This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Wikipedia: Declaration of consent for all inquiries
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Redirected from Wikipedia: CONSENT)
WP:CONSENT
Many people give Wikipedia permission to reuse their content (text, images, video or audio). We are grateful for this. However, we receive many unclear or ambiguous statements of permission (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos").
We cannot use your content on the basis of such statements. This is because such statements do not tell us who may use your content under which conditions and for which purpose. For this reason, your statement of permission must tell us under which set of rules (called a "copyright license") you release your content to us. We also need to know that you are authorized to release the content to us (i.e., that you are the copyright holder).
To do so, please copy the text below into the e-mail by which you grant us permission to use your content, and make any necessary amendments before sending the e-mail. Please include the URL of the page or image as located on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons for which you are providing permission [ http://? ]
I hereby affirm that I, ? am owner of ?.jpg photo at http:// .
I agree to STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: [publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
[SENDER'S NAME AND DETAILS (to allow future verification of authenticity)]
[SENDER'S AUTHORITY (Are you the copyright-holder, director, appointed representative of, etc.)]
[DATE]
WP:CONSENT
Filing of this document, from Wikipedia: Declaration of consent for all inquiries From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Redirected from Wikipedia: CONSENT is all that was required . . . discernment needed. Stmullin (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Disagreement on Policy
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Debating Policy is very difficult when you censor and block people whose Good Faith edits are not correctly discerned. I regret that the disagreement occurred and can play by the rules just discovered . . . it is synthesis, not copyright that offended people. Appropriate citations were given. Correct forms were submitted. It is the synthesis of the information that offended other editors and there is a template for that error.Stmullin (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Synthesis
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Could another administrator please review this case. The permissions were filed and ignored or lost. Diffs are being made of correctly cited material. It is a shame to see so many editors' work damaged by a senseless rampage through articles when a simple edit would suffice. Edit, not deletion, is the way Wikipedians resolve differences. Stmullin (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
After reading the comments on Stewart Hase and Heutagogy deletion pages, I believe the correct template for my edits is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Synthesis
That explanation would resolve the number of similar words and sequencing of words that seemed to trouble administrators. I can not endorse or give credence to the definition of copyright that initiated these discussions. That definition is just wrong . . . I can say that synthesis of the information requires consideration of similar words and sequencing of ideas. WP:Synthesis, I can agree with.Stmullin (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Would you please provide me with some guidance on the block?Stmullin (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm . . . the last user page entry for Simon Kidd was 00:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC) so I guess he is missing . . . I think I can understand why.Stmullin (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
A Better Way
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I do not edit from my cell phone and have only one computer so the existence of multiple IP addresses credited with my edits makes me think something is amiss. Stmullin (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
This Month in Education: June 2014
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thought this was an interesting post by User:John Carter on User:Gregbard's page and wondered if I might help with proofreading and separating out content into
individual articles?
Hell yes! Any help would be more than welcome. No one should have any problem creating an account there. Right now I am working on the first volume of the Cambridge History of American Literature on my computer and transferring pages to the site in major chunks rather than page by page which is why I don't look that active there. The only caveats I might add are that in ye olde days they used a lot more diacritics than we use today and we should use them in the transcriptions too. They can sometimes be a pain to decipher in bad images. For a new editor maybe the best thing to do to start would be to set up an account there and go over to the wikisource:Wikisource:Scriptorium to introduce yourself and say what your interests are. From what I remember all of the old Britannica has been placed there and most pages haven't received a first proofread yet. Part of that for Britannica is how long the individual pages are. A lot of other books have much shorter individual pages.
Separation of pages into articles tends to require that the pages be proofread first but like most of the tasks there isn't that complicated. And if you wanted to start on one of the reference sources I have listed but haven't added there yet you might well be able to get it added for you. The sheer amount of broadly "historical" material which could be quickly developed there and substantially transferred here quickly actually kind of staggers me. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Just chiming in that there is one possibility that Greg could consider in the interim. Over at wikisource:User:John Carter I have a freaking huge listing of reference works currently in the public domain which as of a 1986 guide to reference works were still considered in some way useful and valuable. Pretty much by definition, the articles from those sources can be copied word for word with proper attribution. Admittedly, in several cases, they will also be outdated (big surprise), but for a lot of articles about, for instance, medieval political figures, defunct states, and the like, they can be very useful. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Even if you are blocked here you should still be able to go over to Wikisource and starting either proofreading pages from works which have already been added or uploading files that aren't there yet and proofreading and separating out content into individual articles. Some of the articles from Encyclopedia Britannica and some of the other reference sources would be very easily transformed into article content here. John Carter (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered that the verbatim text of the deleted Wikipedia articles maybe found at http://cdn.worldheritage.org
very interesting. Stmullin (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
{{[[Template:copyvio-revdel
|copyvio-revdel
]]}}
562803006 and 605500251 are not my edits . . . I did not have any copyright violations on that article or other articles that were flagged as 'blatant' . . . I'm not certain why User:Gregbard and I got targeted but I am certain that we were set-up . . . especially since our articles are surfacing on other sites . . . please let us out of the doghouse . . . we did not do what we are accused of doing. Stmullin (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
More Clean-up
Just removed malware from my system . . .
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Filcout.A Description
TrojanDownloader:Win32/Filcout.A is a Trojan downloader that strives to download and install other malware infections or PUPs (potentially unwanted programs) to a PC. TrojanDownloader:Win32/Filcout.A can target particular files on remote websites, or a particular web address that points to a website encompassing an exploit code that may permit the website to automatically drop and run applications or a malevolent code on vulnerable PCs. TrojanDownloader:Win32/Filcout.A permits cybercrooks to obtain remote unauthorized access and control over the attacked computer.
User:Gregbard may need to do the same. Still no clue about the motive for the attack.Stmullin (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought that those of you resurrecting the lost articles related to Philosophy of education might benefit from this online course offered in 1999 by LeoNora M. Cohen, OSU - School of Education at http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/ed416/module1.html which has references. This is very close to the information that was deleted. Please know that textbooks were not typical for this information . . . we received course packs or other summaries from our instructors. Stmullin (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Evidence
I still feel that although, strictly speaking, an administrator is able to justify blocking me given particular edits made by myself and the content of the policies, that this particular case would have been better handled by communicating with me in a civil manner. I believe the evidence and my long standing and prolific contributions support that view. The situation could have been handled much less heavy-handedly. I will get back to you a formal appeal at some point soon, and with the findings of my research. Greg Bard (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you sure you want that last paragraph there? It's enough for me to remove talkpage access, in part because it shows that you do NOT understand your block whatsoever, and are simply railing on against a policy that a) you agreed to, b) that is not optional, and c) you were well aware of the panda ₯’ 19:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
As I have stated, I am currently doing research, so if it seems as though it is the policy that I do not understand, then please forgive and withhold judgment and action until I make my formal request with my findings. The last statement is not a formal part of any formal appeal. The claim that the administrator who blocked me, and those who supported her could have just communicated with me civilly doesn't actually support the conclusion that I either understand, or do not understand the policy in any way. All that it means is that administratively, they had a choice, and chose a very heavy-handed approach. Please do not confuse political considerations for judicial ones. I have stated that "an administrator is able to justify blocking me given particular edits made by myself and the content of the policies" so that actually supports the conclusion that I do understand that a policy has been breached by myself. I am going the extra mile here by going through a more extensive study of the policies. I am finding the environment to be extremely authoritarian, if you can't appreciate that distinction. Greg Bard (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
The "suggestion" an accusation is that you were not dealt with politely and civilly - which is patently false, and thus a personal attack. Hence, rethink that paragraph - those who make personal attacks against others - including the blocking admin - get the pleasure of having their talkpage access revoked. Your choice here: refactor, or I'll remove it for you ... and if I have to remove it, I'll remove talkpage access as well. the panda ₯’ 20:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Come on, don't pile on here. I haven't always had the best interactions with Greg, but there's no need to go looking for slights you have to infer. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
"The "suggestion" an accusation is that you were not dealt with politely and civilly - which is patently false, and thus a personal attack." — That is emphatically not a personal attack. Please restore talk page access. Carrite (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, read WP:WIAPA Tim. Also, you know as well as I do that Greg's talkpage access has not been rescinded. the panda ₯’ 00:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
"It's enough for me to remove talkpage access." No, you would-be totalitarian disgrace to the admin corps, it is not. — Scott • talk 14:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC) (No stake in this issue, have never encountered Gregbard before, saw this discussion mentioned over at Wikipediocracy.)
This Month in Education: December 2014
Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.
G8 in spirit: archive of a deleted talk page whose corresponding article was deleted due to copyright issues. Only one editor of this page. Editor is currently blocked. If editor can understand our rules I have no objection to him requesting that this page be user-fied so he can start fresh on creating an article on the subject.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This Month in Education: July 2015
Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects are used in education around the world.
