[1] at User talk:Knowledge Seeker

Next time you visit a user's page do the following:

1. Identify yourself as an administrator.
2. Only find fault if you were a participant in a discussion.
   1. Otherwise your actions conform to those of an intruder or troll.
   2. Your comments will be taken as though you were an "eve’s dropper" or "peeping Tom"
3. Give the particulars or details of the specific item you find fault with.
4. Don't drink or take drugs before you leave messages.
5. Be sure a bureaucrat knows ahead of time of your planned visit.
6. Be prepared to defend whatever comments or point you are trying to make.
7. Be aware that stalking is as much of an issue on the Wikipedia as it is in the real world.
8. Drop the idea that being an administrator gives your the right to operate on the basis of your own opinion.
9. Apologize and back up your comments with citations to specific Wikimedia policies.
   1. Be prepared to answer for your own misapplication or misinterpretation of Wikimedia policy.

...IMHO (Talk) 08:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[2] at User_talk:KillerChihuahua

There is a good reason why you need to take this advice as well. Its called the Wikimedia Foundation Charter which was issued under the laws of the State of Florida and to which the Wikimedia Foundation must subscribe. ...IMHO (Talk) 09:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[3] at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science; entire discussion [4] provided here. (Originally posted under heading Is the Wikipedia being censored by the academic guild?)

This may seem like a rare problem but I have noticed that some scientific and technical articles are being edited to prevent other users from obtaining a complete and full comprehension of a topic in the same manner as a member of a trade or artisan guild might try to hide techniques or methods or understanding of what the topic actually involves. Such articles are only permitted to have a highly technical version or explanation of the process being presented in the same manner as a tradesman or artisan might withhold simple explanations from a patron for the sole purpose of mystifying the topic and keeping the patron from knowing “too much.” What is the Wikipedia policy on such behavior where simple and accurate explanations are continuously deleted from an article on the false pretense that the article is not about the example although the example fully clarifies the topic? ...IMHO (Talk) 04:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Examples?

Yes, I'd like to see an example too. Of course there's a lot of information difficult for "outsiders" to understand in the 'pedia, but generally it's because of the persons lack of concern for readers with a very low level of understanding. Nothing of what I have seen suggests censorship.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would hope not but then suppose all sysops were also members of the telecom brotherhood or union and certain accurate but simplified technical disclosures were routinely deleted? Would this not make you a bit suspicous? As for examples. Put the Half-life article on your watch list and see over a period of time what conclusion you might reach. ...IMHO (Talk) 05:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say sometimes the medical articles are written in unnecessarily technical language. But I think this is just health professionals failing to consider their audience when writing here rather than a deliberate attempt to obscure. See Hanlon's Razor. There's also the fact that writing both accessibly and accurately about technical is a very difficult skill.

I understand the difficulty for any individual to step far enough away from the field of expertise to see it clearly form a layman's pov but that is why we participate in the Wikipedia in the first place. My concern is that when such experts guard an article with such jealously that any user who is able to bridge the gap between the experts and the layman is prevented from adding simple but accurate explanations. ...IMHO (Talk) 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think there's scope for stronger attention to be paid to Wikipedia:Explain jargon.--Robert Merkel 05:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In this regard you must unfortunately include mathematical symbols and representations which more often than not require examples of computer code and data in order that the jargon be explained. ...IMHO (Talk) 06:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we don't want to sit around and watch the half-life article—did you choose this article as a pun? Why don't you find an example of an edit that removed factually accurate information that made the article harder to understand? My guess would be that incorrect analogies are removed from articles by people who have a definite understanding of the material and that you are simply paranoid. Also, just because a statement is understandable doesn't mean it is true. —Bradley 23:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To have coordinated censorship you'd need coordination among academics in the first place. Which generally does not exist. But as a form of systemic bias, I think it is true that sometimes certain lesser-known topics get monopolized by those who know a lot about them but are not good at explaining it. The better known a topic is, the less likely this can last for long. But there are some articles which reflect a total lack of consideration for the layman (even something as non-technical and narrative-based as our biography of Franz Boas, which is about 3X too long, suffers from this). --Fastfission 13:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that in many cases, the technical jargon is used because it saves time--it describes something specific in a way that is easily recognized by people in the field, while using a minimum amount of language. The challenge for Wikipedia, or any widely-used reference source, is how satisfy both "expert" users as well as the public at large. Experts don't want to plod through simplified explanations of what they already know; novices don't want to be frustrated by language they don't understand.

Going back to your question, I believe that there's a policy or guideline or something about how Wikipedia editors should not act as if they "own" a given article. Wikipedia is about reaching consensus and allowing many people to do their bit towards improving an article. --Tachikoma 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem with reaching consensus is that there is a small group of committed academics who jealously guards some articles, immediately removing any attempt to make them accessible to the general public (which, while far more numerous, lacks the same level of commitment and is thus easily scared off by such actions). The only way I was able to find around this problem was to create a separate article for laymen. For example, the article Boolean algebra suffered from this problem, so I created the simplified version as Boolean logic, and added dabs at the top of each, pointing to the other. StuRat 17:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes this possible solution occurred to me as well so I did the same thing and avoided even the temptation of putting a link to the new article in the existing article's "See also" section. Perhaps this way the new article will not be found and deleted before it has gained a few edits from other users who can help fight those who are unsympathetic with the needs of the layman and sometimes experts alike The real scare is that the person standing guard over the article I am concerned about has a false concept of the subject matter. Perhaps it is just as well that a new article be created to give everyone an opportunity to know the truth about the topic. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

←dragging discussion back a few indents←

Please, please, please don't just create your own fork of an article and try to hide it away somewhere. For one thing, it's very inefficient. Editors may contribute to one branch or the other, allowing both versions to be incomplete. For another, it's frustrating to our readers—they've only got a 50/50 shot of hitting the 'right' article. Finally, it's an ultimately futile effort. Eventually someone will notice the duplication and merge the two articles anyway.

There are several strategies for dealing with an article that you believe is overly technical.

• Add the {{technical}} template to the article. This flags the article as needing some added detail and description for accessibility, and adds the article to the Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical category.
• Open a discussion on the article's talk page, and invite participation from the article's regular editor(s).
• If an article contains many technical subtopics, it may be appropriate to rewrite it in summary style. (Create a main article with short, accessible descriptions of each subtopic, and link appropriately to technical subarticles.)
• Seek comment from other editors using a request for comment. We can't help to resolve your dispute if you don't even tell us what article you're talking about.
• Finally – and most importantly – assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Accusing other editors of censorship, or of deliberately concealing information on behalf of some mysterious guild, tends to taint the working relationship a bit. Communication through text alone can be difficult and ambiguous. Other editors might interpret your attempts to make the article more accessible as sloppy or imprecise and be unaware of their own article ownership issues. They might feel attacked by your implications that they are censoring material or trying to hide information.

So do we at least get a hint about what article(s) you're talking about? We can't help you fix things if you won't tell us what the problem is. :D TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Half-life starting June 12 and the recently created Half-life computation which has been sent to AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-life computation. Just a hint :-) Vsmith 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[5] at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy); entire discussion provided here. (Originally posted under section heading Impression).

After extensive discussion on a topic and pursuing reasonable alternative solutions without success and having looked at the self posted credentials of some of those in opposition I am now left with the impression the Wikipedia is nothing more than a glorified grade, middle and high school teacher/student endeavor which has been exposed to the public without regard that the rules which the public are obligated to follow and the rules which students and teachers are obligated to follow are vastly different. For example: in the real world or public world it is perfectly legal to accuse anyone of anything without being in danger of committing an act of slander or libel so long as the accusation is true whereas in the Wikipedia any accusation is regarded in the same manner as would be talking back to the teacher in the school environment. What is truly disturbing about this is the effect on the content of some articles. It appears that some articles are being guarded by teachers from editing so that they might use them as a special online resource for their own students rather than permitting any edit that is not in line with their particular usage of the article. For instance: if a teacher wants to refer his students to a certain topic so that he can assign a task of say writing a basic computer program to perform the computation of the mathematical formula the article relates then he will naturally be opposed to anyone including such code in the article or on any other page or in an article of its own. The absence of a speller function tends to uphold this idea. I certainly hope that this is not the true nature of the Wikipedia and that conveyance of knowledge and truth is its ultimate goal rather than it’s serving as merely an online classroom aid for teachers and students in difference to the rules we must abide by in the real world. ...IMHO (Talk) 04:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If a teacher wanted to reference a stable article for the purpose of a class, they would simply use a permalink to the desired version - there's no need to "guard" an article. Also, it seems clear that you're referring to some specific conflict and it'd be helpful if you could link it and tell us more about it instead of speaking in vague generalities. If you feel intimidated by a protective user, just remember that nobody on Wikipedia carries authority over content. Deco 06:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again as in the past my concern is not so much for specific cases but rather for policy in general. Your comment assumes that a teacher would know about a permalink and their acknowledgement that they do not have authority over content. Although there is a specific case which relates to this discussion I am reluctant to share it with you since my experience has been that you likewise reject computational examples and data because they apparently clutter up a pristine presentation based solely upon mathematical notation although you have embraced publication of computer code elsewhere. Suffice it to say that I am highly disappointed in the Wikipedia for failing to require that articles include real world examples to the detriment of all users. I have the knowledge. My only concern is that others may have the knowledge as well. ...IMHO (Talk) 07:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the need for a new policy; if a user is interfering with your ability to contribute Wikipedia, you can always seek out one of a many options for dispute resolution. You could even offer them a permalink; if they're unaware of the option, we can always let them in on the secret. If they ignore an article's talk page or just don't know it's there, placing a message on their user talk page will give them that orange box on their next pageview. Could any of those options potentially solve your problem(s)? Regards, Luna Santin 09:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

For one thing the user appears to be stalking me - showing up on every page I edit in regard to this problem (as disquised below). The issue is that this user has made the false declaration that a process which the article is about continues ad infintium for its primary real world application when in fact it is terminal. This indicates the need for clarification to be included in the article which the user refuses to allow. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If another user is harassing you, it would make perfect sense to ask for some sort of intervention. If there's a serious content dispute, it makes perfect sense to cite credible sources and ask the other user to do the same; if they refuse to provide a citation and persist in edit warring and/or harassing you, there's always dispute resolution. Honestly, unless you're more specific, I'm not sure what else I can offer you here. Luna Santin 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI see [6] and related discussions/articles. 69.9.30.178 11:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of a 'talking back to the teacher' type of problem? I've found that we generally have no problem with accusing article subjects of things, providing there is some sort of citation of sources. With respect to accuastions aimed at other editors, admins on Wikipedia are generally willing to intervene—again, as long as the accusations are clearly explained (diffs are very useful here) and civil. General complaints about 'some articles' aren't helpful, as such complaints don't indicate where the problem lies.

Please be aware that in general, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide or course textbook and it's not surprising that computer code, detailed methods and protocols, and classroom-type example problems are trimmed. (...With the exception of places where code is directly relevant, as in articles like bubble sort. Even then, we would be better off having an animation or flow chart rather than a lump of code.) That type of writing is more appropriate to our sister project, Wikibooks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can give you an example. When someone is loosing an arguement over an issue they start accusing the other person of personal attack when in fact all the other user has done is to have pointed out the truth and called attention to the other person's error. Its very similar to a classroom dicussion situation in which the teacher is wrong (if that were even possible) and the attempt is made to point this out and the teacher then defends his or her position not by addressing the issue but by accussing the student of talking back to the teacher and disrupting the discussion. There is an actual and more specific example but I refrain at this point from disclosing same. ...IMHO (Talk) 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again, in the absence of specific cases, there really isn't anything that can be done to remedy the situation. I will note that regardless of whether you're on the 'right' or 'wrong' side of an argument – and in general, often the participants in such a debate draw very different conclusions about who is 'winning' or 'losing' – it is imperative that the participants remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. Hostile editing tactics make it more difficult to edit with others in the future, and can turn off good editors from contributing. Incivility also turns discussions about facts and content into arguments based on personal animosity. If someone makes a baseless accusation of personal attack, you're usually best to ignore it—admins aren't going to block you for an unsubstantiated claim. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In this situation the need for an example and computer code could possibly be eliminated if the other user were to acknowledge that the mathematics, while capable of being applied using either decimal or integer variables, in the case of its primary real world application requires the use of integer variables only. Instead they insist the primary application continues ad infintium rather than being a terminal or a finite process due to their apparent misunderstanding of the process or possibly the entire concept. Consequently the computer code and data are needed in order to clarify this point for other users. Bottom line is that the process will in fact eventually terminate for any finite size sample since atoms are not divisible by the process and decimal numbers do not represent their numbers accurately where only integer variables do. ...IMHO (Talk) 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about half-life and you're adding material to bolster your argument, perhaps you should place the material on the talk page of the article. Discuss your interpretation and reasoning there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Your extreme reluctance to be specific creates a very strong impression that you are generalising from a small amount of evidence. I don't recognise the alleged problem at all. Honbicot 02:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO refers to the conflict on the half-life article, though he won't state it directly. There's an ongoing dispute about adding a particularly long table about the various periods of decay, or whatever the proper term is since it escapes me at the moment, of a specific element (C-14). IMHO is trying to show that the process will eventually end with this table. Others have told him that the process could theorhetically continue indefinitely. That's the jist of it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[7] at User talk:BradPatrick; it's a copy-paste from one of the Pumps, IIRC.

We share the same last and first names - I was named after Confederate General Patrick Cleburne and for a time many years ago while working for Lykes Electronics in preparation for starting school at St. Pete JC I rented a very nice and large apartment from one of the Patrick families that live here in Tampa.

As General Counsel you may be interested in the following concern since many participants in some of the Wikimedia projects are confused as to the legal position of the Wikimedia Foundation in terms of its own accountability:

"...the State of Florida does not derive any sales tax revenue from the Wikipedia. Consequently the people of the State of Florida expect a little something in return for their kind generosity of granting a charter to the Wikimedia Foundation to allow it to operate world wide and solicit tax free donations from out of the State. Such beneficial compensation could be in the form of providing reference material or serving in some educational capacity for the citizens of the State. In absence of this the people of the State of Florida might prefer that the Wikipedia find some way to pay taxes instead of just being a community that receives tax free donations which the donator can then use to further indirectly reduce benefits to the State by using their financial contribution as the basis for Federal income tax deductions. In other words the people and the State of Florida may not like the idea of an organization living off of them unless the organization is going to make a contribution to the State in one form or the other. The State is already overburdened by educational institutions and prisons and prison inmates who likewise pay no taxes and cause financial losses without providing any financial gain. Perhaps you need to be thinking in terms of the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation which includes the Wikipedia Project is obligant to the State of Florida and its tax paying citizens and not the other way around." [See: Etatism and Dirigisme in regard to the basis for such clarification as to the relation the State of Florida and the Wikimedia Foundation have to each other.]

If you have any questions or need any clarification please feel free to correspond. ([email protected] is my real email address.) ...IMHO (Talk) 23:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[8] on his own talk page.

Your comments are not wasted on me to the extent I am able to appreciate them. Please accept the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered within a political boundary in the real world which may not fully appreciate or endorse the basis of its opposing political philosophy (namely communism) and which may from time to time recognize the need to assess the Wikimedia Foundation operation to determine whether such operation is in the best interest of the State despite its opposing political philosophy and basis of operation.

Just as the Wikimedia Foundation expects its users to embrace and subscribe to its own political philosophy so might the State in which the Wikimedia Foundation is permitted to operate expect those corporate entities over which it has jurisdiction to embrace and subscribe to the political philosophy of the State and for this purpose conduct assessments and appraisals from time to time in a manner such as to reveal the true nature of said operation and conduct of business of the Wikimedia Foundation in response to citizen complaints ...IMHO (Talk) 08:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[9] and [10] at User talk:Vsmith (under the heading You and your comrads have been caught.)

Ligitimate clarification comments are inserted at the bottom of the poll in their own subsection not in the middle of straw poll introductory text. Inserting such references in the middle of a straw poll introduction text is obviously for the purpose and intent of disrupting the poll. You and your comrads have been caught. ...IMHO (Talk) 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cite Wikipedia policy regarding location of clarification comments in talk pages. I'm not aware of such. The clarifying note was set off in brackets as an obvious addition - perhaps not ideally placed, but definitely not vandalism. If you felt it inappropriately placed, the proper action would have been simply to move and attribute it. Again, please assume good faith and be civil. Vsmith 02:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but most if not all of your comments as well as those of Jclerman, ten of all trades and others make it diffcult if not impossible to interpret such placement of commentary as an obvious attemt to express the opposite of good faith. As for citation you may consult the general policies regarding any form of vandalism which also pretends not to maintain a disguise. ...IMHO (Talk) 07:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some editors were trying to identify Pce3 as the author of a particular straw poll that was trying to push his fringe minority opinion. He repeatedly removed their edits, calling them vandalism:

• to revert vandalism of the straw poll
• to revert second vandalism attack by Jclerman of straw poll
• third vandalism attack by Jclerman
• forth vandalism attack by Jclerman
• fifth vandalism of straw poll by user Jclerman after first warning posted to his talk page
• sixth vandalism by user Jclerman
• seventh vandalism attack by user Jclerman
• eighth vandalism attacked performed by vandalism team member Vsmith
• nineth vandalism of straw poll by vandalism team member Jclerman
• tenth vandalism of straw poll by vandalism team member Vsmith

From [11]], under the (standard unsourced image template header Unspecified_source_for_Image:Oil_pipeline.PNG.

Thanks for uploading Image:Oil pipeline.PNG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear.

The designation "SELF" inherently defines the source as the uploader. The following copyright tags were included with the image upload at the time of upload: {{GFDL-self}}, {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, {{pd-self}}, and {{No rights reserved}} which clearly define the copyright status of the image. Please see the information provided below in regard an appropriate method, time and place to inform users of source information to accompany an image. ...IMHO (Talk) 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You should include a format template such as is used in the Wikimedia Commons on the Wikipedia upload page if you are sincere about informing users to include both named source and copyright information with an image or file upload:

 {{Information
 |Description=
 |Source=
 |Date=
 |Author=
 |Permission=
 |other_versions=
 }}

...IMHO (Talk) 17:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your licensing information is overkill, and confusing. Are you releasing it to the public domain, or are you releasing it under GFDL, or are you releasing it under CC-by-SA?

Multiple tags are allowed and suggested on the copyright tag instruction page so that a user can be sure to cover all bases. If you want absolute and specific copyright and source identification then you will have to improve the copyright tag provision page with either a copyright classification table or a copyright classification dichotomous key such that users can answer questions regarding absolute and specific criteria and then allow the table or key to determine the appropriate tag. Short of this you will have to accept the fact that users can not be expected to read or guess whatever it is you may have on your mind or if you have an ulterior motive for such tags. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the map appears to be a derivative work, unless you drew the map yourself. You need to specify the source of the map, as well as any associated licensing information. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you walk down most any residential street and look at each house you can easily come to the same conclusion. Practically every other house on any street in the nation appears to be a "derivative" work of another. The virtually identical appearance of the same geographic area to another however increases the probability of its appearance as a "derivative" work by at least 100,000 fold. Again the inherent meaning of a "SELF" designation tag is that the source, the person entitled to the copyright, and the uploader are one in the same. If this concept confuses you then you need to add the above identification template to the Wikipedia upload page so that detailed and specific information can be provided in accordance with a standard format which can be stored on the users computer for future use. Once a "SELF" designation tag has been provided for an image then the Wikimedia Foundation's responsibility is resolved and further administrator demands become harrassment. Please add this fact to your undertanding as well. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Look—I'm not trying to harrass you. I'm just asking you where the map came from. If the map was from a public domain source, that's excellent. You can use it and relicence your derivative work from it however you want. If the map isn't in the public domain, then you need to identify its source and you probably will be restricted in how you can choose to relicense derivative works made from it. Putting one of the '-self' copyright templates on the image doesn't oblige the Wikimedia Foundation to turn a blind eye to the image's content, nor does it absolve them of responsibility. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The Wikimedia Foundation certainly has the right to determine the validity of the use or claim of any copyright designation but in lieu of a finding, proof or evidence to the contrary the Wikipedia Foundation’s responsibility is resolved. It is of far greater importance in terms of public relations for the Wikimedia Foundation to clearly specify the copyright designation criteria in the form of a copyright classification table or dichotomous key in the first place than to rely solely upon challenging users on the basis of image likeness after the fact.

At Wikipedia:Images Making images yourself is says “You can take a photograph with your digital camera, mobile phone with integrated digital camera, draw an image digitally, perhaps with a graphics tablet, or scan drawings or photos taken with a film camera and upload the image.” When a user uploads an image using a “SELF” designation tag then the phrase “made by” is automatically and rightfully assumed as well as the image source being the person who uploaded the image.

Please bare in mind that the world map which the Wikimedia Foundation uses in some of its diagrams may “appear” to be a derived image possibly from navigation coordinates fed into a computer or from images of other world maps or perhaps a composite of other images since it is highly unlikely the Wikimedia Foundation originated the source images or the image data by circumnavigating the globe and since their likeness to many proprietary world map images is quite real. One might ask very naturally out of curiosity since the issue has been raised what the original source of the Wikimedia foundation world map images are? ...IMHO (Talk) 02:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Er, your image is copied straight from Google Maps. I'm actually a bit surprised that I didn't recognize their format and style earlier.

If you're looking for maps of Central America, that article has a public domain image that you can use (it's in the public domain because it's a work of the U.S. federal government). A number of useful maps are also available on Wikimedia Commons; their maps category is quite hand, and all Commons images are genuinely free-licensed or public domain material.

You've identified yourself as a teacher. How do you feel, and what do you do, if one of your students presents you with an assignment that is obviously copied from the internet? Leaving aside any question of copyright law, does it not bother you that they're taking credit for someone else's work? By copying the map from Google and slapping PD-self and GFDL-self tags on it, you've claimed credit for some cartographer's work, and you've indicated that it's perfectly acceptable to copy and distribute that work.

If you're unsure of where to locate free material in the future, please ask at the Help Desk. Always cite your sources when you present material created by other people or organizations; plagiarism isn't acceptable here anymore than it is in your classroom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In Google vs. Borland the Court found that the author had not used an available technology to prevent data from being copied from his web site and dismissed the suit. It was acknowledged by the Court that Google has the same technology available to it and the option of using it or not. Aside from this there is no reference on any Wikimedia Foundation project site to a similarity in format and style as criteria for determining copyright ownership. If the Wikimedia foundation intends to base a determination of copyright ownership upon format and style then the Wikimedia Foundation needs to list format and style as the criteria for determining copyright ownership. ...IMHO (Talk) 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(Please don't break up my signed comments. You can edit your own words however you like.) The image was a pixel-perfect copy & paste. Compare Google's version and your version. The format and style seemed familiar, which is why I knew to look for it's original source; the infringement is that you've lifted their material directly (though you've now created a derivative work that uses a Photoshop filter—this is still an infringement). I'm curious about this Google v. Borland ruling that you cite. If you could provide a link to it, it would be most helpful. Frankly, I suspect strongly that you've misunderstood the meaning and implication of the ruling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Do a search on Google vs. Borland. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. Google returns nothing for "Google vs. Borland". That's why I asked for a link.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem quite that inept to me but here is the link anyway... Google vs. Gordon Whoops... wrong one... ...IMHO (Talk) 15:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Try this... Google vs. Borland ...IMHO (Talk) 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the following case which seems to be the origin of the failure to utilize technological prevention capability in addition to the other issue of automatic scanning with Google: thumbnail images of porn site images. ...IMHO (Talk) 16:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So then yes–you have misunderstood the nature of the cases in question. (The reason why I'm 'that inept', by the way, is that you didn't give the correct name of the case: Field vs. Google, not Google vs. Borland or Google vs. Gordon.) That case, and the case of Perfect 10 vs. Google, both deal with the appropriateness of Google's cache under copyright law. You're not an automated process generating a cache and index of web content (that, incidentally, points searchers back to the original source of that content); you're a private individual who copied and pasted an image for your convenience without providing any credit to the original source. The cases you have cited are just not on point. If you wish to review the concepts with a professional, User:BD2412 is a lawyer, and User:BradPatrick is the Foundation's legal counsel. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your original concern was in regard to the use of more than one tag. Now your concern appears how best to use the image in question to get away with a personal attack long after replacement of the original image upon which your objection is based. As for blaming me for not providing an exact search title perhaps the word lazy would be more fitting. Although automated cashing of images was one issue the Court addressed the other issue in the case was the failure of Borland to utilize technology that would have prevented the material form being copied in the first place: "However, the court said that the author had not used an available Web setting on his page that would have prevented it from being archived."[12] Although Brad specializes in intellectual property law and most attorneys in the field try to keep up with current case law this ruling has been viewed with quite dismay and an avoidance of the devastating precedence none-the-less. ...IMHO (Talk) 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I give up. If you think that you're better qualified to discuss copyright law than an intellectual property lawyer, then I can't help you. Meanwhile, my original posting about the image was a standard template that requested source information for an image as well as copyright tagging as necessary. In my first reply to your response, I specifically asked for clarification of the image's copyright/licensing status and I asked you to identify the external source, if any, of the image. You have responded with a tremendous amount of writing but failed to address my concerns. You have lied about the image source, and when confronted with that you've attempted to misinterpret inapplicable court rulings to justify your plagiarism. All I'm asking is for you to in future be sure to cite the sources of material that you upload to Wikipedia, and to avoid making copyright and licensing claims that you aren't empowered to make. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Failing to answer a question to your complete, absolute, unconditional, and personal satisfaction is, I am afraid, not the same thing as lying. If it were all women everywhere would at sometime be, according to your definition, a liar for not answering a question about their age, divulging their marital status or telling the real color of thier hair despite the fact of a legitimate need to ask such questions. The absence of an absolute and specific answer might in itself be the answer intended and suggest that, as in this case, concern over deletion of an image is not an issue and that display was temporary and without any reason for defending its copyright status which is well within the law. Instead of giving up what I suggest you do is to concentrate on developing a list of copyright criteria, i.e., questions which can be asked each user in preparation for uploading an image such that the sum total of answers can be used both to determine whether the image is uploadable and how the image should be classified so as to reflect its copyright status within the scheme. ...IMHO (Talk) 22:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to do more than a .gov directed site search to find maps for any location in the world. Wikimedia Foundation images on the other hand are not adequately classified, their file names are rarely reflective of the image so named, and their descriptions and other criteria are not searchable. Wikimedia Foundation content organization has a long, long way to go before it will be user friendly. ...IMHO (Talk) 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you know how to find these public domain images, please do so. Don't just lift maps, images, or other material directly from privately-owned copyrighted sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say to you the same as I would say to any accuser. Your claim that similar format and style is proof is not valid. Your claim that releasing one's own rights is the same as taking credit for someone else's is not valid. ...IMHO (Talk) 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

See my remarks above. You released the rights on an image to which you didn't have the rights in the first place. You slapped several '-self' templates on the image, stating in no uncertain terms that you were the creator of the map. That just was not true. You're welcome to release the rights on a little red line, an arrow, and a caption, but what you uploaded also contained a map that wasn't yours to give away. Please don't insult both of us further by continuing to claim that the map wasn't copied directly from Google Maps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to review current case law a bit further. Please search for other cases as well. There are several. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to use images already stored on the Wikimedia Foundation servers then you need to adequately classify them, assure that file names are reflective of the image and that descriptions and other criteria are searchable. ...IMHO (Talk) 14:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As you've already stated, you already know how to find public domain images elsewhere; some people just find the Commons a convenient source for free images. I'll reiterate the two points above to which you've not responded. First, if you're having trouble finding free images, you can always ask for assistance rather than copying material without permission. If you don't understand how our copyright tags work on Wikipedia, ask for assistance rather than assuming the worst of the admins who are trying to correct the problem. Second, how do you, as a teacher, handle plagiarism from your students? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your innuendo that I do not always cite my sources with the insinuation that such qualifies as plagiarism is itself a violation of personal attack which is contrary to Wikimedia Foundation policy. In the great majority of cases I fail to cite myself as originator of an idea rather than the other way around. ...IMHO (Talk) 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not an insinuation. I was observing that copying someone else's work without citing your source is plagiarism, and urging you to avoid doing it in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of proof it is an insinuation. Observing is not the same thing as speculating. Promoting a conclusion that is based on speculation constitutes an insinuation. I suggest that you send a copy of the image to Google (although Google has probably already copied the page) and ask in Google's opinion if the image is a copy of its own and if Google thinks its use qualifies as unfair use according to the criteria that Google itself holds up in its own defense on the basis of fair use. I think Google would say that you have made a mountain out of a mole hill and that such use would in no way be prohibited in light of its own best interest. Before doing so, however, you might first want to try and reconcile the copyright violation criteria Google itself uses to both defend and accuse such as how much material is involved, to what degree the material has been modified, and whether the technology available to prevent copies from being made in the first place has been employed.

However, the most important issue here is that Wikipedia copyright tags are not presented to users in the form of a dichotomous key or otherwise classified in a manner that will allow users to reach an accurate decision as to which tag should be used in order to comply with the mired of different possible conditions under which an image might exist prior to its being uploaded. Until this is done the problem of matching the right tag with the right image will not go away. ...IMHO (Talk) 19:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review Google Maps' terms of service. Removing the Google and NAVTEQ copyright notices from the map is expressly disallowed. I don't need to ask Google if your image is a copy of their own; it's a pixel-perfect cut & paste job that you later altered by applying a Photoshop filter. I have no further comment on this issue. I believe that you're smart enough to understand what I'm saying, and it would be insulting to lead you like a child through another round of explanation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response above to your accusation. If you feel the image is not qualified for upload then please delete it by all means. Replacement of the image is not necessary or intended. Its purpose has been served. ...IMHO (Talk) 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)