User talk:Fabrictramp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to my talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Please indent your posts with ":" if replying to an existing topic (or "::" if replying to a reply). I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, autobiography, COI, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected WP:BLP violation, I will probably provide the text for you, especially if you can convince me that you intend to turn it into a good Wikipedia article with some work. Note that using the text to recreate a deleted article automatically qualifies it for speedy deletion, and keeping deleted content hanging around in your userspace has gotten editors penalized before. But that's your problem.

Archives
Index to archived discussions 2006 - Dec 2007 Dec 2007 - June 2008 June 2008 - December 2008 January 2009 - April 2009 April 2009 - present

Contents 1 AATCC wikipedia edit 2 Licensing update reminder 3 Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio 4 Supposed vandalism of Beavis and Butthead 5 reference for anjarakandy 6 Clinical utility of diagnostic tests 7 Question 8 Hell in a Bucket 9 Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009 10 Re: F1 2010 (video game)

[edit] AATCC wikipedia edit

Hi, I wrote you a note about editing the AATCC wikipedia article June 11, which you kindly replied to. I wikifying it, added third party references, and making it more neutral. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dyewebber (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing update reminder

Hi. :) I'm investigating William N. Ryerson, which DumbBot listed at CP, and I see that you removed a copyright tag from it on 27 June 2009 because the evident source ([1]) is released under GFDL. Coincidentally, I just posted about this yesterday on AN and WT:CSD to point out to admins who might not be aware that we can no longer accept material that is licensed under GFDL unless it is also under a license compatible with CC-By-SA. (The conversation about it at AN is way more interesting than the one at CSD; until it disappears it's (here). Obviously, there are a number of admins who don't realize that this has changed, so please help spread the word. In this particular case, I'm pretty sure that the apparent source is just a Wikimirror anyway of an earlier article that was deleted for infringing on [2]. I'm off to figure out if it needs to be put through the CP queue again or speedied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I hadn't known it at the time, but I'd seen the notice since then.

The Wiki mirror idea is a good one, but the dates don't work out. The earlier Wikipedia article was made in March of 2009 while the "mirror" was last edited in 2008.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting! I wonder where they got it? The official source would seem to be the first publisher. :) Just out of curiosity, I'll run a wayback on them to see where they date to. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No wayback on the official page. I'm going to chalk that one up as a mystery and move on. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes that's all you can do. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Duration of Copyright (UK)- Possible Copyvio

Thanks for visiting the page I created. It will be easier for you to judge whether this is a copyvio if I give a few words of guidance.

• All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear.
• I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly.
• I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training. Original work.
• I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols. Original work.
• I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across. Original work.
• I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry. Compare with Tim Padfields output boxes that breach this rule. Original work.
• I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use matter of fact
• I added the advise Not on Commons and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes. Original work.

To my mind, all we have in common is that we have both chosen to represent the information in visual form, and both chosen to use the correct legal jargon. To my mind, Tim is the acknowledged expert, and any diagram must lead the editor to the identical conclusion. Tims representation is flawed because it does not attempt to stick to BS flowchart convention. My diagram is limited by Wikimedia not supporting the use of a background image in table cells, and the need for a high resolution monitor to display the image correctly.

After having read all the points above, could you let me know if I have missed something obvious and any point of the page does contain a copyvio, or what was the sticking point that caused you to suspect that any part of the page was dubious so we can tag that area for future users --ClemRutter (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in my message to you, I'm certainly not an expert on copyright violations, but it definitely seems like the changes are superficial. I do know that things like changing a symbol or a color aren't enough to avoid copyvio. Perhaps the best course would be to post at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems -- feel free to link to this conversation to save on retyping.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a rather quick response. I have done as you requested. But if you are no expert would you like to explain what you find superficial? I took time to explain 5 major area of original work- I have pointed out that we are both using legalese- that is fact which cannot be copyrighted. I asked you point out what you interpret to be a copyvio. If you can explain the problem, I can point you to the policy- or the case law, but please do research my responses before continuing with this time waster. If you can't do that- go back to the list I have provided and explain where your reference is to suggest that my logic is wrong, but if you can't justify your tag- would you please remove it. Best wishes Clem. --ClemRutter (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's back up just a bit here. My reply was more than two hours after your reply here. And remember, I had already looked at the article when I placed the tag. How on earth is that a "rather quick response"? If you reply to nothing else, I'd like a response to this one.

Since you seem to want a point-by-point discussion, here we go:

"All the information was taken from the one page that I cited, but references back to other pages that were less clear." No problem here.

"I found the route through his diagram to be very woolly." Nothing to do with copyvio issues.

"I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training." Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both flow charts, with the same questions, same flow, and same logic.

"I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols." To me, the use of different symbols is superficial, as I said above.

"I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across" Again, to me this is a superficial change.

"I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry." Again, superficial.

"I used the same legalese as Tim Padfield as (this as matter of fact) is the language to use" I think we're in agreement here. But, of course, if this was presented in encyclopedic prose instead of a chart with no intro, you would be quoting and referencing each piece of legalese back to the original legal document, and using your own words inbetween, making it fair use.

"I added the advise Not on Commons and the correct Wiki copyright tags to all red outlined output boxes". This is where we get into a gray area. My understanding is that small additions like this aren't enough. But it's not clear-cut, so I listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems rather than speedying it.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Good morning; thanks for the clarification. Lets get down to business. I haven't referred to this page since I wrote it, having moved on into another Wiki area, but it is useful to examine the concepts.

"I recast the logic, in a way that was easier to be followed by someone with CS training." Frankly, I'm not sure what you mean here. They are both flow charts, with the same questions, same flow, and same logic. Technically, Tims work is not a flow chart as it does not obey the fundamental rules. He is attempting to do a Process Flowchart-using the constraints of a Wordprocessing system, without distinguishing between process and decision. We should test whether correcting that is an act of creation. In colloquial language they are flowcharts.

• Same question: but they are a matter of legal fact, so we can't copyvio by using them. We should test if this is correct.
• Same flow: the test is simply the number of statement boxes (outputs). Tim uses 8-(artistic choice) I use 12. When he made his representation he chose to break the flowchart convention to restrict the number of output boxes to 8 so they would fit on the page. With the same information, I chose to adhere to the flowchart convention, and place my statement boxes at the end of each logical flow- that to me is sufficient Original work. If the flow were the same I would agree with you. We should test whether adhering to the convention is an act of creation.
• Same logic: (two intrepretations on word logic) 1. Yes, this is a different rendering of legal logic. 2: No. The fact that the flow is different, means the flowchart logic is different

"I recast the work to distinguish between questions, and statements by using different symbols." To me, the use of different symbols is superficial, as I said above. Using a different stylistic convention for a symbol is a clear no no. What I have done is to differentiate the meaning implied by a box and separated out questions from statements, then rendered them in a form that is as close the BS4058:1973 and BS6224:1982 as is possible within the limitations of Wikimedias table rendering.

"I recast the rendereing of the diagram so all nos go down and all yeses go across" Again, to me this is a superficial change.

If the diagram remained the same, but portrait rather than landscape, a reflection or rotation- I would agree. In that it give a fundamentally different shape, I can't see that superficial is right. The fact that I, humble user can now actually navigate through the diagram and consistently get the same result, (which is why I started to re-render it) is a major act of creation! We should test whether this is an act of creation.

"I recast the logic, so each blue shaded question box had one point of entry, two points of exit, and each red outlined output boxes had a single point of entry." Again, superficial. No: fundamental. A statement box can only ever have one point of entry. Each function has a separate symbol. Correcting Tims mistakes (design choices) creates Original work.. You are absolutly right that changing the bgcolor or shape of a symbol would not be sufficient, but I have done far more than that. We should test whether correcting that is an act of creation.

I do hope, that demonstrates why I was requesting a longer response. I would like to say that when I was drawing up the flowchart that I had ploughed a different way though some of the questions. I am sure I did, though I can't find it now and what it was, and whether I reverted it I just can't remember. Anyway the photographs I was trying to upload failed all the tests- and have to be used as Fair Use. Still, I am going to put on some coffee and you are welcome to join me.--ClemRutter (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Clemrutter - I was asked to review this and this is certainly not a clear-cut case, but here's my opinion. The derivative diagram by you exactly duplicates the structure of the original diagram, which is not dictated by the laws that it claims to represent but is a creative contribution of the original author, Tim Padfield. Although the changes are probably substantial enough to earn a copyright of their own, I don't think they're substantial enough to discount the contribution of the original author.

The best solution that I can see is that someone can create their own diagram based directly on the underlying law, or prose summaries of those laws, without consulting Padfield's diagram. The fact that such a diagram would almost certainly differ in structure highlights the issue here. Dcoetzee 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed vandalism of Beavis and Butthead

Hello, you sent me a message claiming that I vandalized the Wiki of "Beavis and Butthead". However, I did not do so and I have never even been on the page before. I'm not sure if it was an IP error or what, but no one using this computer has ever been on that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.0.133 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit back in February that triggered the message. Someone with that IP definitely scrawled on the page, but as it says in the box at the bottom of your IP's talk page "Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users." If you didn't do it, don't worry about it, but getting an account and logging in will prevent you from getting messages not meant for you. HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] reference for anjarakandy

thank you for your coments on my new project i had added a new page for anjarakandy and working on it while time permits, your suggessions are welcome and i might need help in some area too. regards AG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raamah (talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of very helpful links in the welcome message I left for you. Also, Wikipedia:Writing better articles has some really great suggestions. HTH!

Also, when you leave a comment on a talk page, be sure to sign it by typing ~~~~ at the end, or by pressing the button above the edit box that looks like a squiggle (it's supposed to be a portion of a signature. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical utility of diagnostic tests

Hello, You put some things as 'orphan' and 'wiki'above the text 'Clinical utility of diagnostic tests'. So I categorized, added some links and added references. May I ask you to omit those mentioned things? Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel soete (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is still an orphan, but you've taken care of the {{wikify}} and {{deadend}} issues, so feel free to delete those tags yourself. Thanks for the great work!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question

In an AN thread about Hell in a Bucket you wrote the following aside: "(although ThaddeusB got notability and importance mixed up)." I have tried to help this editor understand our guidelines quite a bit (I've written him several log explanations, some of which are archived now), so hopefully I didn't say anything too far off base. Can you please point out exactly where I goofed for my own knowledge. I'd like to think I have a pretty good understanding of policy, so perhaps I just misspoke or was unclear; but in case I was actually wrong, I'd like to correct myself/my thinking.

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to explain. For example, you wrote "Only people and companies can be speedy deleted as non-notable" and "To avoid speedy deletion, an article only needs to assert notability". But if you read A7, it says "An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability."

I have a feeling you understand the application, but just got the words mixed up, because you went on to say "Additionally, the bar to asserting notability is pretty low. Although it varies form admin to admin, generally statements like "Bob Smith is a successful movie producer" or "The Junk Band is a popular rock band in the Phoenix area" are considered assertions of notability." These are just assertions of importance -- an assertion of notability would be something like "Movie producer Bob Smith has been the subject of several biographies and his life story will soon be a motion picture".

Sounds nitpicky, but with an editor like this who feels a lack of references is enough to nom for deletion, it's often important to keep the terms straight. I see a strong possibility that he can become a good editor if he works on a few issues -- thanks for taking the time to work with him. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you are saying - I used the word "notable" which has a specific definition in Wikipedia, when I should have really used the more general word "importance." I assure you, it was a poor word choice and nothing more. :) This was at least the third time I'd tried to council him on the correct use of speedy tags, and indeed some of my advice actually resembles what you wrote pretty closely. (Feel free to see his talk archives if you like.) I certainly agree that in all but the worst cases (attack pages for example) there is no reason not to give the new page creator a chance to develop their article before it gets tagged. When I personally do NPP (which is pretty rare), I either go to the back of the queue or use the tag search to find articles that are likely to have specific problems - for example large unwikified articles are often copyvios. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for the advice - I will definitely choose my words more carefully to avoid any possible confusion in the future. :) Also, I wrote my reply after reading the first version of what you wrote in case it wasn't clear why "resembles what you wrote" part doesn't make much sense anymore. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL -- I just knew as I rewrote it that I'd get busted. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hell in a Bucket

I'm still needing help with this user. Check the talk page, he's blatantly admitting that he's going entirely off his own opinion and throwing WP policy out the window. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

He's about to head off to the wilderness for a bit, so let's just see how he reacts after a short break to think things through. Drop me a line if there's more problems after he gets back.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: F1 2010 (video game)

I am happy to do that. I just reverted one; however, on the IP's talk page, you've said he will be blocked, which obviously I can't do. But I'm happy to post the message on other people's talk pages in the future. Darth Newdar (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

IP now blocked for 31 hours. If they've had a recent final warning and they do it again, drop me a line or report to AIV. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)