EC, you agree to the terms of service when you sign up. If you fail to
actually read them, you alone are at fault.
You would have to show something like the contract is so confusing that no
sensible person could understand it. It's not the point of whether you can
today find it, it's the
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
EC, you agree to the terms of service when you sign up. If you fail to
actually read them, you alone are at fault.
You would have to show something like the contract is so confusing that no
sensible person could understand it. It's not the point of whether you can
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/26/2009 4:00:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, there is
nothing that says you have to sue in the US.
-
When you sign up you agree to a terms of service which states that
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Discuss. :-)
Carcharoth
Background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN#An_article_on_.22Notability.22.3F
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this
Carcharoth wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Rather misses the points that (a) the sources metric for notability is
horribly bad, in that famous for being famous rates much higher than
made an obscure medical advance that only saves thousands of lives a
year,
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:52 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say Cheese
Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided
that
they state where they got it from, and that
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Yeah, Wikipedia Art are basically trolls, but I find this disturbing. If
Wikipedia can make legal threats to trolls and deny it, and accuse trolls
of
trademark violation in a baseless way, they can do it to anyone, and
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:14 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If I create a piece of art using Coca-Cola bottles and call it Coca-Cola
Art am I infringing on a trademark?
Maybe.
Or am I describing my art piece accurately?
Sort of.
___
WikiEN-l
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
It's impossible to reconcile the editorial principle
that you do not own the contents of an article that it is freely
editable by anyone, and the legal right to be credited under copyright
law.
I think you're right
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
17USC501 begins Anyone who violates any of the *exclusive rights* of
the copyright owner... One could have fun with this in court. :-)
Only if you consider it fun to be held in contempt for wasting the court's
time
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If I create a piece of art using Coca-Cola bottles and call it Coca-Cola
Art am I infringing on a trademark? Or am I describing my art piece
accurately?
Was Andy Warhol ever sued for his
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/26/2009 4:00:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
Of course, there is
nothing that says you have to sue in the US.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:57 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The point isn't whether you take a picture of a Campbell's soup can and
call it Soup Five. The point is can you call it Campbell Soup Art
The name you give it, is the point. Not what the subject matter is.
According to Wikipedia, he
2009/4/26 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
The next time someone gets a
letter from the WMF lawyers, they ought to know to read it carefully to
discern whether it's a bona fide legal threat or just the WMF holding out a
tin cup and asking for favors.
Well, they should already know that when you
Forgive my rather circular logic, I know, but the Wikipedia article on
Notability in Wikipedia can only refer to issues that have been discussed in
reliable secondary sources. It comes back to the whole point about
verifiability: we can't add something even if we know it to be untrue unless we
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
*Delete, non-notable, vanity
--Oskar
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Rather misses the points that (a) the sources metric for notability is
horribly bad, in that famous for being famous rates much higher than
made an obscure medical advance that only saves
Now on AfD as not notable.
I'll expect the trout on my face later.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia
Rather misses the points that (a) the sources metric for notability is
horribly bad, in that famous for being famous rates much higher than
made an obscure medical
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical
formula: sources *n / PI = notability.
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:52 AM, geni wrote:
2009/4/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
I, along with seven other co-authors, write an article on say Cheese
Whiz. In the article we state that anyone may copy the article, provided
that
they state where they got it
geni wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical
formula: sources *n /
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:02 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be
geni wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
The sourcing issue on notability is silly. It seems to me to be the
brainchild of scientists who want to deny the fact that what's important
in human life is subjective and cannot be reduced to some arithmetical
formula: sources *n / PI =
2009/4/27 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same
authors may grant a free licence.
Is that the case in all jurisdictions? It sounds to me like the kind
of thing that might vary from country to country.
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:12:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same
authors may grant a free licence.
I'm very suspicious of this claim.
If I and seven other own a piece of property, I
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the
architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be
mentioned in some other local history books - it is just that this
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
I'm not saying that people should delete based on Google results in the
first place. In fact I am the one who put that note on historical subjects
into the policy in the first place a few years back. Subjects who are not
necessarily currently talked-up might
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:39:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Creating_Copyright/Ownership_Factors/Joint.php
---
I do not recognize some random webpage, regardless of being on a UW site as
being
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:27:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Yes, the sources we have are unlikely to be wrong about the
architectural merits, and quite possibly the building will be
mentioned in some other local history
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:12:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same
authors may grant a free licence.
I'm very suspicious of this claim.
If I and seven other own a
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of
search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be engaging it, it can be
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:47:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
---
The point being that now we can actually answer a question such as Was the
7th Duke of
We actuallyin practice have quite a high bar on such things. Can you find a
stable BLP article (ie one that has survived or would survive AFD) on a
notable vandal of a major website? Zero to very few. A number of famous
for just being famous AFD's are deleted, too.
FT2
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at
2009/4/27 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:12:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same
authors may grant a free licence.
I'm very suspicious of
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of
search engines any day.
Certainly. But when someone seems not to be
In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably
trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some
level of enduring significance, then finding a
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/4/27 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
Google books is fine, as is google itself.
Neither is a substitute for common sense.
I'll take the subjectivity of human common sense over the arithmetic of
search engines any day.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 12:06:59 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
You are missing the point. I should not have to. If we have reasonably
trustworthy information on something that commonsense tells us has some
level of enduring
The question isn't whether the material is verifiable. The question is
whether we want to include articles on all village churches, some of
them, or none of them. The current answer is we include all of them
that are on official historical monument lists--which makes sense--
and also those that
In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:01:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
To be precise, the case study I had in mind was (and I can't find the
afd - it was some years ago) an old village church. The sources were 1)
a write-up on the church's website giving its
David Goodman wrote:
The question isn't whether the material is verifiable. The question is
whether we want to include articles on all village churches, some of
them, or none of them. The current answer is we include all of them
that are on official historical monument lists--which makes
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Creating_Copyright/Ownership_Factors/Joint.php
---
I do not recognize some random webpage, regardless of being on a UW site as
being authoritative on this matter. This
2009/4/27 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 11:12:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Yes, and, absent any agreement to the contrary, any one of those same
authors may grant a free licence.
I'm very suspicious of
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, doc wrote:
Can there be some common sense between inclusionism and deletionism?
As I've said before, common sense doesn't win out, because Wikipedia is set
up such that when one side thinks common sense should be followed, and the
other side has rules behind them, the rule
In a message dated 4/27/2009 1:54:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR
and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken
with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:24:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
arrom...@rahul.net writes:
As I've said before, common sense doesn't win out, because Wikipedia is set
up such that when one side thinks common sense should be followed, and the
other side has rules behind them, the rule always
-
Common sense is not common, when one sides thinks it's not sense.
One side of the argument doesn't get a pass on what common sense is, or
isn't. If the consensus doesn't agree, then it isn't common sense. It's
uncommon perhaps, or it's nonsense ;)
Will
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it.
That's what IAR is all about, and why multiple third-party sources may
be a good rule of thumb, but, like most rules,
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it.
That's what IAR is all about, and why multiple third-party sources may
be a good rule of
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
There is no reason to take
reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just
that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make near
the beginning of this
2009/4/28 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:14:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
There is no reason to take
reliability of sources into account when determining notability, just
that the sources exist. This is the point Ken was trying to make
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/27 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 3:40:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
If we can agree something is the sensible thing to do, then we do it.
That's what IAR is all about, and why multiple third-party sources may
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:27:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
That's the point we are disputing, you can't use it as a premise for
your argument...
--
I know you are disputing it. I'm stating that it's a given.
It underlies our policy
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:39:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
Now, there are fairly likely also to be mentions of this in written
sources - but it is equally the case that no-one may locate them during
a 5-7 day afd.
I'm
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'd have to be convinced as to why a person or
thing, which cannot be found there, is notable.
Will Johnson
Fine.
As long as you are willing to listen to any argument that something is
significant, and aren't going to spout some arithmetical google mantra
to
The Rachel Marsden article is out-of-date. There is no ending material on
the ebay Auction for one thing. It just says items were put up for
auction. How much did they get? Who won them? etc. Also there is no mention
that Rachel wrote a biography of Jimmy at Knol
57 matches
Mail list logo
