This is an archive of past discussions with User:Patar knight. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
As you can see here, you reverted good content. But don't worry. It has been re-added since the revert.
I take it as he needs to be sworn in to be an M.P.P. just like Justin Trudeau wasn't Prime Minister immediately after the election last year and how Donald Trump needs to sworn in as President of the United States. 70.26.90.99 (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Not sure about your first point. Nothing was removed which isn't in the current article. As for your second point, the Ontario legislature's website records his term start as the byeleciton date. [1] This is standard for parliamentarians. Cabinet appointments, prime ministerships are different and irrelevant. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the first point, this is why i said "But don't worry. It has been re-added since the revert." The revert that you did took out a part that I added, but was re-added later. 70.26.90.99 (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you. I was unaware of me breaking WP:BLPCRIME when creating a controversy section on the Capcom Cup 2016 page. I was only trying to help the page as there was coverage on the topic on sites such as Polygon, Kotaku, etc. I had zero clue about this rule during October. However, there is a similar edit on the EVO 2016 page regarding a MexicanSuper Smash Bros. for Wii U player in a similar situation as the Capcom Cup 2016 controversy. I did not do that edit, but I assume it was Maplestrip who did that. I apologize for the inconvenience and I hope you have a wonderful day. --ULTRA-DARKNESS:) 2 CHAT19:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm personally not too familiar with this BLP guideline either. I understand if that section lays undue weight on a specific part of the event as well. Now we're on the subject, however, I wonder whether it is necessary to hide all of the edits that have been made since. It's not like this information can't be find in reliable sources, and I can't imagine it being removed from, for example, talk page discussions either. ~Mable (chat) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
In many jurisdictions, groping is sexual assault, which is a high stigma crime, so we have to be extra careful when writing about these events. Per WP:BLPCRIME, unless the person was convicted in a court of law, we should not be using Wikipedia's voice to indicate that they 100% committed a crime. Look at how reliable esports sources treated this event. Polygon and The Score Esports have articles on the incident that are carefully written to not always say that the incident 100% happened by occasionally using phrasing like "alleged groping", "reportedly described", or by leading with phrases like "According to statement by Capcom." They also both include a statement by the player in question defending himself. That's not to say that the player didn't do anything wrong, but in cases like this, where it's he-said, she-said, Wikipedia has to stick to using phrases like "allegedly" and "reportedly" or "according to" to avoid declaring people guilty of crimes they have not been convicted. Readers can judge for themselves what they think happened, given that said player was banned. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, most writers don't understand the nuances of our BLP policy, but we have to be careful when we write about living people, because they are real people that can be hurt if we mess up. The material at EVO 2016 isn't nearly as bad, because both people involved are public figures, the incident actually occurred during the event the article is about, and the sources seem to indicate that the incident actually did happen (i.e. even the other person in the incident didn't deny it, instead defending himself by saying he was blackout drunk). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions03:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))
Elena Nikolaeva (journalist)
Hi. There is already an article entitled, Elena Nikolaeva, without the dab. This article was created due to a confusion between Elena and Yelena. Currently there is a dab page which lists both Elena and Yelena, so a redirect from a dab title is unnecessary. Or am I missing something. Onel5969TT me02:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. The page was a predecessor to this page. An article with the dab was created, even though the current article without the dab existed. But have moved it to RFD. Have a very Merry Christmas. Onel5969TT me02:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was moved from this title to the current one, but as long as the redirect is valid, there's no reason for deletion. I'll !vote at the RfD you opened. Also, in the future, if someone reverts with an edit summary that the reasoning will posted be somewhere else, please don't be impatient and revert back within a minute of the edit with the justification that it isn't there yet. You yourself reverted my edit declining your CSD tag by telling me to look at my tal page, which you didn't do for two minutes. Hope your holiday season is great. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions02:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I used the term "will" meaning that I was taking an action and then would follow up with a comment. Please don't be impatient and revert without discussing. Your edit summary simply said "see my talk page", which might be interpreted as the rationale having already been posted. But I was incorrect in reverting a CSD tag, since you were not the article's creator, hence moving it to RFD. But I really don't mean to quibble, and sometimes in writing posts it comes off as that, when all we are both doing is attempting to explain our actions. I really do mean it when I say that I hope you have a great holiday season. Onel5969TT me02:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
And "see" can and often should be interpreted as "look for a post where specified soon". It's frustrating to be nearly done typing a reply to justify an edit you made a minute ago, and get the notification reverting that edit because there was no reply yet. If the delay was more than a few minutes, sure, but that wasn' the case here, and if you had been patient enough to wait half a minute, there would've been a reply waiting. Thanks, it's too easy to come off as standoffish on Wikipedia. In the end, we're all volunteers trying to improve the project. I've commented at the RfD, and also truly hope you have a great holiday season. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions03:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Happy Christmas/Happy Holidays
Merry Christmas, Patar knight! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. And for all the help you've thrown my way over the years. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969TT me23:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Patar knight. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
I understand that it's frustrating to have images you added deleted. I've had the same thing happen to myself when the copyright status of images I was given was incorrect. However, copyrighted images are a legal issue that potentially opens up the Wikimedia Foundation and individual editors to lawsuits, so it's important that the non-free content criteria are followed. I've replied more fully at the FFD case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Patar, and apologies for my condescension - I'm passionate about the subject - I have long thought Wikipedia visuals are unnecessarily pinched - I don't have a commercial interest in this - I just love the idea of Wikipedia being the best tour guide in the Tower of London. And don't you love her creations?
I have conceded the matter on the discussion page and gone back to the agent. I initially went begging to him for good images for "my" article, without giving a thought to the fact that I'm doing his job better than he is :) MarkDask18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I truly think that Ms. Haste's art is pretty cool. I think I've solved the problem by finding free alternatives on Wikimedia Commons (here), and from Flikr, which I then uploaded ot Wikimedia Commons. So there's no further point in trying to use fair use images, since there are free alternatives (some of which are quite good, IMHO). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm writing from Harvard University. How can we have the Board of Student Advisers page created? This organization is one of three honor societies with the Harvard Law Review and Legal Aid Bureau. Both organizations have wikipedia pages, as does the Ames Moot Court Competition (which the Board of Student Advisers is in charge of ).
Commenting here rather than at the FFD as the original uploader is obviously upset and no point inflaming the situation, but the replacement photos you've added almost certainly qualify as copyvios. CDPA §62 is the relevant legislation for freedom of panorama in the UK with regards to artworks, and is very explicit that FoP only applies if the work is permanently situated in a public place (my emphasis), which isn't the case here—according to her own website they're due to be removed in four years. As best I can tell through clicking through her website, the only one of all her works which satisfies the conditions for FoP is the elephant at Waterloo tube station—all the others are either in private collections or form part of temporary exhibitions. (Also, be aware that the one at the tube station presumably belongs to Transport for London, and TFL are notorious for bombarding the uploaders of images which they feel infringe their copyrights with threatening legal notices, which is why London Transport is illustrated with that peculiar 1920s image rather than the actual LT roundel logo, and why File:London Tube Map.png is intentionally so blurry as to be illegible.) ‑ Iridescent20:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Is there any case law that defines what "permanently" means? The wire sculptures at the Tower of London are part of a 10 year placement there that started in 2011 [2]. The UK has one of the strongest freedom of panorama laws the world, and if we applied a "permanent means permanent" standard, there are many, many works that would presumably have to be deleted off Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as copyvios (e.g. Rubber Duck (sculpture), anything by Christo, and many, many more). Based on my own research, what "permanently" situated means is not well defined (Page 85 (discussing Australian law, which is a copy of the UK's), especially when in premises that are open to the public, but not automatically so like the Tower of London which requires ticketing to enter (see "Circumstances in which this exception applies"). I would agree with your position if the artwork was only intended to stay there for a very short exhibition (e.g. less than a a year or two), but given it's there for a decade and is part of the works displayed at the Tower of London I think the pictures are fine in this case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The UK's FoP laws aren't actually particularly lax (although they're more flexible than the hardline holdouts like France). Rubber Duck and Christo would undoubtedly not be covered by FoP if exhibited in the UK, although the Rubber Duck design may be uncopyrightable owing to age. Commons generally takes the view that "permanent" for CDPA purposes is determined not by timespan, but by the intention when the work was sited at the location where it was photographed with regards to the lifespan of the work; thus, if I build a statue out of ice and put it on public display with the full intention of leaving it there until it melts, it's "permanent" for FoP purposes and I can't stop people making commercial use of pictures of it; if I build the same statue out of marble and display it at exactly the same location with the proviso that I'm only loaning it for 20 years and at the end of that period I want it back, it's a temporary installation and I retain the image rights. (There's some old discussion about a similar situation—also involving animal sculptures, incidentally—at Commons here.) This is actually quite well-tested, owing to the Fourth Plinth scheme (mentioned by Fae in the linked discussion). The matter gets even more complicated by the enforced harmonisation of FoP laws currently lumbering through the European Commission, which will almost certainly make FoP applicable to non-commercial use only, and thus incompatible with Wikipedia. (Even if Brexit actually happens, the time it will take will almost certainly mean the harmonisation will pass while the UK remains an EU member and thus the change will pass into UK law as well.) ‑ Iridescent18:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: The Commons section on the nuances of FoP is based on German law, and the second court ruling listed in the Germany section rules that work that was displayed in a publicly accessible area for five years counted as permanent for the purposes of FoP. So applying that nuance to the Kendra Haste works would make it qualify for FoP. There's also the issue of the works being commissioned by the Tower of London, which operates as museum, and the unclear the permanency requirement for works owned by an organization whose premises are open to the public (see ELs in above post). I'm not sure the 4th plinth is a good analogue because those statues were all planned to be put up significantly shorter than 10 years, and is in a public space and not premises open to the public. If EU law harmonization occurs, it's something we can deal with later.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Martin Jenkins
Hi, yesterday I started a page about a musician (Martin Jenkins) that's been deleted as it transpires I can't build it online and just put some placeholder text in. I was just wondering if I could get the original html for the posting so I can complete it offline before trying again with a more complete article?
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuneless (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If you could suggest what needs adjusting that would be much appreciated.
Thanks
-LockedPost (Charles Peter Richard Fairclough)
It was deleted under speedy deletion criterion WP:A7 because it appears to just be another run of the mill cryptocurrency service and WP:G11 because it used phrasing like "uncensorable" which seems boastful and unencyclopedic. In any case, you should submit any future changes through articles for creation, which will provide review on any submissions to make sure that if published, it should meet our guidelines. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Patar knight. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Read your second link again. It's referring to sources that are self-published by unreliable sources. Claims by random website X, random blogger Y, random Twitter user Z are covered by that section. These tweets are from La Presse, which is a reliable source, not covered by that section.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions09:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Good morning! I'm writing about the deletion of the Steve Salis page last night. It was deleted for a lack of notability regarding the subject. An early version of the page, however, was edited by another Wiki editor who deleted lot of content about the subject's businesses and role in the Washington, DC restaurant scene that would have met this criteria. That earlier material was deleted because it was deemed as peacocking, even though it was extremely well-sourced and very similar to the entry currently posted by his business partner, Michael Lastoria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lastoria). In fact, I tried to model the Steve Salis page on Michael's page to make sure I met the Wikipedia Criteria. I would like to try and rebuild the Steve Salis page with the original references (there were 27, including major media reports from the Washington Post and others) and am open to incremental edits to avoid the peacocking issue. Let me know if this is possible. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldwmeyer (talk • contribs) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you added a photograph of Alan Turing to WP:CMP. I've attempted to formulate wording compatible with such an an image's inclusion, but I haven't come up with anything suitable. I don't think that "(Alan Turing pictured)" provides sufficient context, and given the term's informality, something along the lines of "named for computer scientist Alan Turing (pictured)" would be inaccurate. But explaining that the name is unofficial threatens to make the wording awkward and excessively verbose. Do you have any ideas? —David Levy17:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
It's better than any alternative that I've devised. Additional context is desirable, but lacking an elegant method of providing it, "(namesake pictured)" might be our best option. —David Levy18:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the article on High Cuisine is the same as the page you redirected it to. It seems to be talking about food made with psychogenic substances that will make someone high. Natureium (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The restaurant doesn't seem notable, and "High Cuisine" is an English translation of the French term "Haute Cuisine". If you feel the restaurant is notable, you can restore the article, though I'll likely be taking it to AfD in that case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it's notable at all, and I tried to speedy delete it, so I'm fine with it being a redirect, but I don't think that what they were talking about is what it was redirected to. Natureium (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not. I would normally delete and redirect in clear cut cases, but since another user in good faith already declined the A7 and G11 tags, I left the history in case it does become notable in the future sometime. In the case of the redirect, what the former content was has no bearing on where a redirect at that name should be targeted. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Patar - you may recollect my wanting to use various images under "Fair Use" on the Kendra Haste page and I lost the argument. I'm pleased to say I was able to persuade Haste's agent, (copyright holder), to uplaod same images to Commons, (albeit in a lower resolution), and the article is beginning to blossom. I thought, given your kind input previously, you might care to examine the article and comment. Will be most grateful. MarkDask14:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Patar. The agent has in fact submitted to OTRS as required, some days ago, in all cases, (including for File:4.Haste-Baboon Troop at the Tower of London.jpg, which he since replaced at my request and the which you are now welcome to delete), and I have since, by agreement with Marchjuly, (who tagged all my images as c:Template:No permission), replaced his/her tags with c:Template:OTRS pending, as s/he recommended. You can check that on his/her talk page.
Now I do not know upon which device you are viewing the article but, on a PC, I dare imagine the majority would agree, I have taken what was a block text article to something far more appealing. I have invested hugely in promoting a particular sculptor because I was down in London with my son in July last year and we saw Haste's lions, (we were too late for the tour so that's all we saw). I forgot about the lions until 30th December when I, as New Page Reviewer, happened upon the Kendra Haste article. I marked it reviewed and attached a comment, (see this), after which I engaged. My interest in this article is to ensure that every person who visits the Tower has an answer as to why there are lions in the Tower. I also want everyone who chooses to google Kendra Haste can discover the heights an artist can rise to, even with so lowly a medium as chicken wire. I am invested in the simple idea that Wikipedia should promote the young, most particularly.
Now with this sincerely held belief I charged, (Quixotically), against such as yourself, Steele, Iridescent and others, with the hope you all would accept my "fair use" terms and, when you didn't, I went back to the agent and threw my hands up in the air. Thankfully he saw the commercial worth of my endeavours to his client and he has therefore given up all commercial rights to the images I asked for. Having said that, I think he also appreciates that my first and only interest is to promote learning - Wikipedia as a medium - do you?
I have just persuaded the agent to give up copyright on the images - OTRS pending - and now you want to talk sandwitch??? You call my article ugly? It seems perfectly okay on my Galaxy 4.
Let me make you a deal - I swear I will read everything - every word related to sandwiching of text ever printed on Wikipedia if you will just hold off on the subject until c:Template:OTRS received on my images. MarkDask21:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I've now introduced two galleries and actually it does looks better now, on my PC as well as my phone. Please let me know if that works for you. Thanks. MarkDask11:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
@Patar knight: - what changed between your good wishes of 12 days ago and the hatchet job you just did to the Kendra Haste article? Why did you not take the hatchet to the article 12 days ago? What is wrong with an "Early life" section in principle? What is wrong with an "Influences" section in principle? Can you name any other article that you have said warranted so many [citation needed] tags?
In the Discussion page you contributed to, you suggested the article warranted just one image; let me quote you - I would suggest allowing the uploader to pick one image that is most representative of the artist's work (and which doesn't depict her) to keep on the article, and deleting the rest - after your hatchet job of today there remain 11 images in the article, including the "her" image. By dint of your decision today not to axe 10 of those images, do you not accept that you were wrong on that occasion, that only one image sufficed to properly represent the sculptor? Can you say what reason exists not to include the image of "her"? Given the 11 images are in consequence of my asking the agent to upload them, are we 'pedians not allowed to reach out for good images to those who can provide them?
Regarding the talk page of the Kendra Haste article - would you agree it is likely that Tooth-Dover is a ghost created by User:DanielRigal? I really do not give a damn. I showed deference when Tooth-Dover criticized the article and I remain amenable to fair criticism. I am not, however, amenable to hatchet jobs so I am going to revert all your edits, Pater, in the hope you will allow me at least some time to address your criticisms. You were wrong about the article needing only one image, (the article has more than 11), and you are wrong now to take the side of a deletionist who lacked the testicular fortitude to criticize me directly. Latitude Patar - allow me some. MarkDask23:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Twelve days ago, all I did was look at the images, and I didn't think or want to do an in-depth analysis of the sources, which I did today because of recent deletions of content from the page which came up on my watchlist. The "Early life" section is entirely sourced to her website, which is not a reliable source and cannot be used per our biographies of living persons policy to cite anything but uncontroversial information only about herself. If independent third party sources mention a claim (e.g. the Royal College of Art), then it can be included as since it's verified. Adding citation needed tags where needed is a common occurence, and I do it when assessing items for inclusion on ITN (e.g. [3], [4]).
A strawman. I said that in the context of improper fair use in contravention of our non free content criteria, which is a legal issue, because having one fair use image might have been justified if there were no free alternatives. Once I discovered there were numerous free images available, I added several of them to the article to replace the fair use ones. No one is preventing or asking you to stop soliciting release of images under free licenses.
I don't believe Tooth Dover and DanielRigal to be the same person. Daniel is perfectly capable of editing the Kendra Haste page with his own account (which he has never done) if he had any issue with the article he wanted to take up without resorting to a throwaway. Just because people criticize your work does not mean they're automatically a sockpuppet. If you have any evidence besides this wild accusation of bad faith, feel free to file a request at sockpuppet investigations with evidence and a Checkuser might take up your case if it's strong. If not, please assume good faith because continuing to cast aspersions of misbehaviour at other editors will just lead to you being blocked for incivility eventually.
I'm going to revert the article back, because having unverified information on a BLP is against Wikipedia policy. You are always free and welcome to re-add any removed content if it is sourced to reliable sources. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow! I didn't see this discussion at the time and it is probably a bit too late to do anything about it now but, well, wow! I am more mystified than ever as to what could have triggered this craziness. I have not been playing any close attention to the Kendra Haste article up until now. Maybe I should be.
I am heartily amused by the accusation of a lack of "testicular fortitude" from somebody who makes seemingly confident accusations of sockpuppetry on user talk pages but doesn't take them to SPI.
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Steve Salis. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. This isn't directly aimed at you but it occurred to me that you are involved. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
March Madness 2017
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Patar knight. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
