User talk:Michael Snow

A question on a logo

Michael, way back in February 2004, there was a graphic of the USFWS logo on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The consensus back then was that although not copyrighted (as a U.S. government graphic), it shouldn't be used in light of the statements at [1]. I then found a public domain photo showing the badge with the logo on a USFWS officer's uniform, and we've used that image since then to avoid any problems. Now, somebody has again uploaded a graphics of the logo, claiming it was in the public domain. Since the only participants in the discussion back in February were Anthony DiPierro and myself, I'd appreciate it if you could give your opinion on the issue of such protected U.S. government service logos. (There may be more such protected logos. I remember having come across at least one other instance, but in that case, Wikipedia used a PD photo of a logo relief on some building. I only wish I could find that instance again!) Thanks, Lupo 07:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you so much, but I have two other questions on my mind that I haven't found an answer to, and since I don't know whom else I might ask them, I'll ask you:

Can "fair use" claims under U.S. law be made for non-U.S. items, such as images copied from, say, a French web server?
(Posted already on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, but ignored there) Can we use images under NATO copyright such as Image:B031007bc.jpg (from [2])? See NATO's copyright statement, especially at the bottom.

If you have the time, I'd appreciate knowing your view on these issues. Lupo 12:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response

I've responded to your message on my talk page. anthony (see warning) 00:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Request for Page protection

Please protect the following articles from anon vandalism. They have been reverted to the originals over a dozen times in the past 24 hours.

I realize that this is 'ALOT to ask for, but of you go through the histories of these articles, you will see just how persisitent this vandal is and that abnning his IP will not stop him. I would also ask that if you do protect, that you protect the last non anon version. TDC 20:26, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! TDC 21:04, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Why is Chilean coup of 1973 protected in the state left by a lone anonymous individual rather than the state consistently defended by two experienced participants of quite different politics? (BTW, from what I can see, the person is not a vandal in the usual sense, just over-persistent in insisting on his/her versions of articles. On some pages, I think he/she has actually improved the article, but not on this one.) -- Jmabel 21:36, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. This one is clear-cut. Heck, I think any time VeryVerily and I can agree on something politically charged, that's pretty clear-cut! -- Jmabel 22:03, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I understand the concerns about protecting the "wrong version", but this is simple vandalism, not a content dispute, and so I don't believe this applies. Look at some of Turrican's (anonymous) reverts: [3] [4]. He reverts any edits by TDC and me (a fact overlooked by Fred Bauder when he singles out a "reasonable edit"). Refer if you haven't been keeping tabs on this situation to the arbitration request and his statements that he intends to revert all my edits and later that he is carrying out this threat. Just as I think it would be inapproriate to protect a page on the version that says "Bush is a monkey", I think the handful that are on the "wrong version" should be corrected (put aside the q of whether protection is needed at all - this is an attack on users not articles). Otherwise we send the message that vandalism will be rewarded. Well, let me know what you think. Very Verily 22:38, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The edits are vandalism because of their intent not their content. Reverting housekeeping edits because of the editor counts, e.g., reverting the bypass of miscapitalized redirects (Poland) and the fixing of spelling ("assymetric" on consensus), which should be no-brainers. Is there any possible alternative explanation for the anon reverts? The fact that said person has been involved in other acts of vandalism such as my user page should remove remaining doubt. It would really help if the ArbCom would get off their elbows and issue an injunction on Turrican, but a vandal is a vandal is a vandal. If you examine the edit history (I'm not suggesting you do this, you could take my word for it), there really isn't reasonable doubt that they are all one and the same person. (Also, some are id'able proxies.) None of this has anything to do with issues as to whether it is acceptable to remove content. It's about abusing Wikipedia to prosecute a vendetta, which should not be tolerated. The approach of haggling on every petty revert is a good way to waste everyone's time (including yours, since TDC pulled you into this) and feed the trolls.

Well I'm busted; I don't actually know what with(out) prejudice means. It could be something like I could care less which is "technically" wrong but in common use. Or not. Oh well, I sometimes fail words. Very Verily 00:24, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Maybe I do sound frustrated. It just seems to me that you do not perceive that there is no "dispute over capitalization", which is how you describe it; there is a vandal who is reverting all my edits, which is a very different situation (i.e., not a content dispute). If someone did something like this to, say, RickK or Hephaestos, all of the IPs would have been immediately blocked and the pages reverted and protected. This makes your take not seem like "persistent pursuit of impartiality". Perhaps you wouldn't approve of the other approach, but is there really any doubt about this person's intent? The IPs which actually vandalized my user page were (save one) not even blocked. Very Verily 23:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is as I described. But whatever the trolls will be a little happy for a little bit. Anyway, sorry you got dragged into this. Somehow you keep winding up involved in issues relating to me. Very Verily 06:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tip of the day

I've noticed (by going over the history of that page) that you're recently in charge - inasmuch as you're the one doing it, which is all that matters - of adding new tips to Template:Tip of the day. I suppose you've got a list of your own, but I just thought I'd suggest Wikipedia:Magic Button as a possible tip. -- Itai 23:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:02, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Library meetings

I'm sure you've got it watchlisted, but as an additional flag, I thought I'd note here that I've left you a comment at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Seattle -- I think we do need to consider more seriously where we'll go from the cafe, given current numbers (which are excitingly high -- I had no idea we'd be planning for this many!). Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Thanks for support my nominating for admin! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External search engines

Hi Michael. I reverted your redirect at Wikipedia:External search engines because the questions there are frequently asked on the Help desk and it is useful to point people to those previous answers and discussion. I had to use rollback since going to the revision as of 00:17, Sep 3, 2004 brought up an empty page claiming it was last edited in 1969! I've moved the page to the talk namespace to make it clearer what it is though. Angela . 19:56, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your interference. Arminius 00:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you get my email, by any chance? Have you seen how broad the area of inquiry is for the case that the AC has accepted against me (the AC is allowing Sam Spade to cherry-pick anything out of ~15,000 edits and two years despite the lack of a basis of an ongoing conflict)? I know that we've had our differences, but I'm hoping that you will respond; given all the work that you've put into the AC process, I doubt that you'll want to see the system corrupted to this extent. 172 21:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. But I think that you are overlooking something important regarding this "revert parole." Regardless of its practical effect, you overlook the fact that it also strips an editor of his legitimacy. After the amount of time that I have contributed to this site-- for which I could've been paid for some of the very same work-- I will not suffer the humiliation of editing under these restrictions... Nor would I even be able to edit under these restrictions. I think that you know very well that Sam Spade, among others under no set of restrictions, would just go through my user history each day-- as Sam Spade already does-- and revert everything that I write. I'm not going to waste my time editing under these restrictions... Moreover, it's disgusting how the very same user spearheading this case is not sanctioned for provoking more unnecessary disruption than just about any other user. 172 00:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think being on revert parole has much affected Cantus' legitimacy as an editor, though he's gotten blocked a few times for violating the parole, which I trust you wouldn't do. You think that it is alright for me to be put in the same league as Cantus, compared to what he has contributed and compared to what I have contributed? Thank you for taking the time to respond, but the response is reaffirming my doubts about even wasting a minute of time working on this site to begin with... Or maybe Wiki was a better cause in the past... The people who used to write good articles hardly seem in control of the process any longer; lately this site seems to be under the control of an increasingly legalistic cabal interested more in process as opposed to product. 172 08:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)