User talk:Alex756/Archive
I prefer if you use the POST A COMMENT button (usually on your left in the list) and put a title on any new subject comment so that it gets automatically added to the table of contents and end of the talk page.
|
TO DO LIST AND REQUESTS
|
This is my to to do list I will put stuff there as I think of it. If you want me to work on something or to suggest pages that I should work on or look at (for legal issues, commonwealth constitutional law, etc.) You can leave requests for text here or for digital photos in the New York City area or table top photos that I will be willing to submit under the GFDL here (buildings, monuments, landmarks, etc.).
|
|
Legal advice? No! Wikipedia is not a legal advice service
While IAAL, it's NALO! You will note that I am a jurist and sometimes enter into discussions about copyright issues, etc. on various Wikipedia talk pages and edit lists. I also make contributions to various pages on law related subject. Please note: Wikipedia does not give legal advice. This includes my discussions on talk pages and discussion lists. It is just my opinion, not binding legal precedent. While IAAL, it's NALO (not a legal opinion)! Remember that not all lawyers agree (if they did there would be no courts, eh?) in fact they tend to disagree on a lot of issues. My particpation here at Wikipedia is as a volunteer, I have no other special status or authority (except I am also an administrator; I am here because I believe in Wikipedia and I find it very enjoyable to write and edit articles about various subjects from a NPOV. Thank you for keeping that in mind.
Where to look for old comments on this talk page
Old user talk deleted from current page. Please use page history function to see old user talk page entries (this saves space on the server):
"If you want to ask me a question, please consider posting it on your own talk page (or an article's talk page) and posting a message here telling me to look there, because if I decide to answer you, I'll move the question to your talk page and answer it there or on the appropriate talk pagea associated with the subject. At some point I'll be deleting whatever gets posted here." Alex756 09:12, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Comments starting August 27, 2003
Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. I thought I'd done something stupid by seconding Viajero's nomination when I suspected he might be Lir. Anyway, a couple of people who knew Lir better than I did have suggested it is not the same person, and for various reasons, I'm going to accept that and just hope it works out ok. Good luck with your adminship when you get it. Angela
The SH user name complaint
Your comments on User Saddam's page might prompt me to oppose your nomination for adminship. Your views concerning the former Iraqi dictator should not make you antagonistic toward someone who is actually a very valuable copyeditor. Because of you and a handfull of others, Wikipedia might have lost an excellent contributor. 172 20:01, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That's taking it too far. I removed part of your last comment. Angela
I thought were implying 172 was the real SH, not the user SH. It does indeed highlight problems. Angela
Starting a to do list and request list
From Votes to be moved to Wiktionary
You said you would like these on your to-do list, but I can't find that so here they are! By the way, this page is 35kb. Angela.
[rest of Angela's comment moved to: to do list]
- Thanks, Angela. I'll get working on that soon. I also started a request page if anyone wants me to work on anything or look over some edit. Started a to do list and have also removed the > 32K from this talk page. I didn't archive it because Wikipedia archives everything already on history pages. Keeping records is a good thing. Anyone who wants to see it can look at the page history and check the edits around August 29, 2003. Alex756
Misc. comments
Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 19:20, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex! Done (to List of religious topics) as suggested. Harris7 09:41, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Hi Alex, I've written some comments about your proposed wording for the edit page at User talk:Alex756/Annotated edit page announcement. Enchanter 10:44, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments on my talk page. See also meta:Wikipedians who are students or alumni of McGill University. I couldn't think of anything particularly clever to introduce the topic, so I went with fake elitism. -- Cyan 22:57, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Comment by David Stewart moved to User:Alex756/Annotated edit page announcement and replied to there.
List of jurists
Hi Alex - I got your message - I hadn't noticed the lists at the end of list of legal topics. Perhaps we should put small note under "L" to direct people there. If you can think of any American or Canadian jurists to add, I'd be much obliged. Canada doesn't have a single entry yet. - David Stewart 22:38, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
White on black
Hey Alex. (Thank you again for the treatment on the list. Its not often I talk law with a lawyer, after all..____ and my gut did tell me that some things werent jiving right...) Anyway -- white background shoots lots more photons at the eyes, which is generally bad - I just cant stand it too long. I use Mozilla, but if you use IE , -- in ie options>accessibity: there are 'ignore' settings that let you override what you see on the screen- forcing web pages to use your windows color scheme. Then just right click on your desktop and make a new scheme with a darker neutral background and a lighter foreground color. You may then have to change the link colors (in ie options) to something lighter. -- Mozilla-the opensource browser with tabbed browsing and a bunch of other neato stuff--lets you override it to specific new settings or to default to your windoze ones. -戴眩sv 22:24, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)
== Mozil-Law
==
Love the coffee cup BTW...
Re:ListDisc-- I understand that you might generally write legal emails to a non-legal list without expecting to get a whole bunch of critical feedback from it--people who actually do read legal stuff may tend to take the contents as gospel-- in silent deference, without any feedback, (YAAL after all) but you can't give your best advice if we dont give any pertinent FB, eh? Besides, I never automatically take anything as gospel ;)
As far as Mozilla tech goes, all I can really tell you that if your comfortable with IE, it should be fine (it's just a browser after all). As much as I like mozilla I cant say that I could justify putting you through the heckles of trying to install something. And you still might run into conflicts. (example: my Moz email client dont work). If you really want to give it a another shot, you should uninstall and delete any traces of Mozilla -- and download Mozilla Firebird which is a cut-down version -- designed to be more stable(?) and newbie-friendly. Otherwise, pitch a specific question (or see if its already been asked) to here or here(firebird specific) Someone else may have more specific info -- try the VP (Weve got alot of Moz users.) Best,--戴眩sv 16:46, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)
DMCA safe harbor eligibility
On my talk page you posted a request for more information on my preliminary assertion that the Wikipedia does not currently comply with the requirements for the DMCA safe harbor. Please see Conditions for Eligibility (i)(1)(A) for an explicit statement that the items I mentioned are required for protection under that section (and I interpret section to mean section 512).
I'm satisfied that Wikipedia is an online service provider (OSP) within the meaning of the DMCA and not vulnerable to the finding of ineligibility which affected Napster but prudent extra steps you mentioned seem warranted, given the costs of being wrong and the modest cost of obtaining protection.
I agree with your statements about fair use and will look at the documents you've referenced and comment further as seems necessary. There's approximately nothing about fair use itself or derivative works based on works employing fair use which is simple.:) There seem to be a couple of issues for the Wikipedia. It is weakened significantly, too much, IMO, if it can't make fair use of works in the online version but it is also critical that it also makes it easy to exclude items which are not absolutely certain to be covered by the GFDL. The only way I see to effectively address this is at the time the information is entered, by asking people to indicate a confidence level and allowing that level to be adjusted. A confidence level may be something like a choice of checkboxes:
- I produced this and it is exclusively my original work
- This is GFDL for other reasons
- I strongly believe this is fair use
- I believe this is fair use
- This is possibly not fair use
- I am uncertain of the status
- It may be infringing
- This shouldn't be here
- We have received a valid takedown notice and counter-notifcation and the work is restored
- We have received a valid takedown notice and counter-notifcation and have chosen not to restore the work
- we have received a valid takedown notice
Word those in sufficiently innocent ways and it should be fairly easy to quickly review new work and extract a "safe" subset for any desired edition. Hopefully most people wil be somewhat honest in their initial choice. Complete safety is unachievable for any work based on the Wikipedia, IMO. It's just not possible with so many contributors. It's inevitable that some will not understand the importance of accurately indicating the status for commercial derivative works which will lose one key component of the fair use tests. And quite likely that some will deliberately attempt to poison commercial use. Providing a way to flag content and making it possible for sysops to set a confidence level appears to be the best which can be done to reduce that risk. Saying "don't do it" will not work, so it has to be addressed in some way other than that. JamesDay 22:03, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
keeping it vague--um, what?
Well, I understand your take. My role here (ive gotta run in a minute-so ill be brief) is to temper what I see to be legal overcaution, with some common sense. Y'know -- "a tool when dropped will always roll to a spot directly under the car" - that kind of thing. ;) That said, In my comment on the pump, I noted a distinct line of tact that should be used in summarizing the matter, keeping the legal argument -- which in fact, I suspect she is correct in her rather liberal view--separate from any wikipolitics.
That said, the subject came up when I added her to WP:MW--as a way of honoring our fallen (and perhaps regrouping) comrades. (Maybe WikiMartrs would be better.) In that I connected her (speculation of course) to that most humourous of diseases. Best, (im off...)-戴眩sv 17:47, Sep 14, 2003 (UTC)