User talk:Duk/Archive7

Copyvio handling

You wrote:

I have a (small) bone to pick with you over the way this copyright violation was resolved. You edited the copied text until it wasn't exactly the same. The resulting work is derived from the earlier copyvio. Copyrights extend to derived works. Please resolve copyvios by reverting to the pre-copyvio version (per WP:CP) or by deleting the offending text altogether (per WP:C). It isn't possible to edit out a copyright violation in the manner you tried. After the copyright violation is correctly resolved the article can be expanded.

I believe you need to be a little more familiar with WP:C yourself. I quote:

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia.

That's what I was attempting to do. The article probably could have used further editing (and I said so on the talk page). I am quite familiar with both WP:C and WP:CP, having cleared a ton of copyvios over the last few weeks. Note that reverting to a non-copyvio version or replacing the existing content with {{copyvio}} are not the only options. I quote from WP:CP:

In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion, you could:

Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own.

Yes, in the context of WP:CP this is supposed to be on a temp page, but I believe you don't need to follow process blindly if you can just rewrite the darn thing enough to avoid any copyright violation in the first place. I'll leave Jill Craigie for you to revert to my version (or edit it some more) if you can be convinced of my position. One more quote for you, from User:Lanoitarus, who handles a lot of the requests on WP:RCV:

Unless the exact text of the article was stolen from you (that is, the wording, not the concept), there is no violation.

Regards, howch e ng {chat} 07:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. But you didn't address my point. Copyrights extend to dreivative works.

Also; you quoted:

In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion, you could:

* Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own.

You didn't do this. You modified the copied text, somewhat.--Duk 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC) --Duk 15:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said on the talk page to please do any more editing if anyone felt it was required. I believe we're working under different philosophies here. I'm not an inclusionist by any means, but it seems to me that it shouldn't take much effort to make this article usable here. Your choice of actions leads me to believe you've got an acute case of copyright paranoia; rather than working to keep the content, you'd prefer to take the easy route and just remove it. I'll take another stab at it and you can review it if you wish. Also, you should note that there were several paragraphs that did not come from the referenced page, so those can probably be restored (although it's entirely possible they're copyvioed from somewhere else -- I didn't check). Regards, howch e ng {chat} 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my experience that when people start blatantly slapping pejorative labels around in a course of an argument, directly or indirectly, they don't have a case. When people who do this they are engaging in ad hominem attacks; to follow process blindly, you've got an acute case of copyright paranoia. Can we please be WP:CIVIL.

Which is why I said on the talk page to please do any more editing if anyone felt it was required

If you want to resolve copyvios then do so, but do it right. Don't leave the job half done. And don't be un-civil when people ask you to do it right. --Duk 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend those remarks to be uncivil and I apologize if you took them that way. I meant the term "copyright paranoia" as a reference to m:Avoid copyright paranoia (I figured as an administrator, you'd understand the reference) and "following process blindly" was a poor choice of words -- a better wording would have been "I believe you don't need to follow process precisely as it's prescribed; WP:IAR can be invoked when it's easy enough to do so."

Don't leave the job half done. And don't be un-civil when people ask you to do it right.

I understood the wiki way to be a collaborative effort. You could have completed the work, or you could have simply asked me to do it without reverting to the pre-copyvio version. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF work both ways here and accusing me of ad hominem attacks only introduces rancor into the discussion where none was intended.

Let's get back to the point here. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what constitutes a "derivative work." My guess is that the line between "derivative" and "good enough to avoid a copyright violation" is fairly subjective. I've taken another stab at editing it and if you feel this is still too close, let me know (or as I said earlier, feel free to contribute). Thanks. howch e ng {chat} 17:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll concede your point. For Jill Craigie, we're really only talking about the second, third, and fourth paragraphs. The rest of it is from the second reference I added. I think I can just stub down the article some more and we can get to a point where we can agree the article is no longer even close to being derivative. howch e ng {chat} 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Hi Duk, cheers for your comments on the above FAC, I hope I've addressed them now, I'd be grateful if you could have another look. Thanks again. --PopUpPirate 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same about Design and Australia! Done a movearound and edit to reflect this. UK section could indeed do with more, but not critical... will see what I can do unless someone gets there before me! --PopUpPirate 22:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Yes, you're right, the data on maps isn't copyrightable, although the creative components are. The copyrightable bits can include colors, the thickness of lines, choice of fonts, etc. So "tracing" is fine, so long as these creative bits aren't copied. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 11:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Roxci Rhodes

Sorry. It's just that I don't know how to put it my own words. But maybe perhaps that it's best that anyone else make an article on Roxci Rhodes. Maybe you can do this, Okay?

Re: Copyright violations

Thanks for your comment. I just wanted to point out almost all of the contributions by User:Kiop have been copyright violations. What's more disturbing is that this user has recently started falsely claiming authorship of content to avoid being noticed for copyright violations (the first time I saw was on Image:Harbhajansingh.jpg). Mike Dillon 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if there is a procedure for reporting serial copyright violators? User:Kiop seems unwilling or unable to understand the problem Wikipedia has with contributing copyrighted material without it having been licensed. Since the problems with the aforementioned image, Kiop has uploaded more images that are probably imagevio's and has used more misleading licensing choices (read fraudulent); one example of the latter is at Image:200-1-.gif which uses {{PD-old}}, but is almost certainly a more recent image. Mike Dillon 01:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one of the copyvios that Kiop was involved in, Bhai Taru Singh was deleted and then recreated with the same copyvio content by User:Kalsi (possibly a Kiop sockpuppet). The page is still listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 5, but it doesn't seem to have been marked as closed (not sure if they do that on that page). Mike Dillon 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help. I don't want to seem like I'm just dumping this situation on you, I just figured it was best to involve an admin who was already familiar with the situation. Mike Dillon 04:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images by banned users

Duk, because of your comment at WP:IfD about Kiop I wanted to draw your attention to User:Catapult/Images, which is a bot-created list Freakofnurture set up for me to find images by banned users. I've been striking out the ones I've already looked at, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm comfortable with their status; if you see any names you know and have qualms about on the list, you might want to check them out. It will keep growing, although I don't think Freak runs it all the time. I'll look through the Kiop list by hand now, but I thought you might be interested in ours. Chick Bowen 16:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those Kiop images are deeply problematic. I've listed a few at IfD; I have to go now but will finish up the list when I get home, probably around 03:00 or 04:00 UTC. Chick Bowen 17:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a bunch right now. I also deleted one of his articles, Bhai Veer Singh (blatant copyvio, no permission stated). Chick Bowen 03:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page with suspected accounts and IP addresses being used by this user User:Mike Dillon/Kiop clones. Mike Dillon 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you block me?

Hey, I've been autoblocked by you. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.32.67 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like collateral damage; sometimes when a problem user is blocked it affects other users too. Were you blocked under the same ip that you left this note with?

If you have any more trouble just email me and include the details from the block note. --Duk 17:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiop/Kalsi

Huh--which is the sockpuppet? I see that Kiop is still blocked. I'm not against a tentative unblocking, but I am concerned that this user does not understand our image copyright policies. I've deleted, tagged as copyvios, or listed at IfD virtually all of Kiop's images. Would he agree to a moratorium on images, perhaps? Let me know your thoughts. Chick Bowen 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. I'll keep an eye on him too. Chick Bowen 22:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been autoblocked by you. Why?

Hey, I've been autoblocked by you. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wandering Star (talk • contribs)

My RfA

Thanks for your vote

My request for adminship passed with a final result of 78/2/0. Hopefully I will live up to everyone's expectations. Please ask if I can ever help out with anything in the future.
Martyman - 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

semi-protection

Hi. Thanks for the semi-protection. I don't mind leaving it in place. Really what reason do unregitered users have to edit another users page anyway? I am wondering what the wikipedia policy is on such things though... --Martyman-(talk) 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, looks fine according to that. I might leave it on for a while then. Thanks. --Martyman-(talk) 03:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bhai Himmat Singh copyvio

Hi Duk. After I tagged Bhai Himmat Singh copyvio, I decided to look into what seemed like its apparent source, SikhiWiki, and found that it was GDFL. Apparently I didn't notice that the text also appears on sikh-history.com. Thanks for catching that. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 08:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on page deletion

Hi. I have a quesiton about the speedy deletion of an article that keeps getting re-created. I speedy deleted Charles Thun under A7 "Unremarkable people or groups". User:Spotthatby210 recreated the page multiple times and only now after I have given up deleting the page has entered into discussion about it. Another editor has since marked it as a CSD. I am not sure what to do in a case of a disputed speedy delete like this. Should I give up and instead list if for AfD or should the page be protected or the user blocked? --Martyman-(talk) 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up on old vandal

On 26 October 2005, you left a message at User_talk:205.222.240.2 saying, "I've requested help from a Montgomerty Public School IT Security Officer. Email me of anyone wants more details." Do you remember the outcome of the incident, or is that too long ago? The IP was last blocked in November for 6 months, and there have been no comments since. I have recently discovered, though, that the IP address belongs to Robert Frost Middle School, which, as you said, is part of the Montgomery County Public Schools system. (FYI, I've had bad experiences with MCPS's IT staff in the past.) --M @th wiz 20 20 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Valley Lake FAC

Hi, I've resubmitted Chew Valley Lake as a featured article candidate, because it didn't receive enough support last time.

As you have edited this page in the past I wondered if you would be willing to visit and comment/support on the nomination? Rod 20:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you create this image?

image:Brayton cycle.svg Hi Duk. I'm looking for ways to create pv, ts diagrams, and the nice schematic you have on the left there. Can you tell me how to create the likes of this? Cheers Steveire 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to use Sodipodi. Now I use Inkscape. These are open source svg editors. --Duk 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gas turbine copyvio

If I read it and then write it down it will only be knowledge I have asheved on my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stian1979 (talk • contribs)

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Basically anything published is protected by copyright, so we can't use anything in wikipedia that has been previously published, unless we get certain permission. Your edit to gas turbines was copied from [1]. --Duk 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gas turbine

Please read it trough and if you don't find it good enough and feel it has to be erazed please save the text to a word document and give it to me later an I will try to rewrite it. Or leave it there and I will do changes later if you think it's neaded.

Regards

Wikipedia Policy on elements

Hi Nickshanks, don't change spelling from American to British on this article. Please go and change aluminium back to aluminum. See the WP:MOS. Cheers :) --Duk 15:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where differences exist in in US/UK spellings, Wikipedia policy is to spell elements using their standardised IUPAC names: Aluminium (with two is) and Sulfur (with an f), regardless of whether the rest of the article is in UK or US English. If you see anyone changing the Falcon 1 article spelling back to aluminum please pass on this information and revert it. See the WP:MOS :P Thanks. — Nicholas (reply) @ 10:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New wikipedian looking for guidance

Greetings, Duk. I wonder if I could trouble you to review a sampling of edits I've recently made and give me some feedback.

Trail braking Edited initial definition and added 'disputed' tag.
North Fair Oaks, California Reverted childish vandalism, but took no other action
Pulgas Water Temple Started a stub

There's so much to learn with the article standards and tag syntax, and I'm hoping to get more immediate guidance to keep me on the right track. Thank you. --Mud4t 03:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fumari

No I didnt click the button but Gianfranco gave me CD with the pictures (which means I can do what ever I want). He is not making his pictures for copyright or money but for his pure joy. Luka Jačov 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

Duk--Thanks for the help with the Prairie Restoration site. I wondered how to properly format the picture to fit inside a box and to the right. Thank you also for fixing the copyright problem. I'm so glad there's people like you keeping track of things to make the articles more professional, reliable and readable!--Jwilson4 20:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A favor please

Hello friend, do you remember me? In the month of September 2005, your vote had made me an administrator. we all know that the life here is exciting and full of challenges. I would request you to please spare fem moments for me, and favor me with your comments and suggestions (here please) on my performance as a wikipedian. Let us continue to build the Better than the Best global encyclopedia. Thank you and regards. --Bhadani 10:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bhadani, yes I remember you. We first met when you re-wrote the Battle of Saragarhi after a copyvio deletion. I remember feeling happy that there was someone on the English Wikipedia from that part of the world who could write about it. You are a wonderfull editor and administrator and wikipedia is lucky to have you. Best wishes, and keep up the good work. --Duk 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-CAGov

Thanks for inquiring about this. I've updated WP:PDOMG, where I keep track of various dubious PD templates. I've also replated the contents Template:PD-CAGov with Template:no license to better reflect our current state of knowledge. I think the best thing to do now is to re-tag all images in Category:California government images. (I started to do that, but the wiki has been rather slow, especially when loading images.) A number of the images can be kept under different rationales: I've changed the obvious logos (Template:logo) and seals (Template:coatofarms), and have tagged historial images that cannot easily be replaced or images of a promotional nature (state government officials) as "fair use". But a lot more work remains to be done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, what we need to do know is get a ballot initiative going to change the law and release all state-owned images on state websites, and any that may be, into the public domain. Daniel Case 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

-- Malber (talk • contribs) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

User:Travb

I suggest that the unblocking was a mistake, until that user identifies all of the copyright violations in their editing. User:Gmaxwell/trouble is the beginning of the list. Jkelly 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he can identify all his copyvios, but you can ask.

whether the unblocking is a mistake or not depends on his future actions, not his past actions. He promised to stop what got him in trouble. He has created a lot of content, presented a successful arbcom case and, yes, caused a lot of trouble with his fair use activism. If you read his apology/explanation/promise to stop statement you can see the reasoning behind his behavior, which has never been malicious. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive IMO.

I appreciate your feedback and hope my unblocking isn't a mistake, I'll certainly admit it if it is. I think we should always be looking for ways to accept serious contributers and turn them around when they cause trouble, instead of rejecting them and creating more enemies that go out and start wikipeida hate sites.--Duk 03:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism - semiprotection

Hi Duk, you have just semiprotected Hydropower because of a long history of vandalism. The same is happening to Hydroelectricity. Please can you also semiprotect that too (I am sick of rv v). Thanks. Sendervictorius 09:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done--Duk 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arch dam

I tend to agree with you on your sentiment that eventually all the types of dams should eventually have their own article. I just wanted to be sure that my creation of this separate article was not seen as problematic to others. Kukini 23:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not problematic IMO, could go either way. Personally, I'd put my energy into expanding the Arch dam article instead of making it a re-direct. I was just looking for a good picture to add :)--Duk 00:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great addition to the article!!! Kukini 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we could do that

Cool...I had no idea we could lighten and I assume darken images...good show! [2]--MONGO 02:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On June 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Condit Hydroelectric Project, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

my 2a page

Thanks for your suggestion! Tony 09:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How was coal made?

Hello my name is Xavia Leef, and I am here to talk about How was coal made and how it was invented.

Many millions of years ago, there lived dinosaurs. Days went by, and green fresh plants started to grow. More days went by, and fresh brown trees began to grow for the dinosaurs to eat. If there were no trees or plants for the dinosaurs to eat, the dinosaurs would die. Days went past and the sun came up. The trees began to fall down into swamps and go peat. Days went past and the dinosaurs were dying. The dinosaurs became soil. The sun madae the peat very hot and the swamps became layers of trees and plants. The dinosaurs became the layers too. The sun became even more hotter. It helped the peat to become coal. Coal looks like a black black rock. Ive seen coal before. Matua Boss bought some into Rm 14. When Manu toched it, he got black hands. Manu's a boy from my class. He's really naughty to. You should see him act like a baby. Yesturday when he wore loose pants, they fell off!

Well, gotta go have my kai. Chocya later!

Hi Xavia, that is a beautiful name! -- Duk 05:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:DSCF2839-sq.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DSCF2839-sq.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright violations

Hey Duk, a user has started targeting me alone for "copyright violations" on my user page. User:CJK, User:Tjive, and User:Isprin were ignored completly.

Any suggestions on how to handle this?

Signed: Travb (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you're mentoring this user, would you mind having a conversation with them about their behaviour. Beyond the above, see [3], [4] and [5]. Jkelly 22:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to be so popular. User:Jkelly was one of the editors that was so excited to see me booted indefinatly. Obviously, User:Jkelly has been watching many of my edits. This brings up the issue of wikistalking and harrassment.

I find it interesting that I have agree to stay away from any free use issues and all of the users involved, but User:Jkelly feels that it is completly acceptable to watch my page and collect edits on me to use against me.

The bottom line is that I erased the fair use items on my wikipage, despite others having collages just like me. In fact, I got the collage from two other users. Their photos are still on the page, mine are not. That is selective use and possible abuse of fair use, not to mention hypocricy and selective enforcement of wikipedia rules. Remember Duk how they selectively used copyright law and fair use on WSI to punish the other party and push their own partisan POV advantage? This is similar. User:Jkelly is using fair use to harrass me.

I will ask User:Jkelly to stop harrasing me and to unwatch my wikipage. I want to go seperate ways, and put the whole incident with User:Jkelly and other behind me. User:Jkelly obviously does not.

I continue to archive his comments, after I responded in full to his comments on his wikipage. He continues to revert this. This is the only requirment, that I am aware of as per Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette

I could start wikistalking User:JKelly as he appears to have done with me, and I could add his user page to my watchlist, but this will only escalate the fight and reopen new wounds, which I want to avoid. Travb (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears like the issue has blown over. I want to avoid any contact with User:Jkelly again. I asked him to stop watching my edits, and to unwatch my watch page. Hopefully this will difuse the situation permanently. Thanks for listening. Travb (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]