Vandalism, Annoying User, or What?
Same person editing from least three IP addresses: 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, and 22.214.171.124. Editor is adding obscure/POV/opinion/useless links to a lot of articles including: Stokely Carmichael, John Maynard Keynes, Attack on Pearl Harbor, J. Edgar Hoover, Sigmund Freud, and Francisco Franco. I can't really figure out what point this guy is trying to push (seems a bit all over the map), but he's adding pretty low quality links (user pages, random editorials, conspiracy theories) that are also rather unveriable/unaccountable sources of information and he's adding them somewhat rapidly. He's probably using more than just these three addresses, looks like a dynamic user. He has made a few good edits, though, so I was hesitant to label him as a vandal, but he has already re-added his pet links once or twice with no comments/summary ever in any articles or talk pages, so I'm not sure how to proceed. If anyone has the ability to look for other recent edits from 67.31.x.x, I'd also appreciate some help, etc. Daniel Quinlan 04:27, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
I may have made a faux pas
When I first discoverded wikipedia, I went gung-ho and added an article, without reading anything much. The thing is I borrowed most of it. I totally forgot that I borrowed it and someone has called me on it. Should I take out the article?
Jon 10:05, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Don't worry, no-one's going to shoot you for it. Something has to be done, and now that it's out in the open, it's going to happen whether you do it yourself or not. But there's no reason you can't do it. List the page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion with a brief explanation, and replace the article content with the copyright infringement notice from Wikipedia:Boilerplate text. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Tim Starling 13:31, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
For those of you who may be wondering about this entry in Wikipedia:Deletion log:
- 01:13, Aug 8, 2003 Eloquence deleted "Patrick Jennings" (deleting on direct request from Patrick Jennings because of slanderous statements against him)
I received a personal email from Patrick asking me to delete the page because it contained slanderous information about him. The content was indeed of a highly inflammatory nature (I will not reproduce it here), and no evidence for the claims therein was provided. I suggest that the page be deleted on sight if it is recreated, unless the author provides direct citations for his claims.—Eloquence 01:53, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)
I'm new at this. Can we get a differentiation between MUD and Mud? -- Marshman 03:06, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC) Nevermind, it resolved itself, somehow (I guess by my making the link above) -- Marshman 03:08, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Problems with searching
Try searching for 'Thomas hardy' -- why does Thomas Hardy no show in the results? -- tarquin (logged out)
- Search for '+Thomas +hardy' instead. Read more at Wikipedia:Searching, Limiting results. (I just asked the same question, see above) -- Cordyph 12:20, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Even better, use phrase search "Thomas hardy" with quotes. - Patrick 12:26, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Apologies to all
I'm sorry for flooding the most wanted with about 50 Governor General's Awards pages (just as we were finally getting rid of the Grammies to). I will continue to work away at them, however, and they will hopefully be gone soonish. - SimonP 23:02, Aug 7, 2003 (UTC)
- Oh no, not again... Something like that happened earlier today, too, and Wikipedia went down for a while. Ксип Cyp 16:29, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Moved and archived
- Sound files -> wikipedia talk:sound help
- style for unis -> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities
- Octopus proposal - deleted, now seconded
- weakest link -> Wikipedia talk:Requested pictures
- Mona Lisa copyright -> Talk:Mona Lisa
I'm really happy to see an image of mine used here: Image:Beer_in_glass_(small).jpg
I'm concerned however that without a link to the original image other people don't have an oppertunity to see the source data and therefore can't re-crop it or do other things with it. Should there be a policy of linking to the source image?
Thanks to google images I have tracked down the original version of this image: beer image and I guess I should add a link to it from the beer image page, but I'll leave it as it is for the moment so others can decide what they think about this...
--ChrisCroome 11:04, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, original source should be linked whenever possible.—Eloquence 17:00, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
- On a related note: I see Martin removed the larger image version from the description page. I'd just like to say that I think it's a great idea having larger images pop up when you click on thumbnails, it mirrors what happens elsewhere on the web and therefore what the user expects. I stole that idea from someone else, not sure who. Might have been Taku... -- Tim Starling 12:08, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
- If there's a "larger version" media link on the article itself, isn't that better?
- I'll self-revert: it's no fuss either way. Martin
- I found it got in the way
- I'm not particularly fussed, it's just style. I'd like to hear another opinion on the matter, though. -- Tim Starling 13:14, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Images
New user Tonius uploaded a slew of company logos and added them to articles. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these copyrighted and therefore can't be included on the 'pedia (without special permission)? Or is use of these covered under fair use? My wife used to write letters to people threatening to sue them for unauthorized use of the "Intel Inside" logo, so I'm fairly certain we're not allowed to use these. Anyone? —Frecklefoot 19:54, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- IANAL. Seems like that'd be more an issue of trademark infringement; in the case of "Intel inside", it could be misleading to apply the logo to something which does not, in fact, have intel inside. As long as it doesn't misrepresent anything, or imply that the company endorses or sponsors the thing, it seems like it'd be fair use. -- Wapcaplet 21:03, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The site says "Many companies claim trademark infringement or dilution when pursuing unauthorized uses of their names or logos on the Web--but it's not entirely clear how these laws apply to noncommercial activity on the Net." The 'pedia is, of course, noncommercial--I just hope none of these companies decide to come after us! :O
- And, yes, it probably is more of a case of trademark infringement--that was the case with the "Intel Inside" logo. For those interested, numerous companies (such as OEMs) would just cut & paste the logo onto their ads, which was unauthorized. Intel had to give permission to use the logo. If your ad met certain criteria, Intel would even reimburse 50% of the ad costs (so my wife was actually doing them a favor by telling them). I remember she had a hard time with Linux--Linux distributors would use a similar "Linux Inside" logo on their ads which was a huge issue of trademark infringement and dilution. But since no one owns Linux, she had a hard time tracking down who to write the letter to. :S
- If no one else wants to chime in, I guess its okay to leave the images up? —Frecklefoot 15:48, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I made a T-shirt with the "Linux inside" logo. I wonder if Linus Torvalds will reimburse me for my T-shirt costs? :-) That one to me sounds like a case of parody, though, which fair use seems to support... Anyway, I'd say leave the images unless there are any serious objections. -- Wapcaplet 23:42, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)