User:Slowking4

External images
External images
	Aaa-whitegloves
	Cogswell Fountain Boston Common
	Representative Sam Bell with a paper bag - Tallahassee, Florida.

External videos
External videos
	Wikimania 2011 - 2nd Day: The Campus Ambassadors Program / GLAMorous
	Wikimania 2011 - 2nd Day: Encouraging Participation III: 55:33

External videos
External videos
	Quartetto n. 7, op. 59 n. 1 "Razumowsky" 2nd mvt 20:30

Self Imposed Edit Restriction

this editor will be restricting editing to referencing; image tagging; talking; minor copyediting until further notice

0.02%

This editor has created 1043 of the 6,917,840 articles on the English Wikipedia number 347

81.47%

This editor has 13642 article edits out of 16744 total edits

This user is one of the 4000 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Template:User WP Public art

GLAM / NARA project contributor

GLAM / Archives of American Art project contributor

Gone but not forgotten

1. Allegro

2. Adagio un poco mosso

3. Rondo: Allegro ma non troppo

Problems playing these files? See media help.

aotus 8 October 2011

Users i will not interact with

User:TCO that φψκing bas-tared!
[placeholder]
[placeholder]
[placeholder]
[placeholder]
[placeholder]

Links

{{FoP-US}}
{{Non-free 3D art}}
{{Cc-by-3.0| FU FUN }}
{{External media| align = right| width = 240px| image1 = }}
{{Quote box |width = 18em|border = 1px |align = right |fontsize = 85% |salign = right |quote = }}

Quotes

There are many problems with SOPA, but some of the main ones are that it transfers liability for copyright infringement onto second parties like search engines, social networks, blogs, and all sorts of websites. It provides for DNS blocking much in the same way that China’s great firewall blocks foreign sites it does not want its citizens to see, raising a serious censorship issue since it would not take a court order to block these sites (although it is more complicated than a simple takedown notice).[1]

Unlike SOPA's disgustingly blatant rent-seeking, which was such an over-the-top abuse of the legislative process that it did not (and could not) support a principled or even intelligent conversations about it, OPEN provides a useful starting point for a sensible conversation that could actually lead to acceptable compromises.... I continue to believe the assumptions underlying SOPA/PROTECT-IP and OPEN are misguided, meaning that forging a compromise from OPEN’s more sensible proposal may be tricky.[2]

Pay the fawk attention kiddies, this little event that you're basically shatting your pants over...oh, hey, guess what, IT ALREADY HAPPENED! No, srsly, it ALREADY THE FAWK HAPPENED! Woah! TWICE in fact that I can recall off the top of my head just in the past 15 years!
I mean, hurr de durr, where were your stupid asses in NINETEEN NINETY SIX when Congress passed the CDA, the Communications Decency Act, which, by the way, was like 38 shades WORSE than this current bill you're all spastic and frothing over. And make no mistake, Congress WILL pass it into law, they're getting a FIFTY SEVEN MILLION dollar bribe to do it, essentially. And they've no problems at all with that knowing that their "big brother" the Supreme Court will simply step in right afterwards and fix their epic fawking mess...they get to keep all that bribe money of course and the MPAA/RIAA will be out FIFTY MILLION dollars...win-win all around! They do this all the time, it's practically their job description, there's actually been a whole slew of these idiot "laws" in the past 25 years, every single one deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court within a year of their passing through Congress, usually due to lawsuits from the ACLU and/or the EFF. The last two major ones were the CDA, Communications Decency Act and the COPA, Children's Online Protection Act. This new bill is basically the exact same thing, just reworded slightly. Same old shat, different acronym. Honestly, I can't believe I'm the ONLY one to point this out! I mean, hello, 1996! Blue Ribbon Campaign?! Surely I couldn't have been the ~only~ person online back in 1996! Tha'fawk...they sure are breeding you kids stupid these days. Mmmm, should probably mention, in the event that a really fawked up law does come to pass, it usually takes the Supreme Court about a year or so to completely boot fawk it...BUT, when they're sued they usually file injunctions and shit that prevent them from actually putting the law into effect at all...so even though the law could effectively be completely passed...yeah, that doesn't mean they can actually act on it.
It is pretty hilarious though, first it was "decency", then it was "won't someone think of the children?" and now we've got "scary pirates" in the latest incarnation, but it's all the *SAME* fawking bill, just slightly reworded and with new acronyms, CDA... COPA... and now SOPA. I mean, what, do they think the Supreme Court isn't gonna notice it's the EXACT SAME BILL THEY ALREADY BOOT STOMPED?! *rolls eyes* It really is just for the money when you get right down to it.[3]

Espinosa put together a visual builder that let Jobs design the calculator himself by changing the thickness of the lines, the size of the buttons, the shading, and the background, without doing too much technical tinkering. He dubbed it "The Steve Jobs Roll-Your-Own Calculator Construction Set.....It's no mistake that this is very much the sort of thing that is most valued within the most effective software teams in Silicon Valley. Let's call it "the designer who codes." This is the sort of person can build exactly what he knows people need, with an aesthetic that compliments its use, with no back-and-forth. [4]

I think this implied solution of working extra hard to crank up the good to drown out the bad is certainly part of the answer. But, to me, another and probably more effective solution for managers is to work doggedly to screen out and stop bad people and bad behavior at every stage. This means dealing with it via big things like recruiting, selection, training, rewards and punishments, and removing people; and, just as important, paying attention to the little things like giving people feedback when they are destructive. Another implication I emphasize is that self-awareness is important so that we realize when we are being bad and damaging others -- and damn well better work on changing our attitudes and actions. [5]

But beware: Leaders who believe that destructive superstars are "too important" to fire often underestimate the damage they can do. Stanford researchers Charles O'Reilly and Jeffrey Pfeffer report a revealing episode at a clothing retailer. The company fired a top-producing salesman who was a bad apple. After he was gone, none of his former colleagues sold as much as he had. But the store's total sales shot up by nearly 30%. The lesson, according to the researchers: "That one individual brought the others down, and when he was gone, they could do their best."[6]

Barclays boss reveals 'no jerks' rule: Everyone gets stressed from time to time but no one should ever not be nice. You know what a jerk is when you see it [7]

I probably can't get rid of the "Crocker's Rules" thing, so I won't delete it, but I'd like to set the record straight about its origin and use. I didn't create the term, Eliezer Yudkowsky did. We were participants on the Extropian mailing list (this predates Wikipedia), and I was often (wrongly, in my opinion) perceived as rude by some there, because I was quite vocal and straightforward. I made a post saying that sometimes politeness gets in the way of simple, honest discussion, and that I personally considered being capable of taking offense a weakness of character. Postel's rule applies to human communications no less than network communications: one should be conservative in what you produce and liberal in what you accept. If some properly formatted, meaningful communication causes your server to fail (i.e. "taking offense"), that's your own fault. Eli thought that should be enshrined as a "rule", so he did. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but I would have made it more quotable. If someone wants a nice soundbite to list with other eponymous rules like Postels, I offer this: "Tolerance is an obligation of listeners, not speakers." [8]

Nous avions alors essayé d'élargir la liste des exceptions au droit d'auteur, en respectant les marges de manoeuvre que nous laissait la directive pour sa transcription dans notre droit interne. Mais encore fallait-il que l'intérêt général soit prédominant. Autant en effet l'on peut discuter de l'opportunité de créer des exceptions au droit d'auteur à des fins d'enseignement, de recherche, bref pour des objectifs d'intérêt général, autant on ne peut accepter de le faire pour un intérêt particulier, en l'occurrence, puisqu'il faut appeler les choses par leur nom, celui de Wikipédia. Cet amendement, baptisé gentiment « liberté de panorama », est en effet un « amendement Wikipédia ».

Je m'étonne en particulier de la réaction de Patrick Bloche, dont je partage en général les analyses. Wikipédia, ce n'est pas rien. Ce portail représente une percée majeure pour l'élaboration et le partage du savoir. Que l'on appelle cet amendement « l'amendement Wikipédia » ne me gêne pas. L'important en effet est que la question soit posée : pourquoi certains pays européens considèrent-ils que photographier par exemple la pyramide du Louvre est un droit, et pas nous ? C'est vraiment faire preuve d'un archaïsme injustifié.[9]

Judging from my very limited experience, it seems like The Wikimedia's goals are backwards-- first delete any fair use images on site, and only if they can be absolutely proven to be legal and informative are they to be even be considered.
There is a huge gulf between what we can legally use and how NFCC is being applied. NFCC shows little understanding of the law, it imagines that the laws are the publishing industry's wet dream of what they wish the laws were. Right now, Wikipedia wants to be the best info source on the world. Unfortunately, some people also want to delete all fair use content, using whatever justifications necessary, legality of it be damned. These goals are not compatible. Before you come to us and beg for even more money to promote free knowledge, look in the mirror and see if the application guideline, when disputed, is helping the create a better encyclopedia or whether it's just helping to pursue an agenda or make a few people feel important.
The basic idea-- if it's against the law, don't use it-- simple. You guys have made something very complex, very gameable, very far from the law, and even further from making a good information source. I won't argue over the wording, I'm just saying, I can see from how it's being used, that this page has a problem. Correct it, put the encyclopedia FIRST-- or at least stop spamming with banners where you pretend to put Free Knowledge first only to delete that knowledge at the slightest possible schizoiphrenic-grade justification for copyright deletion. [10]

"the legal code won't be the censor anymore; instead, software code will do the censorial dirty work. This alternative is often praised as a "private" or "user-empowering" solution to the indecency problem. URL-blocking software such as SurfWatch or Cybersitter, which works by restricting access to specific addresses, was the first version of this idea. More recently, in response to cyberporn hysteria, the World Wide Web Consortium has developed a sophisticated technology called the Platform for Internet Content Selection, or PICS. Blocking software is bad enough - but in my view, PICS is the devil." [11]

the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list. [12]

We need to have a discussion about how to responsibly handle objectionable imagery.

Those community members who are acting like provocateurs and agitators need to stop.

“Wikipedia is not censored” is true. And, we need to stop using it as a conversation killer.

We need to set aside anxieties about who’s in charge, and quit fighting with each other.

We need to be aware of who’s not at the table.

We need to bring in new voices and new perspectives that are currently lacking, and really listen to them. [13]

Lists

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that may need Attribution
{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Henle, Friedrich Gustav Jakob}}
{{1911|wstitle=Henle, Friedrich Gustav Jakob}}
{{sfn|Chisholm|1911}}
{{sfn|Chisholm|1911|p=269}}
Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Pages needing attention
{{DNB |first=James McMullen |last=Rigg |wstitle=Dundas, James (d.1679) |volume=16 |pages=191–192}} Endnotes:
{{Cite DNB|ref=harv |first=James McMullen |last=Rigg |wstitle=Dundas, James (d.1679) |volume=16 |pages=191–192}} Endnotes:

Barnstars

		The Wikipedia Saves Public Art Barnstar
		Thank you for all the work you're putting into creating public art pages and sharing your great photographs too! Missvain (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

		Archives of American Art Barnstar
		Thank you for your valuable efforts in creating new articles about American artists! - Sarasays (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me to create Barbette Spaeth. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

		The NRHP Photo Contest Barnstar
		Awarded for winning the Washington DC challenge in the Fall 2011 NRHP Photo Contest by almost completing the NRHP DC lists Smallbones (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		Here is a barnstar for your work on the Farmbrough list -- PBS (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

		Red Link Removal Barnstar
		I, SarahStierch, hereby award you, Slowking4, the Red Link Removal Barnstar for your awesome work at turning red links blue, including at tonight's edit-a-thon! Great work friend! SarahStierch (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)