User talk:Fabrictramp: Difference between revisions

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

Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following: Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. Please sign and date your entry by inserting "~~~~" at the end. Please specify a descriptive subject or headline for a new topic and separate subtopics by ===heading=== lines, if needed. Please indent your posts with one more ":" than what you are replying to, i.e. begin with ":" if replying to an existing topic and "::" 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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would like to add a new compound word to Wikipedia...the issue is that I went through the process of adding this word and then it was automatically deleted. Can you help me work in the system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamiewk (talk • contribs) 00:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just walking out the door, but quickly I can point you to Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms and WP:FIRST. You'll need to show this word is in widespread use before it merits a Wikipedia article. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the Samuel carpenter and fixing it. I was rather tired when I posted and saw all the errors. I was cleaning it up when you made the correction. When you have a chance, please review the article again? No doubt I mis-spelled and have a poor twist of words here and there. Thanks again. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just popping in for a second, but the cleanup looks good. Don't count on me to catch typos -- I can look straight at them and miss them altogether. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, Same here! Take care! Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for fixing my Talk page. This person seems to know everything I'm editing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.117.1.254#Leave_Me_Alone He followed me to a new article (and opposed me there). How can somebody see other people's contributions. I can only see my own. Noloop (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. To see an editor's contributions, click on the history tab of a page they've edited (try it on this page). You'll see each edit, and after the editor, a link to their user page, their talk page, and their contributions. Go ahead and click on the contributions link for any editor listed. Another way is to go to that editor's talk page. Over on the left side, you'll see a link for "user contributions" (try it here -- click on it and you'll see my last 50 contributions. You can keep scrolling back, if you're so inclined, and see all 100,000+ contributions I've made. I can't say it will be exciting reading.) HTH!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr flood had five children from a previous marriage to Beverly Collins according to his book "the way it is"and a "well paid slave" by Brad snyder. The article states he left the country because he was running from bankruptcy which is an opinion. Mr Flood decided to leave the country because of presure from suing MLB the media scalped this guy hounded him everywhere and marked him as an ingrateful negro who was ruining Americas past time he also had 30000 dollars cash from Bob Short owner of the Washington Senators no small sum in those days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphawest69 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to work that in to the article, but you need to do it right. When sources contradict each other, discuss both in the article and state that they contradict each other. (Bill_Veeck#Philadelphia_Phillies contains a good example of how to do that). Just removing sources and passages wholesale, especially without any edit summary, will look like vandalism and be treated as such. I'd suggest you start by proposing a change (and listing your sources, including page numbers) at Talk:Curt Flood. HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this conversation being held here? I've copied the above text to the Curt Flood Talk page for everyone else, but... what the heck? Are there ownership issues here, or something?
— Ω (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would much prefer that it happen at Talk:Curt Flood. Alphawest69 came here as a result of a warning about removing content without an edit summary. So, yes please, let's have all additions to the conversation at Talk:Curt Flood--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha... I was really confused there for a minute!
— Ω (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTDT. Wanna buy the t-shirt? ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. :-) Last June, you opposed my RFA on the grounds that you felt my understanding of deletion policy was a bit shaky. If you get a chance sometime, could you review my recent activities down those lines and let me know if there are still problems I need to address? Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you fixed the signature problem. :) I'll take a look later this afternoon and get back to you. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, congratulations on getting the mop. Hope you're enjoying all the cleanup on aisle 5. :) I do appreciate you asking for feedback,and feel free to ask for it any time -- I was always a bit unsure when I was a new admin who I could ask questions of. I had a sneaking suspicion that my next question would make everyone realize they'd made a huge mistake. *grin*

Second, take everything I say with a grain of salt. I'm pretty much a process stickler when it comes to CSD. Partly because I think it's important to follow that process because so many articles that wind up at CSD are created by new editors, and an incorrect CSD can complete turn off a well-meaning editor from Wikipedia. But at the same time, CSD is crucial to keep out pages that have no business remaining even 7 days. (You know the article type -- "Rachel is pretty and I hope she notices me", "Come buy stuff from our company", "Our band will make it big as soon as we learn to play an instrument" and the ubiquitous "I like cheese". What is it about cheese that is so fascinating to bored middle school students? LOL)

In summary, the deletions I looked at I agree with the end result, but I have some minor quibbles on wording and on one rationale. So, on to specifics.

On Winxnet, Inc, I agree with the deletion, but not the reason. Being "the first Microsoft Certified OCS Partner in Maine and was nominated for Voice Partner of the Year in 2009" would meet my definition of a good faith claim of importance (but not notability); however, the user name Wixy1 would set off the advert alarm bells in my head. G11 really would have been the way to go here, or even a prod.

On Newland School For Girls, the decline is correct, but the edit summary gives me a little pause. A7 doesn't apply to schools, so the edit summary would make one think you didn't know that. (Probably would have been a good idea to drop the speedy tagger a friendly note to that effect.)

Minor wording quibble on two others: on the edit summary where you correctly declined the speedy for Keenan Davis, you said "asserts notability". Actually, it asserts importance, which is enough to avoid speedy. Asserting notability would be something like "Three books have been written about Keenan Davis' life", ie. asserting that there's enough independent reliable sources out there to meet WP:BIO. It's good for an admin to use the terms correctly (and too many flub it up), because understanding the difference between asserting importance and notability trips up a lot of CSD taggers. If an admin can't explain it to them, who can? :) Same issue with the decline of Enoch Cronin.

So, nothing earth-shatteringly bad here, but a little tweaking wouldn't hurt, either. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for the review. :-) Re: Newland School -- yes, I realize I keep forgetting that A7 is limited. :-( With Winxnet, you're right that G11 would have been better, but I've worked for Microsoft partners -- and for Microsoft. I'm also registered as a Microsoft Partner, though not a Certified Partner like Winxnet. Hence, my definition of "claim of notability" is a little more stringent than average in this field. :-) I'll have to more carefully review the importance/notability distinction soon and develop a better approach.

Again, thanks for the feedback, and I appreciate the speedy response. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tnuag (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)You are listing the article on Aircraft In Miniature Limited for deletion. I created the article in order to give a signpost for people with questions on the companies we have bought and it is intended to make it similar to existing company profiles. I am intrigued by the desire to delete it - why?[reply]