sources, they were blogs and fan sites and not in keeping with our policy on reliable sources. If you'd like to challenge the deletion, however, you're welcome to do so at deletion review. Chick Bowen 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also read your contributions, apparently you take the easy route & have become an adminstrator merely by deleting the work of others. Anyone can do that. What have you created that has lasted? You are an example of the worst aspect of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.5.12 (talk • contribs).

I have written two featured articles: Eric A. Havelock and Mário de Andrade. Chick Bowen 17:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so interested in building the encyclopedia, why don't you register an account and get to work? Chick Bowen 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both those articles were created over a year ago and tweaked since then. What else have your done recently? Would you have deleted your own work after the first week?

I would like to get back to article editing, though I don't have access right now to some of the scholarly databases I used to use. What's your point, though? As far as AfD goes, I just interpret consensus--you're shooting the messenger here. Chick Bowen 17:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a fine example of why Wikipedia fails. Its rules & criteria are written by those who enforce them. It is like the police writing traffic laws. Further, there are hundreds of articles which should have been deleted years ago but fly under the radar. This one was deleted within two weeks of its creation and while people were continuing to edit and improve it. The rules are only applied to articles which attract the attention of people such as yourself, not evenly.

If you don't like being shot, dont be a messenger. It's part of the job.