We were probably both reading § at the same time. Personally, I think the symbol is better when referring to legal code, so I'm with you.--Kubigula (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvey -- this is the complete contents of the deleted article: "Symcor is a leading North American provider of check processing, payment processing, statement production and document management services." That's all. It was even tagged as a copyvio. Let me know if you need any other help (or if the article you want is under another name). Good luck, Antandrus (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful.--Elvey (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit here and explanation here. Follow-up on the that talk page, please. TJRC (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I think we've improved the article.--Elvey (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. It's my first. We should figure out what to do about {{PD-FLGov}}. It can probably be turned into a fair-use template. TJRC (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm looking through the usage of the template, and related deletion reviews. It seems like there's a lot of discussion that could use more evidence. BTW, do you think the appellate court decision is likely to be overturned? --Elvey (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That template is talking about the public domain. Because of how complicated US law is, something may be in the public domain outside of the US due to age, but not inside the US because they do not accept the rule of the shorter term and use different term rules. ViperSnake151 22:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out you're talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Possibly_non-free_in_US, and responded there, as I think you missed my point.--Elvey (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to challenge your deletion of an image.

• The image's title is Image:Phillipbrutus.jpg.
• I feel this image can be used on Wikipedia.
  • This image is available under the following free license: {{PD-FLGov}}

Court ruling trumps copyright notice on the page where the image is found. Please consider restoring this image. End the message with your signature, obtained by typing ~ four times. Template should do this.

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

I said already that your "Template should do this." since it can and does everything else! Did you not notice? Elvey (talk)

The argument made on the FFD page was that the image was not "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, county, district, authority, or municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida", not that the template didn't apply to it. Please provide evidence that the image is in fact covered by that description.

You may alternatively file a deletion review. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found no link to an FFD page. But the image was stated to be from http://www.myfloridahouse.gov, an official FL gov't website. It's certainly funded by the FL legislature; surely the offical website is not run on a volunteer basis. --Elvey (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the FFD page: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 14#Phillipbrutus.jpg. How do you know that the photograph was made pursuant to a law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business? Stifle (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think my previous comment already answered that question. Clearly you don't. I guess deletion review is the next step. Thank you for your time.--Elvey (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<DRV opened; Stifle endorses own review>

The site claims FL has a copyright on it.--Elvey (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'd better keep this discussion to the DRV, if you don't mind. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you are actively endorsing your own deletion there, I think it's productive to continue the discussion where it had ended. I don't much care where it continues, but I wish it to continue. You haven't responded to questions I've posed here or there. Please do. Thank you for recognizing that your comment there was insulting and apologizing for making it. --Elvey (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file is now File:Phillip J. Brutus.jpg. Photos with the same licensing position have been here for ages, e.g. [2]. Something's fishy. --Elvey (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed deletion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Signatures/X30ffx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Signatures/Qsung using Twinkle and it seems I ran into a bug. It seems they're being used to (I assume inadvertently) violate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signature#Transclusion_of_templates. DIV window stays up with this in it; relevant sub-pages don't seem to have been created properly.

Tagging template with deletion tag: completed (Template:Signatures/X30ffx) Adding discussion to today's list: failed to find target spot for the discussion Notifying initial contributor (X30ffx): completed (User talk:X30ffx) 

--Elvey (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because they are subpages ? I've gone ahead and speedied the two you identified anyway. –xeno (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvay, I just noticed you had a lively discussion recently on State-of-Florida copyright status. I just had some contributions tagged for deletion. I have also cited the Microdecisions case as an argument. Perhaps you would be interested in participating in the TfD/AfD/revision discussions? w:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Florida#TfD and Talk:Copyright status of work by the Florida government. Thanks. Gamweb (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The TfD on en-wiki closed while I was waiting for Mike's response, but I thought I'd let you know (since you asked) that he wrote me back today. :) The Foundation has no official stance on this, which means that at this point, we're on our own with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Here's how I see it: If Mike felt the use was permissible, he'd take the stance he took, just to be on the safe side. If Mike felt the use was NOT permissible, he'd say so plainly. So either he didn't decide, or he felt the use was permissible, IMO. I've been doing more re. Florida recently. --Elvey (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus points for tracking down the US-CERT statement that MD5 is flat-out broken -- I had wanted a clear statement in there about how broken MD5 is, but the nearest thing I had found was the NIST policy on moving to SHA-2.

When there's a sufficiently powerful preimage attack, maybe I can invert your MD5 real-world identity commitment and send beer. (Kidding, of course, that would take an incredible attack and would be really creepy besides, but, you know, insert better MD5 joke here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.146.167 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grin! Permission granted for UBE - Unsolicited Beer E-delivery, not the better known UBE.--Elvey (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LV, what you see in User:Gloriamarie/Milw0rm is the fully restored page. I had done a page move, and you can check the 100+ revisions in the history. The page has meta information missing because a user messed up the article and didn't know how to revert the changes, so he simply copied the viewable content of a previous version as the content. Jay (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. (I'd seen the same result before where only the viewable content had been restored; I incorrectly assumed the same cause.)

I had to adjust tags on User:Elvey/Text that were causing the page to appear in categories. Please use nowiki tags in the future instead of noinclude. Remember also, [[Category:Image_maintenance_templates]] and [[:Category:Image_maintenance_templates]] are two very different things! --RabidDeity (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. --Elvey

Context: I noticed what appears to be some highly disruptive editing and tried to bring it to admin attention. I got admin Tonywalton's attention...:

Does this comment mean that the entry on WP:AIV can be removed? If so, it's easy enough to edit the page without tools - just delete the line and save the page, just like any other page ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 21:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)It's easy if you don't run into a bug. I did try to 'delete the line and save the page'. I got a nonsensical edit conflict error: the page showed no edit conflict. (Yes, I'm familiar with edit conflict notices, they make sense, unless there's a bug as there was in this case.)

2)Also,, perhaps some admin will take it as an ARV request, or consider that the user in question was a vandal. I'm not an admin, so I can't do much and didn't investigate enough to label the user a vandal but I wouldn't be surprised if the label was deemed accurate. I'll mention this.--Elvey (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIV is prone to edit conflicts - as I'm sure you'll appreciate it's a fairly high-traffic page! I'm not sure what you mean by "a nonsensical edit conflict error" - if you're getting gibberish reports of edit conflicts when simply editing a page without middleware such as Twinkle involved then there may be a problem with the wiki itself, which would bear investigation. As for your report, could you be more specific about what the problem with User:Sfan00 IMG actually is, and how Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is "an enormous mess"? Possibly WP:AN/I might be a more appropriate place to report whatever it is, but you will need to supply specifics, including, where appropriate, diffs. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On further digging around, I se this is already under investigation [here] - perhaps you'd like to join the discussion there. I've removed the entry from AIV as it's not appropriate for something already under discussion. Regards, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tracking down the existing discussion. Iridescent mentions ANI's appropriateness, despite the existing discussion at CNB. So the AIV post was appropriate. You ask me to be more specific. I think it's obvious how Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files is/was "an enormous mess". I look and notice that many times, he created an entry and then withdrew it - over and over again; thought that was obvious jut by looking at the current page. Furthermore, the discussion you found points out that his edits show him repeatedly PRODding where others have said, I think correctly, "The images in question all seem to me to be obviously published, obviously public domain, and complied with all policies then in place". Others suggest he is doing so with an automated bulk-process system without looking at what he's doing. Others have tried to reason with him. I think this qualifies his behavior as a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - much like mass page blanking, except more harmful as its harder to remedy. And that's the definition of vandalism. But, well I got an admin's attention, so I'll leave AIV alone. Mind if I go edit AN/I, which was my intention, if someone hasn't beaten me to following iridescent's proposal to do so? --Elvey (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say raising the issue at AN/I would be a good idea, especially since the discussion at WP:CNB seems to have ground to a halt. AIV is pretty much for swift dealing with obvious "Wikipedia Sux"-type vandalism, really - AN/I is the place where more in-depth analysis of apparent problems takes place. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 12:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All SVGs are served to readers as PNGs.

• Thumb of the PNG version (21662 bytes)
• Thumb of the SVG version converted to PNG (17326 bytes)

So you actually made the image larger for readers.... --MZMcBride (talk) 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thanks. I'll go undo my work and improve the documentation, if it hasn't been done already. --Elvey (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd be interested in this: California County Hoarding Map Data Ordered to Pay $500,000. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Started looking for the court's ruling, and found that one reporter doesn't know a ruling from a settlement!! Interesting. found the court ruling.

I see the judge refers to Microdecisions v Skinner several times! Holy shit! My reading is that the court is unanimously stating (on p. 35-36) that it interprests the CA constitution to grant the people access to the public record without restrictions, except where the legislature has made an exception. The constitutional wording is quite different, but it seems the court is saying that much like in FL, "writings of public officials and agencies" available under California’s public records law (CPRA), are generally not subject to copyright. The times are a-callin for a {{PD-CAGov}} resurrection? I just asked the deleter; let's discuss here. Perhaps we should wait to see if there's an appeal to the state supreme court?--Elvey (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: {{PD-CAGov}}. commons too. --Elvey (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can justify separate articles because they're separate offences. Identity theft involves borrowing an entire identity, usually in a way that then makes it inaccessible to the legitimate holder. Identity fraud is a more "lightweight" approach, thus simpler to execute, far less likely to be detected, and so far more popular as a crime. There's a problem at the moment where many people are excessively worried about identity theft (a rare event) and taking measures against it that only work if it's discoverable as such. In the meantime, crooks scam and skim by using individual per-transaction frauds that evade discovery. Their purely theft-based detections fail to notice these frauds. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Actually, I believe this page should be further be developped, moving some of the content of Identity thief. Final note: I was surprise by the way this process of proposed deletion was conducted. What happened exactly? The explanation was not even given on the talk page! This make the things very confusing --Nabeth (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FTC doesn't define it that way. According to the FTC, as someone noted here, it includes simple credit card fraud. I provided the OED definition as well. Given they can mean the same thing according to the OED and what I've read, I proposed the merge (as an AfD - whoops). Since I hold a minority view and there are multiple definitions and no objective answer, I won't push the issue. Thanks! --Elvey (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FTC is never going to have a useful definition of anything, as they're government-based and simply too slow-moving to keep up. The OED even more so. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I won't push the issue. --Elvey (talk) 09:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeth: read the history of the AfD, not just the final state. An editor (unwisely IMHO, they should have used <strike> instead) removed a troll's comment. The troll was a fresh low-mileage account, so we don't know just who & what they were, but they clearly had past experience & knowledge and were trying to perform the Rite Of Summoning on a long-past infamous troll (Willy on Wheels). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me draw your attention to this; obviously I'm aware of the troll, as you call him. Are you trying to say that the troll had a point? If so it's lost on me. P.S. I'm curious as to your $dayjob you mentioned.

My $dayjob is an irrelevance to WP, lest it (again!) become an excuse to revert my contributions as WP:OR. I work for a big UK corp that worries about this stuff.

If the "troll" had a point, it was to use identity fraud when commenting on identity fraud. Funny Duck might be Funny, but that joke isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious about $dayjob because you mentioned it, and I uncovered what is arguably one of the worst few identity theft breaches of all time. (I wonder if my being 'out' (non-pseudonymous, that is) has been inviting more reversion. Hard to say.

Ah, I didn't get the joke. Quite funny, actually! I know WoW should be blocked on sight, but nothing more. --{{U|Elvey}} ^{(t • e • c)}

Regarding this, I hear I offended you and for that I offer my appologies. I reverted the npov section and meant to restore the numerical difference you cited. I recall wishing at the time that I was desiring and wanting editors to check the previous edit before making their edit to check for vandalism or other pov pushing. Alas I see that I bit you. Sorry rkmlai (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:66.166.183.7, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages or warnings from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or shared IP header templates (for unregistered editors). However, it should be noted that these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. Because I was referring to them elsewhere, and had already just added a note to the IP's page, I thought it appropriate to restore the warnings. But I could have referred to the page history instead, and thereby avoided any possible feather ruffling. --Elvey (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just noticed the IP recently reverted a suspected sock notice!--Elvey (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvey,

I'm still not sure why we are commenting on the requirement for an effective enforcement of copyright to enable monetary gain by traditional copyright holders. This, as far as I can tell, is a random factoid in a discussion of the comparison between traditional copyleft and copyright. User A1 (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's widely understood that the main reason copyright was created was to provide a financial incentive, via an artificial monopoly, to creators so that they are more inclined to create. [3] And that monopoly is one of the main differences between copyleft and traditional copyright. How could that be random? Thank you for bringing this discussion from edit summaries to a talk page. --Elvey (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an alternative I think we both may like:

Copyleft is based on the belief that the temporary publishing monopoly that traditional copyright created in order to encourage science and learning, is not actually the best way to promote science and learning.--Elvey (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds clear. Sorry, have been a bit on-the-go of late, and didn't see your response until your recent edit to Free content. Thanks User A1 (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it. I think my addition was improved because of your involvement. Apropos your apology: I think [[ [[Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages|it's suggested that] article, not user talk pages are used because then responses are easier to find/see. No worries. --Elvey (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm declining this request for restoring, insofar that if the person is employed by the "Harvard School of Public Health" he would not be the (c) holder of these images, the school would be the (c) holder, as the images were probably created as part of his job. If they were personally created, he's going to have to go through the WP:OTRS (though the school's administration, preferably) to verify the correct (c) status of the images. Skier Dude (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm obviously talking about 'the' Harvard, not some bogus institution, as you imply by your use of quotes (note the harvard.edu links). What you're saying is pure speculation. In this case, it's perfectly reasonable to believe, even expect that the person in charge of the project would have copyright authority over its product. I think we should believe a user who claims to be and pretty clearly is (look at his edits) associate dean at the Harvard School of Public Health when he claims he created the content and clearly, at a minimum, spearheaded their creation. All the deleted files at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&user=Prof756 should be restored. Also, I feel closing an undeletion request of a file you proposed for deletion is bad form. I'd be surprised to find it wasn't explicitly against the rules. You should revert your action, IMO. Please read this. Sorry if my tone is unfriendly; when I detect copyright paranoia, I get testy. Happy turkey day. Time to eat! --Elvey (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the revert of the edit to BlueHippo Funding. Just wondering ... does the removal of the term "however" in the article change its factual accuracy, which is the basis of an encyclopedia? FYI, I despise edit wars so I will not make any further changes. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Words like 'so', 'but', 'thus', and 'however' are appropriate in an encyclopedia. If you can point to an encyclopedia that doesn't use 'however', I'll eat my shorts, and undo my edit. Perhaps you didn't read my edit summary. --Elvey (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#However, although, whereas, despite, which was pointed out to me by another Wikipedia editor. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and that guideline has changed, a good thing, indeed.--Elvey (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you take a look at my comment at Wikipedia:Public_domain_status_of_official_government_works#Template:PD-MTGov? Given the content of the template at the time, I would have agreed with your suggestion to redirect it to the DI tag, but I did some digging and it looks possible that it was a valid tag but with a bad rationale. -- Afiler (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was happy to. Here's my reply. I have a vague recollection that there was a time when CC-BY-ND was perfectly acceptable for images, but it seems the copyright zealots swooped in and changed things. I don't think I would support such a change as justified. --Elvey (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also commented, to the effect that they are public domain. Here's my reply. ;) Int21h (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I need someone to create a PD tag for the Imags of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, an institution of the Government of Puerto Rico responsible for the establishment of the cultural policies required in order to preserve, promote, enrich, and convey the cultural values of Puerto Rico. Said images are PD and I have the confirmation of the Pueto Rican government to such respect which I can provide. If you can do it or if you can direct me to the person that has the knowledge to create such a tag, I will appreciate it and provide futher information. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I can help. I've created (and deleted) PD tags before; I guess that's how you found me. To start, I need to establish the PD status. Please provide or point me to more info that I can use to justify the tags, per Wikipedia's complex and specific rules. --Elvey (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for responding. First, a little about myself. Even though I am not what they call a "polished" historian, I have been recognized as such by the Puerto Rican Government and have been named the Official Historian of ANSO the Association of Naval Service Officers of the United States Navy. As such I have access to military and political figures both in the United States and the territory Puerto Rico, among which are the Governor and the Secretary of State/Lt. Gov. of the island. The Institute of Puerto Rican Culture, an institution of the Government of Puerto Rico which is funded by the United States Federal Government and whose image copyright laws fall under the Federal Government of the U.S..

My main concern was the images of the images and the not the written content used or published by The Institute of Puerto Rican Culture. I knew that images as such are Public Domain, however, to be on the safe side I decided to contact and ask about the image PD status the Secretary of State/Lt. Governor of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Kenneth McClintock, who holds a doctorate in international law and as an authority knows about the matter and is also spokesperson for the People of Puerto Rico. Here I will publish the correspondence between us (He is fluent in English as well as Spainsh and his e-mail was in Englsh as published here).

"Estimado Honorable Lt. Gov. K. McClintock, I know that you are a very busy person and I wouldn't bother you if for not a question that came up. Since you have a doctorate in law, I figured that no one is more qualified to answer my simple question. Are the images of famous Puerto Ricans used by the Puerto Rican Institute of Culture Public Domain? I am almost certain that the institute would not pay for the usage of images of famous Puerto Ricans that they honor in their publications and so on. Could you please inform me? Gracias. Tony Santiago

He responded:

"Tony, The images the IPC uses in its publications, as well as the portraits of Governors and First Ladies (which hang in La Fortaleza---although the Governors', that will hang at the State Department for 2 weeks beginning next Monday), Senate Presidents and House Speakers (which hang at the Capitol), the Secretaries of State photos, which hang at my Department, and so forth, are clearly in the public domain because: (1) nobody is paid for their continuous use, and, (2) the government does not claim payment from anyone from their reproduction and use. I hope this is of help to you. Kenneth D. McClintock; Secretary of State; San Juan, Puerto Rico.

He also responded the following:

" These images were commissioned and paid for by the Government, for public use, with public funds, so they may be reproduced freely. No one has any rights over such images, having sold the images and rights appurtenant to their work to the people of Puerto Rico. KDM"

I will not publish his e-mail address for security reasons, however I have forwarded his e-mail address to "OTRS" in regard to this image File:01 KDM.jpg and if you have access to OTRS, you will be able to verify the interaction between us.

If you can create a PD tag for the images (not the written content) of The Insititute of Puerto Rican Culture, not only will I appreciate it, but also the People of Puerto Rico. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the example of the PD template which I created for the portraits of the Puerto Ricans Governors, First Ladies, Senate Presidents, House Speakers and Military heroes, which has the permit granted by OTRS to the Puerto Rican Government, Workshop. Tony the Marine (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that I have been busy lately. Taking a look now.

Secondly, I've moved the discussion to WP:PDOMG#Puerto_Rico_Template:PD-PRGov. Let's continue the discussion there.[--Elvey (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Would you mind dropping by and linking the user to the "broad consensus" you mentioned, if you have a minute. I've taken the ANI thread he raised with a pinch of WP:AGF though you may have previous knowledge of the user that I don't ;) If the latter is the case, never mind, if the former is the case then I hope you don't mind dropping him a line. --SGGH ^ping! 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you did link, and the user has archived the page and gotten rid of it. Do you know which section he should be looking for? SGGH ^ping! 18:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm off to find the ANI thread you refer to.Found. See here. Amazing this SPA 'new user' managed to find ANI so quickly, indent text properly, etc. --Elvey (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Hm2k (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see a thread you opened on me where the two other posters instead suggested that YOU stop beating a dead horse and stop being disruptive. :-) --Elvey

I have put in a placeholder for the TAC code table. Please let me know your thoughts about this... What is your experience of TAC codes? David n m bond (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is just that I am 95% sure 01177300 and 01165400 are for original (2G/non-3G) iPhones, but the nobbi tool says they are 3G; nothing beyond that. For example, I don't know if a complete table is would be impractically large, but if you think not, why not try? --Elvey (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:BofA small print ad gaffe (in Safari).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was a useful addition to Fine print and was fair use, IMO, as an addition to that page. But I choose my battles. Fine print is curiously lacking any illustrative images, not for want of my and others efforts, given how relevant they are to the topic. --Elvey (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to do anything with User:Elvey/Universal Savings Bank-NeedsRestoredContentKeepHist? It hasn't been touched in 2 years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For one thing, as noted

could someone get an admin to provide copies of the pages including the sources therein? 

and I plan to make that happen. Willing to help, or just trying to delete stuff? ---Elvey (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:24, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you read User:Elvey/Universal Savings Bank-NeedsRestoredContentKeepHist or what you do or don't understand. Explain what you do and don't understand. --Elvey (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good example.

Hi there, you left two warnings on my talk page, and I am not entirely sure what they relate to. Could you please explain.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in the warning I left, this is apropos http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Copyright&diff=409361899&oldid=408616763. That edit in turn references a talk page, which in turn has extensive comments from that editor, as well as myself, regarding your edits, and providing quotes from the original and the close copy as well as a link to the diff in which you introduced it into wikipedia. You may wish to closely read/reread the warnings and comments and policies referenced. --Elvey (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to decline your request. The image would not meet WP:NFCC#1 since it is replaceable because the subject is a living person (and there's even already a picture of him in the article). However, if it's used not to illustrate the subject himself but more because it is a mugshot, I can't see how it passes WP:NFCC#8. I can't really help you with the rest: I'm not familiar with the discussion, but I presume the images using that template would have to be deleted as non-free. Maxim_(talk) 01:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvey :)

JasonHockeyGuy here.

I noticed that you may have been involved with the article on this site. This article is totally out of date and they have different support options and features since the last time the article was written. There has been also several so called claimed things associated with the company that are simply not true. I am not a employee of this company or anything but I have hopped around their different services for a while and kept tabs on their internet support offerings and the article just simply reflects the good old days of them. If you want proof of the new changes, please let me know and I can link them on your talk page so they can be updated. Even though I have been signed up with WP for some time now I still have not learned how to fully edit and do the fancy stuff some of the other editors have done. So Ill provide you with refs and other things and you get the credit for editing :) Let me know. If you reply, please let me know so on my talk page so I do not miss it. Thank you , have a wonderful week!

JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I suggest you post to the talk page, noting the untrue things and the links you mentioned (but only if they are 'reliable sources'). It's suggested that you use the standard format for citing sources, but the particular formatting is not mandatory. Respect for RS policy is. Sorry, working on other things these days. --Elvey (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again :) Ive turned on some editing tools on WP that I think will be able to help me as far as editing goes plus I did some copy editing in Microsoft Word. I plan in the next few days to replace the whole article with a brand new , refreshed version of it that should bring it up to date for 2011 as far as offerings and things goes. And a Tracfone Wireless first, 2011 saw 2 new phones, a QWERTY and a touch screen phone for the first time in the companies history :) Hope things are going good with you and thanks again for being so kind to me :) JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Bot-spam edited by Elvey) ... You don't seem to have indicated the license status [per] image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list... --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunctioning bot - and it can't be shut off; WTF? I already had added this tag 20 min earlier: "{{Non-free use rationale |Article = Fine print" when this comment was made!!! "}}Non-free fair use in|Fine print." is 100% redundant.

FURTHERMORE, there are a TON of unanswered queries on the bot's talk page that merit a response. For example, see User_talk:ImageTaggingBot#Why_are_all_the_images_I_upload_being_wrongly_labeled_as_untagged.3F--Elvey (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is my photo? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<answered here>. -Elvey

Please respond.Talk:Digital_Blasphemy#Why_is_the_importance_tag_needed_in_the_article.3F_More_opinions_please Do you agree that it is now "well sourced"? Do to the way you worded things, I'd like to get confirmation. Thanks for your third opinion. Dream Focus 00:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that the tag on Digital Blasphemy was not {{failed verification}}, which would have indicated a WP:Verifiability problem, which is the 'question' you seem to have answered. It was rather {{importance-inline}}, which indicates an issue with whether the material is of any importance to the topic. The point was that it was only a bare mention, in a television show, making the not-particularly-informative and apparently hyperbolic claim that a piece of third-party computer wallpaper was "essential". Do you think that mention of this claim adds to the reader's understanding of the product and/or the company selling it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that. I don't know how long the site was discussed, or if "essential" was said sarcastically; the show isn't archived anywhere, AFAIK. I do. A 3O was sought and I provided one. The importance tag should go, that is my 3O, based on the available information. --Elvey (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Fine print, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FTC (check to confirm   fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a great and well-implemented idea for a bot - introduced me to a great tool I wasn't aware of! (I'm off to say thanks on the talk page.) --Elvey (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I moved your comment at WP:REFUND to the board's talk page which I'm guessing is where you intended to post it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the intention, but the change is problematic, as the move changed the truth of what I said from true to untrue, as what I said referenced the page on which I said it.--Elvey (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I fixed the Wikipedia: prefixes on your MediaWiki:Edittools proposal at WP:Village pump (policy)#Proposal re.: Wording change needed to stop forbidding copying of properly licensed free content. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We're dropping you this rather unexpected message on your talk page because you signed up (either quite a while ago or rather recently) to be a member of the Vandalism Studies project. Sadly, the project fell into semi-retirement a few years ago, but as part of a new plan to fix up the Counter-Vandalism Unit, we're bringing back the Vandalism Studies project, with a new study planned for Late 2012! But we need your help. Are you still interested in working with us on this project? Then please sign up today! (even if you signed up previously, you'll still need to sign up again - we're redoing our member list in order to not harass those who are no longer active on the Wiki - sorry!) If you have any questions, please leave them on this page. Thanks, and we can't wait to bring the project back to life! -Theopolisme (talk) & Dan653 (talk), Coordinators

You might swing by Talk:Earthquake prediction#Coren's dog findings?; I have a question about your recent bold edit. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Will keep an eye on it.--Elvey (talk) 03:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re.: User_talk:ClueBot_Commons#Please help me set up auto-archiving of this talk page that has extant manual archives

Replied. --Elvey (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re.: Talk:Advertising Self-Regulatory Council

Replied. --Elvey (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvey. Could you clarify exactly what we need the archiving bot to do? —Theopolisme 17:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, no. I gave a lot of detail (even including some flags) and don't have more to offer. If I knew EXACTLY what it should do, I'd tell it to do it. I think if you get it to do what I did say I want it to do, you can't go wrong. Is it not enough? --Elvey (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to get sassy; rather, I just don't this bot is capable of doing the rather complex task you want it to. If all you want is for it archive threads marked with {{done}} or something to a /Month Year, that could be done. But if you want split apart...etc etc, it's less doable. Could we 'dumb it down' a bit? —Theopolisme 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, dumb it down 'till you find it doable. I really just want it do do some kind auto-archiving of long-inactive discussions without breaking what's been done. Full stop. Didn't mean to be disrespectful at all; was trying to communicate well instead of just saying no or not answering. Cool? --Elvey (talk) 18:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Do we just want to, say, archive threads >6 months old or something like that? —Theopolisme 18:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you missed the detail I gave; I said "I guess I'd say archive threads aged more than 2 months." here 11 days ago, and linked to it from your talk page... So yes, 6 months, 2 months, whatever... Take another look? --Elvey (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 months seems a bit short--considering some threads lie unanswered for longer--I'm going to set it up now, 3 months. Thanks, —Theopolisme 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Theopolisme

Thanks for answering my call for help; this is great! --Elvey (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime! Let me know if I can help out again. :) —Theopolisme 21:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Earthquake prediction shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a warning accusing me of misusing the 3RR warning you really should have asked me why I warned you. I've replied on my talk page explaining why and explaining that discussion doesn't override 3RR - 3RR, even with accompanying discussion, is a bright line rule. As you yourself noted, your 3rd edit says it's a revert although it wasn't. I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Adding a new see also showing up as a revert. Automatic edit summaries should be trustworthy but that one wasn't. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out my warning. I note that you are now saying that you weren't even at 2RR although [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_prediction&diff=530232191&oldid=530209135] and [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_prediction&diff=530200893&oldid=530044675] are clearly reverts. It's no good making accusations that I misused the template as I didn't, I simply didn't recognise that the edit summary could be wrong. And as I said, I've raised that at [4]. What you need to understand now is both how 3RR works (ie discussion doesn't matter, you still can't breach it), and that as you have now been warned and even had it explained further, no one needs to warn you again so you mustn't assume that without a warning you can breach 3RR. I'm not suggesting that you would, I'm just trying to make this explicit as some people in my experience haven't understood this. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the edits cited immediately above do not show a violation of 2RR. I would ask that anyone who doubts that confirm that 3RR states, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts". For those who aren't good at math, confirm that the truth value of 3 > 3 is false and the truth value of 2 > 2 is false too! (But the truth value of 4 > 3 is true and the truth value of 3 > 2 is true.) That's why my two reverts (which is more than one revert only) didn't violate 2RR or even come close to violating 3RR. I warned Dougweller because I hadn't violated 3RR or 2RR. Where's my gold medal for having the patience of a saint, continuing to AGF, and taking the time to explain that? I guess my vacation shored up my tolerance. Speaking of horses, hopefully there will be no further beating of this dead nRR horse!--Elvey (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my first attempt at {{PD-USGov-PresLib}}

This photograph/scan/photocopy is a work of an employee or sub-contractor of the Presidential Libraries, a branch of NARA (National Archives andRecords Administration, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 101 and § 105).

The subject of the photograph (artifact, document or other media) has no known copyright restrictions, and NARA and Wikipedia are not liable for any rights infringements (44 U.S.C. Chapter 21 § 2117)*

• (44 U.S.C. Chapter 21) § 2117. Limitation on liability

When letters and other intellectual productions (exclusive of patented material, published works under copyright protection, and unpublished works for which copyright registration has been made) come into the custody or possession of the Archivist, the United States or its agents are not liable for infringement of copyright or analogous rights arising out of use of the materials for display, inspection, research, reproduction, or other purposes.

I'll run this by the NARA Lawyers when we get far enough. Thoughts? Bdcousineau (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons administrators don't always agree with each other. But, there are commons admins who have deleted work work that is believed to have been done by NASA subcontractors, and my requests that this work be undeleted have been denied; closely read https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2012-12#Request_for_undeletion_of_public_domain_work_from_NASA_HQ_on_flickr. So your uploads marked as work of an "... or subcontractor" could be in a precarious position if you used the license you've drafted... unless further steps are taken. Perhaps the a NARA lawyer would approve the license that included, "sub-contractors of the Presidential Libraries are not permitted to assert copyright in such works" or "NARA's Contracting Officer has not provided express written permission to any contractors to assert copyright in any work done under contact." I would expect the lawyers to be aware if any exceptions had been granted to the FAR, and thus comfortable signing off on such a statement.

If you create this license AND then ask a NARA lawyer if it's OK for you to use, and get a yes, I think works from the Presidential Libraries you uploaded and tagged with it would be pretty safe on Commons. Whether you will get approval, I don't dare predict.

Re the quote from the US Code: I would suggest you put it in quotes add a link to http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/nara.html#limit . This is a great find! I think you MAY have hit a home run with this one.

Oh, and I changed the subject of this comment; we're talking about a tag for all the Presidential Libraries (you could use a separate one for the Ford stuff, but let's see if just a {{PD-USGov-PresLib}}) will do).--Elvey (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing to me that these questions are coming up all over Wikipedia at the same time. I'm now determined to concentrate on pre-1978 materials until I gain a little more experience/can be more authoritative.

Also, our subcontractors are not regulated by FAR - each of the Pres Libs have a non-profit foundation attached to them that fund projetcs like this as part of their education mandate. These tend to be college kids paid stipends for their work. This will be the first time we have a paid youngster doing photography, and we are having language drafted by the NARA lawyers stipulating she gives up all reproduction rights/copyrights.

I like the "sub-contractors of the Presidential Libraries are not permitted to assert copyright in such works" . I'm curious to see what the NARA lawyers say.

As for that quote from the US Code, I thought it pretty great too, but another WikiAdmin was not too convinced...like you said! Bdcousineau (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Elvey. Please review the updated conversation on Neutrality at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:High-fructose_corn_syrup_and_health Thank you. Jtankers (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I fixed your post so I could read/use it.--Elvey (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are: I think this should be what you were asking about at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions/Archive/2012/December#Impossible?. If not, let me know and I'll see what I can do about getting more/different images uploaded. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, In the article County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition and in its associated talk page, I see that the links for the references pointing to the website opendataconsortium.org are all broken, i.e. the reader is simply redirected to that website's home page. I tried to search that website with the terms CFAC and Santa Clara, with no result. Do you know if the documents are still somewhere on that website or if they were removed from it and/or if they are available somewhere else on the web? Thanks in advance if you can help. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the usual web archives? (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Preventing_and_repairing_dead_links.) -Elvey

I see you have, and were able to repair the dead links. :-) --Elvey (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your copy of my comment. I did not mean it for the ANI, and you should have at minimum notified me, or more appropriately asked my permission.

The outright dismissal of you and your complaint without addressing any of the issues is exactly what to expect. Take their advice: write up a much more concise complaint, provide many more diffs, be sure that most are directly related to the sanctions and past rulings from ArbCom, then take it to ArbCom enforcement. --Ronz (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<the following two comments copied from Ronz's page.>

Sorry about the copy. JJ had gone so far as to notice which notices I'd signed, but I could have considered other issues. I don't feel like I know how to/can do what you suggest - for multiple reasons. If you can do it, you're more than welcome to (assuming my effort fails as you seem certain it will). --Elvey (talk) 12:15 am, 7 March 2013, Thursday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC−8)

Not a problem. --Ronz (talk) 8:54 am, 7 March 2013, Thursday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC−8)

I'd still like to know if you think a 3RR warning is meant to be given to an editor who has made 3 reverts or to an editor who has made more than 3 reverts. In the discussion about the 3RR warning I mistakenly gave you, you wrote[5] "I didn't break 3RR"(I never suggested you did) and " So even if I had violated 2RR <sic>, which I hadn't and you acknowledge I hadn't, you abused the template by using it to accuse me of edit warring." But that's wrong. If you'd "violated 2RR" ('violated' is a confusing word here as there is nothing to violate) you would be at 3RR and the template would have been appropriate - that's what it's for. Are we agreed on this? It's a bit much that you are still badgering me to do something I consider I've done and yet won't answer this question - since you are still maintaining your accusation that I abused the template. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long since answered:

I'd still like to know - do you accept that you falsely accused me about half a dozen times long after I'd shown I had NOT violated 2RR (as I believe the diffs above show) or that "Clearly the 'failure to get a clue' was yours?" I see that you retracted one false accusation but then reverted that retraction. Yes, you said "sorry for the confusion", but you didn't say sorry to me, rather, you did continue to assert that the confusion was mine. I have not said anything that actually showed I was confused or wrong about what the warning you misused is for; if you think I have, feel free to provide a diff/link. You haven't acknowledged or apologized for your confusion. Would you please explicitly (e.g. state here that you) retract the ~half dozen false accusations I linked to above? (rather than doing so in place but then restoring them?) --Elvey (talk) 1:07 pm, 10 March 2013, Sunday (17 days ago) (UTC−7)

I'm sure we all agreee ... There are lots of ridiculous claims out there ... made by fellow editors. But, we have WP:V. Few admins think WP:V doesn't apply to their contributions to the encyclopedia itself. Unfortunately, a stupid decision made by many administrators is to decide that WP:V doesn't apply when it comes to telling regular editors what to do or not do. They think that to respect their authority, other editors must take their advice, even when it isn't supported by policy - even when it is flatly contradicted by policy. If editors don't do so, they are, ironically, accused of not listening, or REFUSING to read.

I've seen them abuse a few editors in this way. If these mere holders of the mop are called on this, they may get hot under the collar and, unable to mount a legitimate defence, they may make effective but illegitimate, ridiculous accusations (of sockpuppetry or some other trumped up and/or hypocritical charge), and force editors to comply by abusing their authority, even when their use of force isn't supported by policy - even when it is flatly contradicted by policy.

Far too many admins demand, and insist upon unquestioning obedience, which is an abuse of their authority. Those that do should be desysopped. But they aren't. --Elvey (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually expect the above to fall on anything but deaf ears at best, retaliatory ears in all likelihood, but it needs to be said. 2+2=4. Copying one's own words on-wiki is never a copyvio. It's like having respect for the first amendment. It's easy to follow the rules when dealing with an editor you agree with. The sign of a good admin is one who can do so when dealing with someeone they don't agree with. --Elvey (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jerry Rosenberg 1424049c.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grr! ShakespeareFan deleted the FUR I'd added, then SFan deleted the license template, and now this. Dealt with. WAS KEPT. --Elvey (talk) 07:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence at this PUF shows that people can so bad at interpreting the US constitution that the idea that NSA staff actually believe that they haven't been trampling over the constitution starts to become credible.--Elvey (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...for the "updatification" on github. I'm just getting started with regex, so your help was very much appreciated! It's definitely a powerful tool, and I'm looking forward to doing more with it in the future. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You referenced filemover here. Would you like the permission? (It is as a general rule not a good idea to rename a file during the IFD itself because if the redirect gets deleted, then the bot will close the discussion ... but if you would have a use for it in general, you certainly are a sufficiently trusted user for the permission.) --B (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, B (talk · contribs). I'll use it responsibly, though I won't promise to use it often. --Elvey (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this edit broke the page because you put an exclamation mark immediately after the {{subst:Bump}}. Because of the way that template operates, the exclamation mark was taken by the MediaWiki parser as occurring at the start of a line; and since User talk:Misza13 is laid out as a table with a single row containing one huge cell, that exclamation mark was processed as the start of a second cell on the same row. Hence the two columns where there was only one before. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for responding to the edit summary of the edit where I fixed the problem by reverting everything that looked suspicious. The explanation makes sense. I wonder how many people have added {{subst:Bump}}! to articles that are giant tables too. Probably not too many.--Elvey (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I am awarding you this Barnstar of Diplomacy for helping to peacefully resolve a conflict instead of allowing it to escalate. Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi! I looked into the history of the article in question and it looks like the author actually did request that it be deleted. He commented that he was going to create it on the page and nobody said anything. He then created it and after a while, put it up for AfD himself. The article doesn't have to be blanked for it to be speedied under this context and another user can tag the page as such if they notice that the author is asking for the page to be deleted. If you want to take a copy into your userspace then that's an option, or if you want to have it recreated and run through a full AfD, I would probably recommend that you go through deletion review rather than re-create the page with a complaint over the article's deletion. That doesn't really accomplish much in the long run, whereas deletion review could end with the page being re-created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) …

Thanks, Tokyogirl79 (talk · contribs). I agree - yes, "it looks like the author actually did request that it be deleted". But it's not true that "the author actually did request that it be deleted" because the apparent author isn't really the author. The deleted content was actually authored by a whole bunch of people adding SARs for various devices. I'm not sure the deletion should be reversed, but it deserves a proper chance and notification of the ACTUAL authors.--Elvey (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known problem that can only be solved by clearing the backlog. MER-C 12:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made some follow-up comments there to inform others encountering that and related issues.--Elvey (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Elvey, My name is Alicia Berrios and I have worked hard and requested assistance for the Article, Luis A. Cordero. I was able to read your note and I don't quite understand. I am new to Wikipidea. I would greatly appreciate any help or recommendation. Thank you! Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 16:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)

Reply at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luis_A._Cordero. --Elvey (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Elvey, just to move this off SlimVirgin's page: I think that an RfC or some other measure is a good idea. However, my experience with this issue is that editors are happy with the lax and loophole-ridden guideline that currently exists. When Wikipedia received a trouncing in the press for letting BP in effect write large swaths of BP, Wales and the community circled the wagons. I notice that the "paid editing" policy did not get community support. Coretheapple (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's likely that editors with a CoI have been the swing !vote, and that off-wiki canvassing occurs. I think SlimVirgin's new Essay is wrong, so I'm following up on that on her talk page.--Elvey (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. Intriguing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple (talk · contribs), I'm thinking of an essay, (WP:NOFCOI?) along the lines of what I wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_14.

(trimmed discussion) Kim: Re. Carnildo's comment - come on, suggesting a page that is on the whole misleading, and therefore unhelpful be deleted is some sort of policy violation? I doubt it. Seems like a constructive effort. I didn't even notice or look to see who owned the bot. --Elvey (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reapplying these suggested tweaks to your post.--Elvey (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure! Thx for the cleanup. Cheers, --Gego (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Done. I'm pleased with the improvements made to COI. (I even got a thanks from SlimVirgin!)--Elvey (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Elvey, I remember we both had a discussion on the rules of including scientists into this list. Anyway, there is a Wikipedia user named "Pgarret" who is removing some well documented people (like Alan Turing and Steve Wozniak) from this list because he/she is commenting that Wikipedia's policy states that scientists must labeled themselves as atheists. "Pgarret" is also removing atheists who had said some nice things about religion (which I don't understand). Like I said before, if we were to take this guideline in a strict fashion, even Richard Dawkins would not be included in the list since he also called himself an agnostic as well. Source:['I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic]. Anyway, you could please take part in the discussion in this article talk-page: "Talk:List of atheists in science and technology". Or could find and contact other administrators to take part in this issue? If not, could you please tell me how to alert other wikpedian users/administrators into this debate? I would appreciate it. Ninmacer20 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the discussion on the archive page, here. Take a look. While I don't think his edits improve the article, they are defensible in terms of policy, which should be changed. Should you attempt to change it, please let me know. As I implied, if I'm around, I'll support you. Wikipedia policies ARE changeable. I've changed 'em.

P.S. Renaming the page to "List of atheists and agnostics in science and technology" might help things too. I can do the move. --Elvey (talk) 09:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding to you sooner. Anyway, I actually would like to change the policy of this article (and possibly for other atheist lists as well). By the way, I tried to make an attempt to rename this article to include agnostics as well. However, there was a consensus among other Wikipedia administrators saying that it would be redundant as there already is a "List of agnostics" page for scientists. Ninmacer20 (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Local policies generally can't override global policies… So if you want to change the policy for this article, you have to change BLPCAT. You could, for example, propose that "question, and" become "question, or the identification is treated as an exceptional claim, and is verifiable in multiple high-quality sources and in either case" in BLPCAT. --Elvey (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvey,
I think that some time ago you mentioned that material created by the state of California is usually in the public domain, but that there are exceptions which allow the University of California to own the copyright on its material. Could you please let me know under which law the University material is protected? I found many sources which confirm that the University material is under copyright protection, but so far I was not yet able to find the respective law. If you know it, I would be very thankful for the citation of the respective law. Thanks!--Casecrer (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Casecrer. I don't recall saying exactly that. For the general law, start with the template at and read my 2012 comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:PD-CAGov. On this matter, sources that aren't law are not to be trusted; posted policies of the universities in particular. (Even Wikipedia policy has had major copyright puffery embarrassment. I'd point you to http://leginfo.ca.gov/ but its search is broken. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml works. I didn't find anything authorizing copyright; I did find this, which does not. In Florida, the law is more explicit that everything the state creates except where there is statute that carves out a specific extension, is PD. BTW, what are you planning to do with the info? --Elvey (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I unprotected the earthquake prediction page as you requested as your argument is definitely valid. Also, sorry for the late response but I've had to work quite a bit of overtime the last couple of weeks and between that and christmas, I haven't had much free time. It also appears that the discussion about Belorussian americans is stale, so I took no action on that. Thingg^⊕⊗ 19:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Late? Not at all. Thank you! Happy holidays! It would be good if constructive edits by users other than that page's owner had more than a slim chance of survival.--Elvey (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As you suggested, I didn't put Johansson or Korbut in the Belarusian American and started a discussion regarding who should be in the collage. I did the same thing in the Russian American article.

User:Mankiw2 reverted my removals, as before the page protection, without explaining his edits and without turning to the talk page. As you can see from the history, he does it all the time and it looks like he is being a troll. It's not normal behavior to ignore the talk page and to constantly revert-war without even writing why he is reverting.

I looked into his edit history on other matters. What he does is go to pages of Russian people and changes the country of birth from USSR to the Soviet Union, or from the Soviet Union to USSR. What of the point of such weird edits? It doesn't look normal.

Could you please look into the matter? 90.214.121.50 (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're responding to this edit I made. It's clear from Mankiw2's edit history that @Mankiw2: is edit warring and a single-purpose-account. But I don't know if you are edit warring as well, as you are editing from multiple IPs, and either logged out or without an account, so I can't identify a fair way to respond. Perhaps someone else is willing to look into it further. I'm no WP:DR guru. It's not clear to me what the core issue underlying all this edit warring really is. What is the core issue underlying all this edit warring; why do you care? Conflicting patriotism? Do you still believe that US "citizenship is not a requirement" to being a *-American? (I see you accuse Hmains of having a sock, at Talk:Russian_American but which account(s) do you believe are socks? In any case, I don't think it is helpful to fork the discussion further, please consider this discussion on my talk page closed and reply in an appropriate forum, such as Talk:Belarusian_American, or at Talk:Russian_American. If the IPs that recently posted there are you: KUDOS! If that's the case, it seems Manikw2 is edit warring and you are not. Continue to use the article talk pages, and edit in line with consensus reached there. (If you defend a reverted edit on talk, and there's a revert with no further discussion, re-doing your edit is often not edit warring in my view, but Wikipedia:Edit warring has conflicting definitions; under some of them, you could be cited for doing what I feel is "trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion", and not edit warring. You can always pursue WP:DR. At the latter talk page, the assertion "There were many discussions in the past, non of them reaching a consensus by the way" suggests I would be wading into a complex dispute I probably don't have the cultural expertise to understand without much further study if I took further action. I think the recent action of semi-protection is probably for the best and may be needed long term; if I'm not mistaken, semi-protection will block both new accounts such as Manikw2, and IPs. Please move or copy this section (starting with Hello) to the article talk page if you reply, when you reply there.--Elvey (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Good morning! Thanks for keeping the discussion civil at the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of low-radiation smartphones. The list has been partially recreated in a somewhat different form, and I am attempting to start a discussion on its future on its new talk page. In particular I am interested in coming to consensus on the article's proper title, since the list has been moved many times and has created a number of redirects and fragmented discussions. Since you've been a key contributor to the SAR article I think your input will be valuable. Cheers!

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks! (Color changed for visibility reasons.) I ask that all conversation continue at Talk:SAR instead of the sundry fora it's spread to. --Elvey (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(A)Please don't file a largely unfounded SPI against an editor you are in conflict with, particularly since there is already an open case concerning the account and IP range you included. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: I wasn't aware there was an open case when I filed the SPI. It's far from unfounded; another user even said the account was a sock. The alleged sockmaster of the open case is obviously not the master account either. It's quite possible it's not Guy, but that's what SPIs are for - further investigation from experts. That IP is a sock puppet and I think you know it, as it's patently obvious. So there has to be a puppet master, and there's but one suspect. Is it improper to file a (well-founded) SPI against an editor you are in conflict with? Isn't that who normally files SPIs? The sockpuppet attacked me; I'm supposed to suck it up, I suppose. --Elvey (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(B)I said "largely unfounded" due to the editor you were accusing of being the master. (C)The other account and range of IPs may be another story, but like I said, they are covered by another case. And no, it is not a good idea to accuse someone like that of sockpuppetry unless you have rock-solid evidence, and even then, you're best off getting a second opinion beforehand. A word of advice: Just because two or more accounts disagree with you doesn't mean that it is sockpuppetry.

(E)In reference to your note below, please be aware that WilliamH has left the project, so it is highly unlikely that he will see it, and even less likely that he will do anything about it if he does. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (A), etc added for referencing.[reply]

@DoRD: Re. (E): Thanks. It's a shame WilliamH retired; I didn't catch why. Who is a better choice? DocTree? Also, someone should block 2001:558:1400:10:b9ff:ab59:868a:de42 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and the /64. I recall I asked you or @Geni: about it. Will you please do it?

Re. (C): It is NOW, but the IP was covered by another case at the time I reported it? (How would I know if it was covered by another case then?) How would one get a second opinion without falling afoul of policies against talking the wrong way about socks or going off-wiki? You are telling me I should have done things that, if I'm not mistaken, it's not reasonable to expect me to know, as they're not something one is informed of when one looks at the instructions on how to report suspected socks. I reported using Twinkle, and I can't go through the preliminary steps now as I'm blocked, but I recall I read everything it linked to. This is full of reports that lack "rock-solid evidence"; (e.g. many are marked "possible") if it was a bad idea, why, and according to what policy? [Update:] From WP:SPI: "Before opening an investigation, you need to have good reason to suspect sock puppetry." Check. "include diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected" Check. "provide this evidence in a clear way" Check! And yet, I see you completely deleted the the SPI! Please only offer advice that you back by quoting policy. True/False: One shouldn't replace "good reason" with "rock-solid evidence" when describing a policy.

Re. (A), etc.: You still haven't provided any justification for the "you are in conflict with" or "and IP range" bits of your instruction. Willing to retract 'em?

Re. (B): If I'm not mistaken you accept that that IP is a sockpuppet and that there has to be a puppet master. T/F? Sorry, I am still trying to imagine why someone uninvolved would go through the trouble and risk to set up and use that sockpuppet account, to do that, though I have a fine imagination.--Elvey (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you edited my comment, but I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that. I don't know who is editing through that IP range, so no, I do not accept that. Frankly, I haven't really looked at the evidence, but the editor who filed the SPI apparently thinks that it is Gregory Kohs. I also haven't been following Jimbo's talk page very closely, but when you are making incredible accusations against an editor, and multiple other editors are asking you to stop, you really shouldn't be filing something like this. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 01:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: Thanks for replying to Re. (B), but what about Re. (E), Re. (C) and Re. (A)? --Elvey (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E. I don't know. Most people who have had much contact with the Morning277 case are reluctant to ever touch it again. Blocking a single address out of a /64 is pointless, and I'm not going to block the range unless abuse can be proven to my satisfaction.

C. The range and account were covered by the SPI I just linked before you filed your SPI.

A. No. Please see the last sentence of my previous response. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E.Yes, I sympathize; I wonder what fraction of my headaches are a result of my contacts with PAEs like Morning227 and my active opposition to PAE in general, and the various specious alleged transgressions I've been plastered with as a result. I think the PAE problem infests all the way up and can only hope that all the user purging going on lately is a removal, rather than concentration of power among the PAEs. (Rhetorical question; please don't answer.) @Geni: did block one of the IPv6s, so I think blocking the rest of /64, which seems to be the normal response would be appropriate because Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I'm not that crazy lists 8 sock IPs in that range. Why are you refusing to do so? As you've deleted my request for response to the abuse, DoRD, I feel it's incumbent upon you in particular to address the abuse by blocking the /64 of the abuser, or get help if you are afraid to do so without more support.

@DoRD: C:I'd like to understand what you are referring to. What "SPI [you] just linked" are you referring to? this search turns up no linked SPIs.

@DoRD: A: It's not reasonable to assert that no user may file an SPI about anyone if they have raised any other concerns about the user which resulted in conflict. It's not a valid justification for the "you are in conflict with" bit of your instruction. So please retract or justify that bit of it, since that's the only justification you've presented I see. --Elvey (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DoRD: You haven't replied to the above. As you refuse to defend your unreasonable assertion (A), I will nuke it shortly. --Elvey (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since DoRD has implied fear of taking related to the Morning277 case, perhaps one of the admins who appears less fearful, e.g. @Mark Arsten: who recently moved a related SPI is willing to block 2001:558:1400:10/64, and widen the two /16 blocks to the /12s that contain them that have been assigned to Amazon.--Elvey (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit behind on all this, I haven't really been following the Kohs or Morning SPIs very closely. But note that MediaWiki only supports blocks up to /16 ranges though, so we can't block the /12. We could, of course, block multiple /16 ranges though if need be. I don't have a lot of experience dealing with IPv6, but I'll take a look at it. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F:@Mark Arsten: Kudos for blocking the /64 and the user, and a question: why anon. only? (Over 90 IPv6 IPs were editing from that block, most not noted in the SPI; archive to facilitate future monitoring after Apr 15, when the block expires.) @Atethnekos:Kudos as well. G:54.240.196.185 is an IP that you've warned twice, once recently, that's in the /12. 15 more /16 blocks would block the rest of each /12. H:I guess no block for 173.161.202.37 cuz it hasn't edited recently?

@MLauba: You haven't replied to the above requests for clarification. --Elvey (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA - comment on edits, not editors. MLauba ^(Talk) 17:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba: You (still) haven't addressed the above requests (now in bold) for clarification. --Elvey (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did. But it appears it's not what you wanted to hear. I'm afraid I can't help that. MLauba ^(Talk) 11:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba: Well, let's evaluate. 1) You didn't delete anything. 2) You didn't even say whether it's permissible to note what I noted or not, let alone 3) quote anything from policy to support that view. 4) You didn't provide an example of discussing the substance of the issues that is acceptable. So, of the four things I asked of you, you did zero of them. You did what you felt like doing. I believe that I am commenting on the edits, not the user, when I say, The content the user in question inserted was written by a user with a declared financial conflict of interest per COIN. I've explained the reasons for my view that the content inserted is highly slanted in favor of the funder. Your actions lead me to believe you recognize that, but don't want me to say it anyway, and your intent is a chilling effect that keeps me quiet. Your steadfast refusal to take any of these steps to clarify what it is I'm allowed / not allowed to do are evidence of that; I see no other plausible way to interpret it. Rather, your last comment continues what I see as either a calculated chilling effect campaign to keep me from talking about at all, or something that coincidentally closely resembles one. --Elvey (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the very final time, you were blocked for gross personal attacks. You can discuss the nature of edits at leisure. When you start calling other editors criminals, supsect, or perpetrators, you will get blocked. That's what I mean by "comment on edits, not editors". MLauba ^(Talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba: Is that so? Again, my last edit before you blocked me was to remove the suspect's name from my comments on Jimbo's talk page! If I'm not mistaken, you have not disputed that I am commenting on the edits, not the user, and so I CAN say, The content the user in question inserted was written by a user with a declared financial conflict of interest per COIN. I've explained the reasons for my view that the content inserted is highly slanted in favor of the funder. And yet, I see your latest comment as continuing either a calculated chilling effect campaign to keep me from talking about content in Credit rating agency paid for and written by Moody's (or something that coincidentally closely resembles one) because, even as the comment says I "can discuss the nature of edits," it avoids replying to any of the above specific clarification requests. You chillingly dredge up that you blocked me, for gross personal attacks (though already retracted/not personal), and dredge up terms that, I remind you again, I have struck, or never used. And I am not distracted from your non-responsiveness to even one of the four specific clarification requests that I actually made, to which you could easily and directly respond, if you chose to. What you dredge up does not in any way clarify the line between comment on edits, and editors. You accuse me of calling another editor a criminal. I expressed suspicion that an edit involved criminal activity, which is different in not one, but four (italicized) ways. And you even just told me one must "comment on edits, not editors". I have seen a user add content about the powerful credit rating agency (Moody's) that a paid advocate has written. Jimbo himself has said that "FTC 16 CFR Part 255 is relevant" to showing that "PAE (Paid Advocacy Editing) is flat out illegal." I said that I strongly suspected I'd witnessed involvement in criminal activity. I assume (per AGF) that the edit by Guy Macon himself was NOT compensated, it was NOT PAE and did NOT break the law, as far as Guy's liability is concerned, but I see no reason to conclude that with respect to Moody's liability. Do you claim that NPA bars expression of suspicion that an edit involved criminal activity? I believe that what we do whenever we flag a copyvio. --Elvey (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[T]here may be times when it is unavoidable to raise issues of bad conduct... In these cases, it is best to be certain that your accusations are well-founded and directly relevant to the discussion, and to state them in a polite and unemotional manner. Most importantly, it is best to raise them only as part of your argument, not as its entirety. --WP:RIPPED

Morning277 IP ranges[edit]

Speaking of SPI: It looks like at least one of the Morning277 investigators aren't familiar with CIDRs/whois. This suggests it; the size of the blocks is off:

54.215.0.0/16 is listed here and at the above link but the appropriate range, per whois, is larger:
54.208.0.0 - 54.221.255.255
Likewise:

54.241.0.0/16 is also to small and thus missing a lot of activity

54.240.0.0 - 54.255.255.255 is appropriate

tl;dr so perhaps the checkuser folks don't care or some such, but I figure I'd post about this since it could be quite helpful, as a much smaller net may have been cast than was appropriate. The one year range blocks by WilliamH should probably be widened to match:

54.208.0.0/12 and

54.240.0.0/12. --Elvey (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

54.208.0.0/12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

54.240.0.0/12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

54.208.0.0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

54.240.0.0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

{{checkip|2001:558:1400:10/64}} - /64 does not work (WRT the contribs link), while * does : 2001:558:1400:10* (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

There is an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header that you might find relevant as you have participated in past discussions about the use of {{pufc}}. Thanks, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was previous discussion about opening an RFC, and I waited until tensions died down because I feel we all have reasonable points to make. I hope you see you join this discussion. Cheers, -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James F (finally) answered your question. You can see the log at the end of meta:IRC office hours/Office hours 2014-02-15. I'm sorry it took them so long to get to this, but they prioritize questions from people who are present at the chat, and the last few have been unusually well-attended. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to see his answer to "What does engineering see as the major technical issues that led to the en.rollback from opt-out back to opt-in? What's the current status of fixes to those issues?" Based on his answer, it's appropriate for en to revisit the rollback - consider reversing it. Perhaps ask a few of the more eloquent critics take another look…--Elvey (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who would you put on the list of "eloquent critics"?

Also, what do you personally think was the biggest problem for the community? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No views on either at the moment; I don't recall what made me think it was humorously inadequate when I tried it and opted out. What's your POV?--Elvey (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most common reason for needing to revert or cleanup an edit made in VisualEditor was unwanted nowiki tags. This declined quite a bit after they put up the warning about using wikitext, but even though the number of errors declined, it didn't immediately change people's perception. I think that the sheer volume of this problem was probably the most significant issue among non-users—because I don't really care (or even know) what software you used, as long as it's not creating problems for me, and this definitely caused problems for the non-users. When tens of thousands of users have access to it overnight, and almost nobody knows how to use it (and we all know that WP:Nobody reads the directions, you can easily get hundreds of errors a day.

Having said that, there was a lot of diversity in people's responses, ranging from ideological disagreement ("it will attract the wrong kind of people") to politics ("community sovereignity") to a wide range of specific bugs or pending feature requests. Some people thought the nowiki bug wasn't important any more (after the warning appeared). I don't think you could say that there was a single issue that everyone would agree on as the blocker. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worded my question carefully. The "What does engineering see as..." part was a critical part, as was the term "technical issues". Obviously, the [edit: ideological disagreement and politics] problems you noted, are not "technical issues", so could not have answered my question. James F started on the wrong foot when he wrote, "enwiki community is really best-placed to explain what it saw as the failings"... I think engineering would do itself a favor if it carefully considered and answered the question I actually asked. I did NOT ask what engineering saw as the major technical issues facing the tool, or what the major issues were, overall...  :) --Elvey (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that corrupting pages with unwanted nowiki tags is not a technical issue? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops; I was focused on your second paragraph - the ideological disagreement ("it will attract the wrong kind of people") to politics ("community sovereignty") part. Added [edit:... above]. --Elvey (

×

×

€4.95 / month

• Favourites List
• Audio Listining
• Color Mode
• Monthly New Updates

Fullname *

Email *

Credit or debit card

Subscribe

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: userid

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 68

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 68
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

"> Subscribe Now

Premium Membership

×

€4.95

€ 9.90 / month

Create a Premium Account quick and easy

Save your Favourite Pages

Listen to any page in Audio

Colour Night Mode

Create your Account

Modal title

×

Close Save changes

Cancel Subscription

×

User_talk:Elvey" id="cancelSubscription" name="cancelSubscription" class="mb-0">

Are you sure you want to cancel your membership with us?

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: user_membership

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 192

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 192
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach()

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 192

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 192
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: userid

Filename: user/popup_modal.php

Line Number: 208

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_modal.php
Line: 208
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 478
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

"> Yes Cancel Continue Subscription

Harry Potter Books

×

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Notice

Message: Undefined variable: products

Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php

Line Number: 24

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php
Line: 24
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 479
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once

A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: Invalid argument supplied for foreach()

Filename: user/popup_harry_book.php

Line Number: 24

Backtrace:

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/user/popup_harry_book.php
Line: 24
Function: _error_handler

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/views/page/index.php
Line: 479
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/application/controllers/Main.php
Line: 107
Function: view

File: /home/ah0ejbmyowku/public_html/index.php
Line: 315
Function: require_once