text:
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material

Proposal 14
For the record, CSD proposal #14 read ''"Articles consisting entirely of material copied from an existing web page, if such text is an advertisement, or unverifiable." (should be speedily deletable)''. It was voted down because this phrasing was redundant with the copyvio process. Radiant_ >|< 17:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations), where a similar proposal was rejected in January. —Cryptic (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New user errors
The proposal justification says It would also be unusual for a copyrighted work to be legally uploaded and the editor not make any assertion of permission.

I belive this is incorrect, and that people copying content from their own sites, wihich have copyright notices, is a fairly common event. Also frequent are claims that an uplaoder has permission from an organization for which s/he works (often a non-profit) to upload comment. in both cases these claims are typically made ONLY after the user is contacted or sees the copyvio notice. DES (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as i am aware there is much more stuff without permission than with. Plus, as stated, the material can be re-uploaded properly with ease (as it exists in the copied source). Normally people who copy material legally add a reference to the webpage, even if they do not state it is with permission, as far as i am concerned this would breach the parameters and force it through wp:cp, maybe the parameters could be re-worded to make this more obvious. thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Both of the above individuals are correct—the bulk of unsourced apparent copyvio material is a copyvio per Martin/Bluemoose, but a significant number (in absolute terms) of apparent copyvios turn out to be submitted by people who are eligible to release the material. I've received several polite notes from anonymous or new editors after I flagged their 'copyvio' contributions, and in many cases I've been able to establish appropriate permission did exist.
 * I'd be concerned about the following scenario taking place:
 * Anonymous editor uploads a copy of his personal work that also appears on his website.
 * Article is deleted summarily as copyvio.
 * Anonymous editor says, "Hey! Where'd my article go?"  (Unlike with our current copyvio procedure, there's no pointer to further information left at the original article location.)
 * Anonymous editor resubmits the article.
 * Article is summarily deleted again by another admin. Repeat ad nauseam.
 * Anonymous contributor gives up and leaves, unaware of how to remedy the situation and wondering why MediaWiki is 'broken'.
 * While I would actually support being able to speedy copyvio contributions, it's worthwhile to consider the potential for collateral damage, and how it might be ameliorated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The same potential exists for editors who persistently upload articles about people but do not assert the notability, hence article is deleted, they re-upload it, we delete again........ we happily deleted that stuff. A potential solution to the matter may be a requirement that the uploader is notified on their talk page on why it was deleted, but I am not sure if even that is necessary. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't spend much time around WP:CP so I don't know how common it is that copied content is actually intended to be legitimate, but I am wondering if we can phrase this to catch the really illegitimate stuff? What is the proposal was ammended to include only content taken from commercial content providers (e.g. encyclopedias, newspapers, porn sites)?  This would exclude "People to Save the Spotted Mink", "Uncle Joe's House of Yarn", and other non-profits that might actually be trying to share content, while covering sites I would consider truly unlikely to do so.  Dragons flight 19:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * The parameter "Uploader makes no assertion of permission and there is no chance that we have permission." aims to deal with what you're saying, obviously there is an element of ambiguity, but thats why we have admins. Maybe it could be re-worded to emphasise erring on the side of caution, in the same way that some almost-speedies will go through vfd if there is an element of doubt. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 20:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I like admin judgment as much as the next guy, but I guess I would prefer that a speedy copyvio clause is more along the lines of: "These types of sources, x, y, z, can be assumed to be always be illegimate and thus subject to speedy", rather than one that relies on a non-specific clause like "no chance". An admin would still have to decide whether it accurately falls into one of the forbidden categories, rather than deciding what is "no chance".  The later seems to open up problems like: "Remember when XYZ gave us ABC?  Never would have thought that was legitimate, but see there is always some chance."  Arguments by anecdote just get ugly.  Dragons flight 21:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that the phrase and there is no chance that we have permission is so ambigious as to be useless. If this proposal goes forward, this phrase should be changed to a more objective test for cases where the chance of the situation described above by TenOfAllTrades is highly unlikely. (Otherwise I can foresee lots of arguements at VfU or somewhere about what conditions make it "obvious" that there is "no chance" that wikipedia might have permission.) Specifing "commercial" web site sources might be a way to do that. DES (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I also think that the proposal should require notification on the talk page of the uplaoder (at least if the uplaoder was logged in or seemed to be suing a static IP) as a condition of deletion. (I would favor such a requirement for speedies under A7 too, and i routinely notify edtors whose contriutions i tag with nn-bio myself.) DES (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reposted after edit conflict with Dragons flight

 * OK, so if it said something like and is from a commercial website rather than and there is no chance that we have permission would that be acceptable? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That would be significantly better, IMO. I still think that a delay period would be desireable, but that change might make it less essential. I still think that polite and clear notification of the uploader (when the uploader has a wikipedia talk page) is important, and if there is not to be a delay period, then IMO this becomes essential. I would also favor a "tag and bag" rule if there is to be no delay i.e. that no one, even an admin, could delete these on sight, but rather must tag them with a proper template, and wait for a second editor (an admin) to do the actual deletion, so that at least two people have agreed that the deletion is proper. (I think this would not be a bad idea for most of the speedy categories, except for obvious vandalism ot the gibberish form of patent nonsense).DES (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I do this to a certain extent already. Unless I am absolutely convinced that something I come accross is speediable, I don't delete it but put an apropriate speedy tag on it. This is particularly the case with judgment calls like nn-bio, where using this method two separate people have to agree that it makes no assertion of notability. I think it makes sense in this case to require the judment of two people - even if the first person to spot it is an administrator. I think also that when a page like this is deleted, we note on the talk page (which we wouldn't delete) that a previous version of this page was deleted for being a copyright violation of X. Perhaps we could make it that if a talk page has that notice for the same site that the current copyvio is from then it must go through the existing copyvio system? Thryduulf 10:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the proposal
I think that the proposal should be changed to indicate that a copyvio tag repalce the content for at lwast 48 hours, and deeltion not occur during that time.

This would alllow ignorante users to become aware of their errors (either uplaoding copyrighted contnet, or failing to proeprly indicate that they have permisison) in a clearer and morefreindly way than simply finding the page deleted.

This also makes it more likely that a mirror will pick up the copyvio notice rather than the infringing content, or replace the infringing content with the notice if it had picked up the content. many mirrors react to article deeltions by simply leaving the last version of a deleted article in place. DES (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We speedy delete a range of other types of articles (some in good faith, e.g. no notability asserted), so deleting these is no different, in fact i would say there is more reason to speedy delete patent copyvio than there is biographies with no notability asserted. I don't think many people don't realise you are not legally allowed to cut n' paste from a copyrighted webpage, and even if they don't then maybe the big warning on the edit screen saying DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! would be a giveaway! Copyright violators know what they are doing.

 * Mirrors can worry about it for themselves, they must be capable of not publishing an article we have deleted, if they choose otherwise then so be it. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it. We run the risk of deleting perfectly licensable content for no real reason. I don't see that there's anything seriously wrong with the process as it is -- leaving a seven-day period for editors to investigate possible copyright violations (and, on a case by case basis, asking for permission). m:Avoid copyright paranoia -- this is a solution looking for a problem. --Ngb?!? 19:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Please describe how perfectly licensable material might be deleted, I think the parameters make this very difficult. Take a look at WP:CP, it is overloaded with obvious deletes, when the people maintaining it could be working on ambiguous cases. This is not a solution looking for a problem, or even a solution for a problem, but a way of making wikipedia more efficient. thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Because the criteria are subjective. Making a judgement that 'there is no chance that we have permission' is impossible without the input of the article creator and/or the copyright holder, which is why the seven-day copyvio period had previously been instituted. It gives a decent period for the article creator to make any claims of ownership or permission and for that claim to be followed up. A decent number of the possible violations listed on WP:CP do turn out to be acceptably licensable when followed up -- from my recent work on the backlog, three or four articles out of the twenty or thirty that get listed each day turn out to be licensable. I even had an article recently where the copyright holder *hadn't* given permission for the material to be used, as the uploader had claimed, but having looked at the site declared she was perfectly happy to. This is the kind of thing we risk deleting on-sight by circumventing the current copyvio procedure. --Ngb?!? 06:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the issues Ngb has raised. More generally, what problem is this proposal trying to solve? Doesn't the existing copyvio procedure cover this adequately? (and in fact, provides more information to the community, since it becomes clear why an article disappeared. Nandesuka 14:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes but the current system is inefficient and very bloated, we speedy delete non-notable biographies, they could be put through the VFD (or should i say AFD), in fact they were put through VFD until recently, but now they are speedied because it was such a waste of time. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not really 'inefficient and bloated', it just doesn't have enough admins working on it (perhaps because we're all here arguing about this instead of clearing the copyvio backlog :-).
 * Basically as far as I can see doing the proper research to determine that 'there is no chance we have permission' is exactly what the copyvio process does. If an admin coming across a possible copyvio isn't doing this research then xe shouldn't be speedying the page (because xe will be unable to conclude that 'there is no chance we have permission'). If xe is doing the research, why can't it be done through the existing procedure?
 * --Ngb?!? 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested clarification
The line that currently reads:

 * The article contains only copyright violation material.

should probably be clarified to specify that the article's entire history (aside from copyvio, stub and other meta-templates) is copyvio. -Sean Curtin 21:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * How about The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags and templates thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Support for the proposal
This is a good proposal.

The answer to most objections is simply that violators know what they are doing. Not allowing copying without explicit permission is not some weird idiosyncrasy of Wikipedia; it is standard practice all over the world. This stuff is taught in elementary school. There is no excuse for not knowing about it, and if you know about it, there is no excuse for doing it.

Another point: I think such a policy is necessary, to protect Wikipedia from legal troubles. If you put up a copyvio notice, the violated material is still there, and the copyright is still being violated. When there is some uncertainty, then by all means deal with it the slow way; when there is not, we need a way to get rid of the offending material quickly.

— Nowhither 23:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Note that a copyvio tag normally repalces the offending content except in the page history. This makews it vanish for msot purpsoes, and makes it invisible to search engiens. Note also that we can't generally get into legal trouble until after a copyright owner has made a specific request for the content to be removed. The current procedure is perfectly adaquete to protect wikipedia for any legal liability for copyright infringment. the only reason for teh new procedure is to reduce the load on the current process, and on out volunters. (I am not a lawyer, but i am a moderately serious student of US copyright law, and I am pretty sure of this. Also the foundfation's legal people have not indiacted that our current procedures are inadaquete in any way.) DES (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * And it may be culpable ignorace, but I think that many violaters in fact do not realize what they are doing. i also think that many of those who post copied content to which they do have rights have no idea of what the need to do to make the source and copyright situation clear on wikipedia. DES (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A version I'd like

 * "An article or image that is a patent copyright violation and meets these parameters:"
 * Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service, porn site).
 * The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits.
 * Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely.
 * The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to avoid mirror problem).

This is a version that I would be happy with. I've made a few changes which I would explain as follows:
 * 1) Add "or image": both IFD and CP see a significant share of copyrighted images, no small share of which is misappropriated porn.
 * 2) Incorporate Martin's suggestion to Sean's concern about full history, with the mild addition of "minor edits", since even copyvios may see spelling corrections and the like.
 * 3) Add "commercial content provider": As discussed above it is good to have a clear boundary between what might be okay and what is not okay.  I prefer "commercial content provider" to "commercial website" for a couple reasons.  First, commerical content providers covers the very broad class of people that are trying to make money on their work (and hence are unlikely to give them away).  However, it excludes enterprises which, while commercial, may want to  provide free content to Wikipedia for the purposes of free "advertising".  For example, if Apple wanted to freely post images and descriptions about a new super-duper iPod surely we would want to incorporate that into iPod rather than delete it.  I've heard it said that roughly 10% of advertisements added to Wikipedia are for products notable enough that they end up getting rewritten and preserved as their own article.  I have no idea if it is true, but as it has been a major objection to other anti-advertising speedy proposals, I would like to draw a distinction here that this is about copied content and not advertising.
 * 4) Add "or fair use", self-explanatory.
 * 5) Change the phrase about "no chance": The first item now does a good job of spelling out what is intended. I'm leaving a back door open for things which may be fair use, though I would imagine that being rare.

This isn't necessarily perfect, and won't cover everything, but I think it addresses the major objections while still being good enough to both be likely to be accepted and be useful in combating copying. Comments? Other Objections? Dragons flight 02:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * I like it, thanks. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 08:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is a significant improvement over the inital propsoal, IMO. However, I think there should be either a) a required delay period before anything is deleted under this scheme; or b) a requirement to notify the uploder before or just after tagging items for deletion under this proposal; or c) both. I also think that there should be a requirement that the person tagging pages for deletion under this proposal not be the person who actually does the deeltion, that at least two editors must be involved. With those additions i think i might be able to support this, otherwise i feel i must oppose it. DES (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * DES, I more or less agree with you that notice and a second set of eyes are important, but I disagree that it should be part of this proposal. If anything what you are talking about is more of a meta-proposal for how people should behave in any CSD situation.  Tacking it on to just this one CSD criteria is awkward when there are any number of other criteria where your suggestions would make just as much sense.  Might I suggest you start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion?  Dragons flight 03:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this nis even more important for this particualr criterion than for some others, adn I expect to oppsoe this proposal if it is not included, or at least some response from the proponent to these ideas. DES (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea to help deflate WP:CP. I have wondered in the past why we wait 7 days when almost nothing on WP:CP is ever challenged. Where things are challenged, the surprised newbie usually does so fairly quickly, especially if NP patrol catches it. A question:
 * 1) Why not after 48 hours? What happens at the 48 hour mark?
 * I don't think the argument about mirrors holds water: there's nothing to stop the mirror catching in seconds if they happen to go crawling just after the creation. I think DES's suggestion of adding a mention to the uploader's talk page is good: we already have nothanks for that very purpose. As to two people, well, a lot of speedies get that already and no more harm will be done with this new speedy having a single pair of eyes than there is with any current speedy. Things can always go to VfU or, more likely, simply be re-created by the original editor who will have learnt they need to assert permission. There should be a clause saying "if the assertion is disputed, it should be taken to WP:CP instead".-Splash 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * 48 hours was just to make it less likely that mirrors would catch it, obviously it isn't 100% watertight (although it would surely make it very unlikely), I am however starting to think that scrapping it and requiring a warning on the uploaders talk may be a better idea though, as you suggest. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think all of the changes by Dragons flight are improvements, except the switch to "commercial content provider". I do not think that is good at all. Why should we treat someone's rights with more respect simply because they charge for their content? This sets a particularly bad example, since we want people to respect Wikipedia's licensing, and of course WP does not charge (but does place restrictions on copying). — Nowhither 03:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The reson behind the "commercial content provider" is not that we treat their rights with more respect (althopugh if their rights aare infringed they could probably calim larger damages) but becsue it is far less likely that a commercial source will agree to reelase content under the GFDL. On WP:CP it is not uncommon for an uplaodeer to state that they have permission. In those cases where it is ultimately established that proper permission is available, it is usually from a private, personal site, and less frequently from the site of a non-profit org. it is almost never from the site of a "commercial content provider". The origianl language "no chance that we have permission" is IMO so vague and prone to debate/argument that I could never support a proposal containing that language, no matter what else is included. If yopu don't like this standard, propose some other language for the purpose. It should 1) Avoid pretty much all false positives: i.e. if the criterion is true ther is pretty much no chance of GFDL permission being given (or content being PD), and 2) it must be obviuous and objective. It must be possible from the face of the page and the site from which it is copied whether the criterion is true, with litttle or peferably no research, and there must be no room for argument -- and two sane uninvolved admins must come to the same conclusion in pretty much all cases. The requirement that the site be a "commercial content provider" fits both of those conditions. Note that copyvios that don't fit the proposed conditions will still be dealt with -- via our current procedure. DES (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the proposal to the ammended one by Dragons flight, i know not everyone is 100% happy with it, but are there any widely held problems with it? Personally i think it is good. Also, i moved the summary of criticisms to this page, as it is probably more appropriate here. thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Include Images in this proposal?
I have removed "or image" as that is a different issue really and isnt as much of a problem, plus there is the fair use issue etc. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Forgive me for arguing from self-interest, but in the areas I work in I see 10 times as many imagevios as copyvios on text. I would really to keep that part of the proposal.  Dragons flight 22:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * My main concern is that many could be argued as "fair use" surely? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It is true that many images are uploaded that prove to be copyviuos, and WP:IFD and WP:PUI get backlogged much as WP:CP does. There are several reasons why images are not the same case, however, and perhaps should not be included in the proposal.
 * Fair Use: It is very rare for a plausible calim of fair use to be made for the entire text of an article, particualrly with no non-copied text (required before this proposal would apply). However it is quote common that a plausible fair use claim coud be made on a single image, to be used in connection with a non-copied article.
 * Fair use claims need to be better and more skeptically examined than is now the case, but this can't reasonably be done within the context of speedy deletion. Such claims are now common for imges -- quite possibly too common. They are often made only after the copyright status of an image is challanged.
 * Source issues. Unlike text, it is common for images to be reproduced unchanged in several sources, and there is no easy way to do a web search for instances of an image. Determining if a particualr URL is the original source of an image is much harder and more problematical than for text.
 * Comparisions. It is trivial to determine if text is an exact copy of a source. In the case of an image it is less so, and different images, with different rights, can appear quite simialr (this particularly applies to photos of news events, where many shots are taken from very similar angles at much the same time). Thus determining whether a suspected image is a copy of a purported source is not something always feasible for a single editor or admin.
 * Processing. An image may be rescaled, changed is size, croped or the like before being uplaoded, even when it seesm to be the "identical" image. If the uplaoder does not retain a copy of the changed version offline, then if an image is deleted but it is later shown to be properly released, or to be a valid fair use image, significant work might need to be doen. Unlike text, images can not currently be undeleted.
 * The above reasons are why I tend to oppose including images, or if they are included, to support a mandatory delay period for images (and perhaps for all items) deleted under this proposal. DES (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mirrors
I have severe problems with the proposal, having a few times come close to putting material up for copyvio when it was merely bad written and had been mirrored. The safeguards against some admin speedying through the same natural error are these:
 * No mirror will mirror us within 48 hours.
 * Why not? It's perfectly feasible,
 * Mirrored articles will be wikified
 * Not necessarily; not if the original article isn't.

I intensely dislike discretionary forms of CSD, since they amount to almost unreviewable reliance on the judgment of an admin who has been wading through the slushpile of new articles. I wouldn't trust my own judgment if I'd been doing that. Septentrionalis 13:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I just deleted about 10 articles on the spot for a variety of reasons, I blocked a user yesterday, I am trusted to do that, there is no reason not to trust an admins judgement on whether it is a mirror or not. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 14:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If you are in doubt about whether a site is a mirror or not, AIUI Mirrors and Forks maintains a list of known mirrors. Thryduulf 10:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Message Box
This message box is proposed on Village_pump_%28proposals%29

There, we're talking about file uploads, but I think this could also be used on a normal edit page. However, it should be as small and unintrusive as possible, i.e. a compact text message - but the STOP sign is good, IMHO. And, it should be above the edit box, not below! --Janke | Talk 13:44:24, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

 * The stop sign is reasonable, but I might suggest adjusting the text a bit just in case the editor actually does have permission or is contributing his own work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, my proposal is that this appear at the top of both file upload and edit pages. The heading is extreme, but I think it's appropriate given what happens in practice. Bovlb 14:31:22, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
 * I think putting that on top of the edit page is too much. The fraction of edits which are copyvios is too small (in my opinion) to justify such a bold warning.  Dragons flight 14:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you done new pages patrol recently? 8-)  I also proposed that experienced editors be able to suppress it via CSS.  Perhaps it should be just for article creation, and not for article editing.  The proportion may be small, but I believe it is big enough to be very damaging to Wikipedia in several ways.  Bovlb 14:56:18, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
 * YES! Display it only at page creation, not during "normal" edits - I have a feeling most text copyvios happen in such instances - but maybe I'm wrong? However, I really think it should be very prominent on file upload pages. --Janke | Talk 15:03:12, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
 * Okay--I misunderstood the purpose of the message box. I thought someone was suggesting it be used to notify people whose articles had been (speedy?) deleted as copyvios.  Yes, I think it would be an excellent idea to have it appear whenever a new page is created.  Displaying it for every edit would be a bit much. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This should definitely not appear at the top of every edit page. The text that is there is already too much, and we have to keep in mind that its size on the screen is magnified for people who still use 800x600 resolution. I wouldn't mind a short warning, but this box is waaay too much. — Dan | Talk 23:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself ... I'm going to repeat myself: "... violators know what they are doing. Not allowing copying without explicit permission is not some weird idiosyncrasy of Wikipedia; it is standard practice all over the world. This stuff is taught in elementary school. There is no excuse for not knowing about it, and if you know about it, there is no excuse for doing it." Which means no box is needed. — Nowhither 03:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Nowhiter, I think you are partially wrong. I suspect some violators do know what they are doing, but I strongly suspect that some don't.  From personal experience, I had a friend who assumed that because he could freely download something off the internet that obviously he could take it and do whatever he wanted with it.  In this case, we are talking about certain photographs and images.  Obviously, "if they didn't want me to have them, then why did they put them online?"  For whatever reason my friend knew that copying is bad but associated anything on the internet as being free to copy.  I realize this is a sample size of 1 (and hence very poor statistics), but I would also have to assume that at least some of the people using the internet assume anything they can download is automatically free use.  Dragons flight 04:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, No! All violators don't know what they are doing! See this: User_talk:PaddyBriggs for an example of a copyvio exchange that started to get ugly, until I butted in. --Janke | Talk 07:43:36, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Please also see this discussion: Mediawiki_talk:Newarticletext. Dragons flight 16:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, looking around, I have to agree that it appears many violators do not know what they are doing. However, I still hold that they have no excuse. Again, this is not some odd policy of Wikipedia; it is a worldwide standard. Also, I don't think that adding yet another notice will help anything. (See also the endless warnings found on any mass market product sold in the U.S. these days.) — Nowhither 20:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary of some criticisms and responses
Paraphrased from Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion.

 * Some of the clauses are too subjective.
 * 1) This criteria for speedy deletion is explicitly for patent copyvio material, and as with some of the other criteria for speedy deletion, the common sense of administrators has to be trusted.
 * 2) Patent copyright violation is less subjective than patent nonsense, also a criteria for speedy deletion.
 * 3) The combined effect of the clauses makes it difficult for anything other than text dumps from copyrighted websites to be deleted.

 * How do we know the copied website is not just a wikipedia mirror?
 * 1) A mirror could not possibly copy one of our articles in 48 hours.
 * 2) The clause of almost or totally un-wikified text also makes this very unlikely.

 * It doesn't allow for discussion with new editors who are actually the copyright holders, and haven't notified us of that fact.
 * 1) It would also be unusual for a copyrighted work to be legally uploaded and the editor not make any assertion of permission.
 * 2) If permission is not asserted, we cannot assume that we might have it.
 * 3) By definition, it is easy for the material to be re-uploaded with the correct permissions.

 * The listing on the WP:CP page allows for a cooling off period.
 * 1) Wikipedia never keeps copyvio material, so one is not needed.

Voting
Thew proposal page now says "The wording of the proposal is fixed, since voting has started". Has it? where? if it hasn't I advcise removign thsi wording for now. i also advise announcing in advance the start of voting so that people are not taken by supise, and have a last chance to suggest changes in the wording. That was a seerious problem with the last set of CSD proposals. DES (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry that was because i copied it from another proposal, I have ammended it now. Any suggested changes should be mentioned now! It is advertised in quite a few places, although we could set a date to start the vote, how about the 6th of september? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Notifying the submittor
There has not been much of a response to my earlier suggestiuon that the poropsal include a requirement to notify the content contributionr or uplaoder, at least when a talk page is available. Are you rejecting this suggested admendment? if so, why? DES (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * DES, I agree with you that this is generally a good idea, but I feel it is a little weird to add it as an amendment to this proposal, since I generally feel that notifying the uploader ought to be standard practice on all speedy deletions. I'd like to know how other people feel though.  Dragons flight 16:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * I want it on this proposal, because i think it is more important for this category than any other. An apparent copyvio can be a fine start to an article (or at least an acceptable start) with only meta-data changes, specifically with a properly authorized GFDL release. No other category of speey describes text which is at all likely to be acceptable without at least significant rewriting. Personally i would also favor this requirement for those other speedy criteria that might well be saved by a limited rewrite, particualrly A7, but I think it is most vital on this one, and this is the one currently up for discussion. DES (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I partially agree with you, i guess the things that put me off are 1) other speedies don't require this, although you put foward a good case on this point. and 2) it would be more time consuming to tell uploaders why it was deleted, but i suppose if we use a template it is much quicker. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There is a strong recomendation that we do so in the regular copyvio process, and nothanks, idw-cp, and idw-pui exist for this purpose. WP:PUI in particular regards a listing as invalid or incomplete unless the lister states that s/he has notified the uploader. I see no reason why a process that has less chance for review ought to be less careful to ensure that the uploader is notified. I have reported quite a number of copyvios, and i never found notifing the uploader with one of these templates onerous. DES (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

DES, suggest a wording for this and I'll see what I think. Dragons flight 22:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, on balance I think it is a good idea, as although they should know better, a warning will hopefully reduce the chances of them uploading more copyvio stuff in the future. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have created User:DESiegel/Nothanks-sd. If this proposal passes, this would be moved to Nothanks-sd (or some better name if someone comes up with one). This is a template intended to be placed on the talk page of a user whose article has been tagged for speedy deletion under this proposal. The usage would be. You can test it out from the current location, just remember to prepend "User:DESiegel/" inside the braces. Obviously the wording and format would be subject to discussion. Note that thius tempalte can be availabel and reccomended even if it si not required (as i propose below). DES (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I would propose adding the following text to the proposal: ''When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using Nothanks-sd or an equivalent message. Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin must verify that the user who created the page has been notifed with Nothanks-sd or an equivalent message, on that user's talk page. If the user was not logged in and had not used a consistant IP address, no notification is required.'' DES (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you mean all ip users dont need to be notified or just ones with inconsistent ip usage? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 15:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What I meant was that if there is any reasonable way to notify the user, notification should happen. A logged in user is easy. An IP user using a consistant address should be notified on the talk page associated with that IP address (and optionaly encouraged to register). But if the IP address seems to have been used only for a single edit by that user, there is no point to placing a notification on the IP talk page, because the relevant editor is unlikely to see it. Perhaps my wording above needs to be improved. DES (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am hapy with this, also, having this would make me much happier about speedying copyvio images as dragons flight wants. If there is a consensus (i.e. if dragons flight agrees as well), then add it on. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Note, due to namespace issues a separate template would be needed for image notifications, but only a few words would need to be changed. That doesn't address the fair use questions, of course. DES (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

 * My apologies for delaying the discussion, but I am fairly busy at the moment, and will need another day or so to think about the arguments made here before making a response. Dragons flight 06:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Dragons flight, consider having a separate, and possibly more suitable, proposal for copyvio images, individually they would stand more chance of approval as well. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to stop fighting for the images, much as I might like to be able to speedy some of them. There are any number of images I come across that I know are hopelessly copyvio, but "I know it when I see it", certainly doesn't cut it and I can't see a way to get the criteria in a shape where it can dodge nearly all false deletes. If people have thoughts on that, maybe there can be a seperate proposal, but I don't see it right now. (Which may be a way of saying DES did too good a job of pointing out problems with image deletions :-P ). Anyway, onto the other issue, notification. I would be inclined to cut the message down to just "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using Nothanks-sd or an equivalent message." If you feel you have to have more than that, I would ask that the "must" in sentence two be changed to "should". I don't like the idea that admins "must" do something procedural or it invalidates the deletion, that has a tendendcy for silly VfU fights. Since we are presumably not including images, the need for a "must" is also considerably decreased. I also think there should be some room for play to account for circumstances where someone has been warned about uploading copyvios and keeps doing it. I don't want to get in a situation where people complain they weren't warned "this time". I generally think admins should get to use some discretion here, even though the nominal case should be to have a specific warning was issued each time. Dragons flight 00:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * While I really think it would be better if submittors of copyvio content were warned every time (for one thing it would rapidly be come obvious who are our problem users, and further steps could be taken) I do take your point that we should not provide handles to wikilawyers. What would you think if we kept the wording directed at admins, as wella s that aimed at tagging editors, but replaced all uses of "must" by "should" -- that is, tagging editors should notify, and deleting admins should varify that notification has been done or do it themselves? Would this avoid the problem you foresee with the text above? DES (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Personally, I still think that would be unnecessarily verbose, but would be willing to accept it in the interest of moving forward. Dragons flight 04:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Here is a proposed reveised text, tightened up just a bit: ''When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using Nothanks-sd or an equivalent message. Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should so notify. If the creator was not logged in and did not use a consistant IP address, such notification is unneeded.'' Will that do? DES (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitions
The current proposal uses the term "patent copyright violation" but does not define it. Either the term should be defined or it should be removed as redundant with the other parameters (which it probably is). Eric119 20:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Isnt it self defining? how would you define it? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, uh, how is it different from a non-patent copyright violation? Eric119 02:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This isnt a lagal contract, we don't need to spell it out. It is just as well defined as other criteria for speedy deletion. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 09:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I guess that's all right then. Eric119 02:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Mirrors 2
If we are limiting this to commercial content providers, does that make the clause about mirrors/48 hours/wikification redundant? I guess I am wondering how likely one of the wiki mirrors would be mistaken as a commercial content provider? Dragons flight 16:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Until I saw this, I was baffled about the mirror business. It seems unlikely that someone here would mistake a mirror for a site with original content. Many of them have even have "wikipedia" or "gnu" or "creative commons" on the page, which allows them to be more easily identified. -- Kjkolb 12:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes I think it is unnecessary now. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think you will find that a number of non-compliant mirrors do look remarkably like commercial content providers - look through Forks and mirrors for some examples. DES (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For example compare This link with Bird flu. DES (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For another example, see this link. DES (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For a third example compare Normalized number with this link. This site looks a lot like a commercial site, it has a .com address and a copyright notice. Only if you follow the "terms of use" link do you get any reference to wikipedia, adn i underdstand that even thsi was not present when this site first started mirroring wikipedia content. DES (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me, the 48 hour/wikified rule will deal with these kind of problems very well. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems unwise
Doesn't look like a good idea to me, for there are enough admins here who do not respect copyright law as it is and claim that things which are ineligible for copyright protection or are fair use are copyright infringments. Regrettably, in some cases, even repeated education with case cites and legal references hasn't changed the actions concerned, so I conclude that it's deliberate practice. In the face of such conduct and the unwillingness to remove the admin capability, the current process seems like the way to go. Jamesday 06:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * How often are cut n' paste jobs from commercial websites fair use or ineligible? Martin  08:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

250 edits
I'm not particularly comfortable with a 250 edit requirement before being eligable to vote. I think it's quite possible to be a valid contributing member of wikipedia well before the 250 edit mark. I personally was caught by this rule for the previous CSD vote, and I couldn't quite see why my opinion was less valid simply because I hadn't made as many grammatical corrections to articles as some others. I understand wanting to weed out sock puppets, but 250 seems a little excessive to me. For VfD, isn't the policy to consider sockpuppetry if they have fewer than 20 edits? 20 sounds a lot more reasonable to me, possibly 50. With 250, it also penalizes those who make fewer but more substantial edits, as some have been known to do. Fieari 21:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I copied and pasted it from the other proposals which is why it was 250, there was some disagreement though looking back, I've changed it to 50 now. thanks Martin  21:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no single policy on AfD/VfD. In some cases anon users with a single edit get counted, in other cases the closer enforces a rule of 100 edits or more, and in several cases the closer only decided what the rule would be when closing the debate. This is IMO worse than any clearcut rule would be.  I think 50 is enough to weed out socks, in this case. DES (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the criteria shouldn't be "valid contributing member", but rather "veteran editor well familiar with WP procedure and policy". That correlates with edit count, not perfectly, but better than any other readily-veritable statistic. — Phil Welch 00:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

patent copyright violation
So that is patents and copyrights covered. What about other forms of intellectual property such as trademarks? Seriously, could we call it "obvious copyright violation" or "blatent copyright violation"? --Henrygb 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, blatant copyvio sounds best and means same thing, i can't move it right now because it just says there was no response, i'll try later unless someone beats me to it. Martin  22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we vote on this now?
N (t/c) 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, there don't seem to have been an signifanct commnts in the last few days. but it isn't my proposal. I suggest that the proponsnt pick start and end dates, and annouce the voting period in all the places that the proposal was annouced and any other relevant ones that anyone can think of. DES (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I have removed "porn site" from the list of examples since that seems an unlikely source of copyvio articles (as opposed to images), if people want to suggest another example, be my guess. Otherwise I think it is good to go.  Dragons flight 00:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see a stated time and date for the vote to close. i think this would be a good idea. I also think that the opening of the vote should be announced on the pump and elsewhere. DES (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The page needs to be edited to change the date of vote-start: currently it reads 1 August, whereas voting seems to have started 17 September. Physchim62 10:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of fixing this. Fieari 11:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Wording

 * ...an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should so notify.
 * sounds archaic if not wrong . propose change to
 * ...an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should do so.
 * --Zanaq 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC), Zanaq 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As the drafter of this phrase, i would argue that it is in no way wrong. I do tend to use soemwhat more formal and perhaps even old-fashioned turns of phrase in soem cases, and I don't object to the change (I think this is partly due to the result of editing a previous longer version at the same time that notification was changed from "must" to "should"). DES (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change, since it shortens the text and may improve its readability, and in no way changes the meaning. DES (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we close it now?
It seems like we have agreed on a new CSD (might I suggest A8?), since the vote goes 100 support/2 neutral/6 oppose. So, do we close the vote now? It has about an hour to go before the end date of October 1 comes, and unless a sock-flood comes, it won't dip under the 70% approval cut-off line. Tito xd 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks as though we do, as it's currently 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC). I guess we just wait until an admin gets around to it, probably Martin or DES. --Blackcap | talk 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put up a notice saying that the voting has closed. --Blackcap | talk 05:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Go for it. Just write the final tally on there (Still 100/2/6). Tito xd 06:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been done. :) --Blackcap | talk 06:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * By the way: It's actually 98/2/6—votes 27 and 87 are discounted. I'm going to go check and see if there are any others. --Blackcap | talk 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks like that's it—I thought that support #64 (User:S.M.) was going to be cast out, but I was wrong. Not that it matters, this proposal clearly passes. --Blackcap | talk 06:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've tallied the votes, deleted the tag, added it to passed proposals, and someone's added it to WP:CSD. I'm not really sure if I've done the right thing, so if an admin or someone who's done this before sees that I've messed something up, please tell me. Hope this was the right place to be bold. --Blackcap | talk 05:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of crude oil in Nigeria

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, both on reading the debate and whichever way you do the statistics. -Splash 22:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Types of crude oil in Nigeria
Unimportant list. KeithD (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per ref DV8 2XL 18:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -Satori (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand, rename. Nigeria is one of the major oil exporting countries. Surely there is much to be said about such an important participant in such an important industry. -- BD2412 talk 21:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest renaming it to? KeithD (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep and expand, per BD2412. Tonywalton [[Image:Pentacle_1.svg|15px]] | Talk 21:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, how could this list be described as unimportant? Kappa 23:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Economy of Nigeria (the comprehensive section on the oil industry), or move to Oil industry in Nigeria, of which it could a be a part. Not needed as a separate article, but would make worthy section of bigger article. Sabine's Sunbird 23:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above. Delete' and amend the content to the Economy of Nigerian article People are likely to look for this under Nigeria.  When Types of crude oil in Saudi Arabia gets an article, I'll reconsider.  Dottore So 02:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you voting to delete or to merge? Factitious 12:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:NOT.  —RaD Man (talk) 06:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * per Sabine, merge with Economy of Nigeria. Cmadler 12:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. I'd like to see fewer of the links on it be red. Factitious 12:46, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per Satori. / Peter Isotalo 09:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:1988–89 NHL season

Rangers NOT Flames were the first
The 1927-28 New York Rangers won the Stanley Cup on Montreal Forum ice, defeating the Montreal Maroons. GoodDay 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements on Boards
I don't have any citations for this (to add to the article). But, this is the season when the NHL began having advertisements placed on their Rink Boards. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1988–89 NHL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216033716/http://habsinsideout.com/main/3969 to http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/3969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:1988–89 NHL season


text:
Talk:Expansion card

Power to expansion cards?
how are expanison cards supplied with power - is this dependent on the bus architectur (do buses contain a "power line") —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.64.80.66 (talk • contribs) 18:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * They must do, and presumably two or more pins are reserved for this purpose - I cannot find any information on this subject. Several PCI-E graphics cards on the market now have a molex connector as well because they use so much power.--ChrisJMoor 13:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, the pin assignment of almost every backplane computer bus is available here (in the external links section of this article!). It is...mostly clear which pins are power supply/ground. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the physical bus connectors usually have power pins.--ChrisJMoor 14:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Television set plug-in cards
I have worked on older televisions, namely RCA consoles from the 1970s, and many of them featured a motherboard-like circuit board mounted to a metal chassis, with slots for vertical, plug-in modules. The modular "cards" were single-sided boards. Some of them had molex connectors for use in connecting to other areas of the set as well. I haven't worked on one of these sets in a while but if I do I will take some pictures and propose a writeup about it. Stovetopcookies 22:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

accelerator board —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.115.122 (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

History section incomplete?
Seems the history section misses to mention VAX, S/360, PDP, etc.. and other early computers that most likely proceeded the mentioned ones. Electron9 (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Recursive Definition
The first sentence is recursively defined. It has the word as part of the definition.

Merge
The article Expansion slots has been tagged for merge for nearly a year. I suggest it would be useful to merge any unique content from that article to this, since it's difficult to talk about expansion cards without mentioning the slots they plug into. The slots article is short, fragmentary, and named in the plural which isn't customary for article titles. Any objections? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Interestingly enough, expansion slot (singular) has redirected here since November 2004. Expansion slots redirected here as well until 19 October 2011, when arguably a content fork  was created.  The merge suggestion tag went up less than a month later, on 13 November 2011.  We also have List of computer bus interfaces and Category:Motherboard expansion slot, which needs a "main article".  We also have ROM cartridge and RAM pack which are just external expansion cards enclosed in cartridges—they all connect using edge connectors.  I'll work on sorting it all out, I agree that content needs consolidated. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then there is also Expansion bus. An expansion card fills an expansion slot on an expansion bus.  It's easy to see how the same basic information could be duplicated in three places! Even more if there are "list of" busses/cards/slots articles. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a general term that covers the more general concept of a PCB intended to be attached to some other PCB? A term that includes parallel attachment of smaller mezzanine cards such as FPGA Mezzanine Cards; parallel attachment stacking of same-size PCBs such as typical PC/104 peripheral boards and Arduino shields; and also right-angle attachment add-in cards such as PCI cards that can also be mounted parallel with the help of an intermediate riser card?

I suggest merging daughterboard into the expansion card article. While not exactly the same, the current state of these articles makes it sound like a combined article could cover both of them with only a paragraph or so describing the differences. --DavidCary (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hugely expanded lead
When I discovered that this page effectively functions as the lead for both expansion card and expansion bus I realized that the lead needed to be greatly expanded in order to do justice to both topics.

The previous lead failed to adequately summarize the subject to begin with; it was way way short of an adequate summary of both topics taken together.

I've almost certainly gone too far the other direction with my quick (but expansive) makeover. This should be trimmed and refactored by other editors as they see fit.

However, I would like to say that streamlining the lead at the expense of covering expansion bus as a first-class topic is a step in the wrong direction.

I'm normally a splitter myself, but in this case I can see these two subjects remaining in the same page. What should not happen, however, is that one or the other gets short shrift because of this conjoined status, out of some aesthetic about short, compact leads which underprioritizes thorough coverage.

If we can't find a way to whip this lead into trim while continuing to cover both subjects in sufficient summary depth, then the expedient relief is to byte the bullet and segregate them into Harvard architecture (aka separate articles).

My main goal in the expansion was to mention most of the adjacent considerations. In my own use of Wikipedia, I rarely arrive on a page such as this one wanting to read for ten minutes straight about "expansion card"; I'm usually here because I don't know the official name of an adjacent topic, and I'm merely trying to get my bearings to jump to into a meatier side-topic as soon as possible.

While I didn't say this explicitly, between the lines I made it clear that expansion buses (and expansion interfaces) are also primary cultural artifacts within the computer industry with associated communities such as the electronic hobbyist movement.

When I think about the bigger picture in this light, I suspect that in the long run expansion bus really does deserve it's own private i-cache. — MaxEnt 22:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

 * I also added many images to the lead. On my portrait screen, they all fit alongside the lead nicely; in landscape mode not so much. I'm no great shakes at MediaWiki image layout, so anyone else feel free to mess with this until it's more attractive for more users. — MaxEnt 23:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Expansion card


text:
File:Eddie Vedder on 1993 cover of TIME.jpg

Summary
Eddie Vedder on the cover of the Oct.25, 1993 issue of TIME Magazine.

Originally from the official TIME Magazine website, page located at.

Fair use rationale for Eddie Vedder
This image is being used solely for the purpose of critical commentary of the magazine's cover, in particular for a discussion of how Vedder's photograph was chosen by TIME as a cover illustration representative of "Grunge music" against the artist's will. United States copyright law permits such use of magazine covers at a reduced resolution for the purpose of critical commentary, especially in non-commercial educational works such as Wikipedia.


text:
Southside Virginia Community College

Southside Virginia Community College (SVCC) is a public community college with two campuses in Virginia, one near Alberta in Brunswick County, and the John H. Daniel Campus, just outside Keysville in Charlotte County. It is part of the Virginia Community College System. It was founded in 1970 and has the largest geographic service area of any community college in the state, covering 10 counties and the city of Emporia.

The college offers classes at a number of off-campus sites and online. Major off-campus locations include the Southside Virginia Education Center, in Emporia; Southern Virginia Higher Education Center, in South Boston; Estes Community Center, in Chase City; Lake Country Advanced Knowledge Center, South Hill; and the SVCC Occupational/Technical Center in Blackstone. Along with these major sites, SVCC has many smaller off-campus sites scattered throughout its service region that serve a large number of students.

Alfred A. Roberts is the current president of SVCC. He has served as president since July 2014.

title: Southside Virginia Community College


text:
County of Horne

Horne (also Horn, Hoorn or Hoorne) is a small historic county of the Holy Roman Empire in the present day Netherlands and Belgium. It takes its name from the village Horn, west of Roermond. The residence of the counts of Horne was moved from Horn to Weert in the 15th century.

After the execution in 1568 of Philip de Montmorency who died without male heirs, the Prince-Bishop of Liège, as suzerain of Horne, was declared the direct lord and new count. The bishops ruled the county in personal union. Horne maintained its own laws and customs as well as its financial autonomy. The county included the communes of Neer, Nunhem, Haelen, Buggenum, Roggel, Heythuysen, Horne, Beegden, Geystingen and Ophoven.

It was suppressed in 1795, when it was occupied by the French, and it became part of the French département Meuse-Inférieure.

Lords of Horne

 * Engelbert de Hurne,
 * Engelbert de Hurnen,
 * Henry van Horn, † 1196
 * William,
 * Engelbert,
 * Gerhard van Horn
 * William I., † 1264/65,
 * Engelbert van Horn, 1212/64
 * William II., † 1300/1301,
 * William III., † 1301,
 * Gerhard I., † 1330,
 * Willem IV of Horne (Lord 1330-1343)
 * Gerard II of Horne (Lord 1343-1345)
 * Willem V of Horne (Lord 1345-1357)
 * Dirk Loef of Horne (Lord 1357-1368)
 * Willem VI of Horne (Lord 1368-1405) † 1417,
 * William VII., † 1433,

Counts of Horne

 * Jacob I., † 1488,
 * Jacob II., † 1530,
 * Jacob III., X 1531,
 * John, † 1540
 * Philippe de Montmorency
 * The prince-bishops of Liège, 1568-1795

title: County of Horne


text:
Talk:1989–90 NHL season

I recall that Edmonton was down 3-1 against the Jets in G5, as well as down 3-1 in the series, which is about as deep a hole as a team can dig. The Winnipeg comeback is notable enough for a sentence or two. MaxEnt 08:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Conference standings
Why are the conference standings included in the "Final Standings" section when they had no bearing on playoff qualifying or seeding? This was not implemented until the 1993-94 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tape (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1989–90 NHL season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216033716/http://habsinsideout.com/main/3969 to http://www.habsinsideout.com/main/3969

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:1989–90 NHL season


text: Portal:Finland/box-header

title: Portal:Finland/box-header


text: User talk:208.249.136.2

title: User talk:208.249.136.2


text:
User:Leyetidenancy

À propos
My name is Guillaume Huot. I live in Nancy in France where I was born on december 21 1984.

title: User:Leyetidenancy


text:
Peach (Prince song)

"Peach" is a song by American musician Prince, released in October 1993 by Paisley Park Records and Warner Bros. Records from his 1993 compilations, The Hits 2 and The Hits/The B-Sides. He both wrote and produced the song, featuring a female gasp performed by American actress Kim Basinger. "Peach" peaked at number seven on the US Billboard Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles chart; however, it did peak at number 14 in the United Kingdom. Its B-side, "Nothing Compares 2 U", charted at number 62 on the Billboard Hot R&B Singles chart. Prince performed the song live during his 1993 tour. It was the main sound theme of the Spanish-language talk show Corazón, Corazón in the mid 1990s. The accompanying music video was filmed inside and outside of Prince's resident, Paisley Park, and was included in The Hits Collection on home video.

Release
The B-side is a live version of "Nothing Compares 2 U" in the US, while the UK backed the song with an edit of "My Name Is Prince". In addition, the UK issued two CD singles for "Peach", each backed by hits not on the collection. The first disc contains "Peach", "Mountains", "Partyman", and "Money Don't Matter 2 Night". The second disc contains "Peach", along with "I Wish U Heaven", "Girls & Boys", and "My Name Is Prince". The second disc was sold in a special fold-out collector's case with a placeholder for the first disc, which was sold separately.

Critical reception
Larry Flick from Billboard wrote, "He does one of his many personalities on this rockin' pop ditty, which will please fans of his steamy hit, "Cream". A live and aggressive drum beat kicks pop radio shape into a simple and instantly memorable melody. To go with this different mood is yet another timbre of the Paisley dude's unique voice." The Stud Brothers of Melody Maker viewed it as "a dire hybrid of Shakin' Stevens and Richie Sambora". Pan-European magazine Music & Media commented, "Attention, watch your teeth! This peach is as hard as a coconut, and Prince himself is disguised as wild child Iggy Pop." They added, "It's very different". Mike Soutar from Smash Hits gave "Peach" two out of five, saying, "It sounds like Prince, it's on a topic which Prince has explored more than adequately [...] and it's his favourite colour. It probably sounds just right on a Prince LP."

title: Peach (Prince song)


text:
Israel Institute for Biological Research

Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) is an Israeli research and development laboratory It is under the jurisdiction of the Prime Minister's Office that works in close cooperation with Israeli government agencies. IIBR has many public projects on which it works with international research organizations (governmental and non-governmental) and universities. It has approximately 350 employees, 150 of whom are scientists. Its research findings are often published in national and international scientific publications. It is widely believed to be involved in the manufacturing of biological and chemical weapons. The IIBR is currently developing a COVID-19 vaccine Brilife.

History
IIBR originated with Hemed Bet, the Haganah biological warfare unit, which Alexander Kenyan, then a microbiology student, established in Jaffa in February 1948, shortly before Israeli independence, at the direction of Yigael Yadin, the Haganah's chief operations officer. Ephraim Katzir was Hemed Bet's first commander.

The institute in its current form was founded in 1952, after Hemed Bet relocated to an orange grove near Ness Ziona. It was founded partly in a former Palestinian mansion of Wadi Hunayn. Among the founders were Professor Ernst David Bergmann, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's science adviser and the head of R&D at the Ministry of Defense. Keynan was IIBR's first director. Some of the fields in which IIBR conducts research include:
 * Medical diagnostic techniques
 * Mechanisms of pathogenic diseases
 * Vaccines and pharmaceuticals
 * Protein and enzyme synthesis and engineering
 * Process biotechnology
 * Air pollution risk assessment
 * Environmental detectors and biosensors

The institute is widely suspected of being involved in developing chemical and biological weapons. It is also assumed that the Institute develops vaccines and antidotes for such weapons. While refusing to confirm it, Israel is widely suspected of having developed offensive biological and chemical weapons capabilities, and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad is known to have used biological weapons in assassination missions. Israel has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention and has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Marcus Klingberg, the highest-ranking spy for the Soviet Union ever caught in Israel, served as the IIBR's Deputy Scientific Director. He had joined the IIBR in 1957 and served as Deputy Scientific Director until 1972 as well as Head of the Department of Epidemiology until 1978. He was arrested in 1983 and convicted of espionage. His arrest and sentencing was kept a secret for over a decade.

El Al Flight 1862, which crashed in the Netherlands in 1992, was carrying cargo destined for the Israel Institute for Biological Research which included 190 litres of dimethyl methylphosphonate, which (among many other uses) could be used in the synthesis of Sarin nerve gas, and is now a Chemical Weapons Convention schedule 2 chemical. Israel stated that the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been listed on the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The Dutch foreign ministry confirmed that it had already known about the presence of chemicals on the aircraft. According to the chemical weapons site CWInfo the quantity involved was "too small for the preparation of a militarily useful quantity of Sarin, but would be consistent with making small quantities for testing detection methods and protective clothing".

According to British intelligence writer Gordon Thomas, the facility is surrounded by a high concrete wall topped with sensors, and armed guards patrol its perimeter. No aircraft are allowed to overfly the facility, and it does not appear on any map or telephone directory of the area. Inside the facility, code words and visual identification control access to each area, and there are numerous bombproof sliding doors that can only be opened by swipe cards whose codes are changed every day. Corridors inside the facility are patrolled by guards. Many of the research facilities are deep underground. All employees and their families undergo intense health checks every month.

Life Science Research Israel
Life Science Research Israel (LSRI), a subsidiary of IIBR, is dedicated to the commercial exploitation of innovative technologies developed by IIBR. According to its 2000 annual report, the 2000 budget was 16.6 million NIS (about US$4 million), with revenues of 12.9 million NIS (US$3 million).


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegro

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Nufy8 18:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Pegro
Insulting slang, see previous Pigger. Delete. feydey 18:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete slang DV8 2XL 18:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Pakastanian"? Give me a break. Speedy racist slur. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 19:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Attack page. -- BD2412 talk 21:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * WP has Nigger, Wog and a dab entry for the racist use of Coon, so per precedent "racist slur" isn't a sufficient criterion. However "unverifiable neologism" is. Delete and i'm off for a wash after typing that. Tonywalton | Talk 21:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whilst as the pentagram-man says, we usually keep racial slurs, we don't just keep slang. Last I looked, WINAD. It gets quite a few Google hits, but none actually seem to apply, so it's a neologism too. -Splash 01:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pegro


text:
Santa Monica Studio

Santa Monica Studio is an American video game developer based in Los Angeles. A first-party studio for Sony Interactive Entertainment, it is best known for developing the God of War series. The studio was founded in 1999 by Allan Becker and was located in Santa Monica, California, until relocating to Playa Vista in 2014.

History
Santa Monica Studio was founded in 1999 by Allan Becker, a long-time Sony employee who wanted "to break out of the corporate Foster City group" of Sony Computer Entertainment. The studio was established in an office next to the developer Naughty Dog before moving into a brick building in the suburbs of Santa Monica, California. The building at Penn Station would be occupied for fifteen years. For its first game, the racing title Kinetica, Santa Monica Studio decided to skip the PlayStation console and built the game for the console's then-upcoming successor, the PlayStation 2, instead. A game engine was developed "to give the [PlayStation 2] some legs" for Kinetica and future releases. While the game was developed during the studio's team building phase, producer Shannon Studstill focused on the game's release to prove to Sony that Santa Monica Studio was capable of delivering a product on schedule and within budget. Kinetica was released on time in 2001, with the studio staying under the allocated budget. After publication, Santa Monica Studio shifted to its next project, God of War, while re-using the engine from Kinetica.

The External Development group, a department within Santa Monica Studio separate from internal development teams, acts as both a video game publisher and business incubator for indie game studios, notably Thatgamecompany and its game Journey. Other incubated teams include Broodworks, Eat Sleep Play, Fun Bits, Giant Sparrow, Incognito Entertainment, Q-Games, and Ready at Dawn. Becker left Santa Monica Studio in 2011. By March 2012, Becker had joined Sony's Japan Studio, while Shannon became Santa Monica Studio's "Senior Director of Product Development". In January 2014, Santa Monica Studio announced that it would move from their Penn Station offices to The Reserve, a 20-acre facility on Jefferson Boulevard in Playa Vista, Los Angeles. The 30,000 sqft of office space were "four or five times the size" of their previous Santa Monica office, according to Studstill. At the time, the studio employed roughly 240 people. An undisclosed numbers of staffers were laid off in February that year due to the cancelation of a new intellectual property, including Stig Asmussen, who headed the canceled project. The studio relocation was completed on July 22, 2014, coupled with a new logo, dubbed SMS "Vanguard".

In March 2020, Studstill left Santa Monica Studio to lead a new development studio under Stadia. Subsequently, a long-time employee and previous director of product development for Santa Monica Studio, Yumi Yang, was installed as the developer's studio head.

title: Santa Monica Studio


text:
Harm Jansen

Harm Jansen (born 8 November 1967 in Delft, South Holland) is a Dutch professional road racing cyclist. His career highlight includes winning the 2001 International Tour de Toona and USPRO National Criterium Championships.

Career

 * 1988
 * 1st in Stage 3 OZ Wielerweekend (NED)
 * 1st in Parel van de Veluwe (NED)

 * 1989
 * 1st in General Classification Ruban Granitiers Bretons (FRA)
 * 3rd in Caraco Omloop (NED)

 * 1990
 * 2nd in National Championship, Road, Amateurs, The Netherlands (NED)
 * 3rd in Parel van de Veluwe (NED)

 * 1992
 * 3rd in Stage 9 Olympia's Tour, Uitgeest (NED)

 * 1993
 * 1st in Omloop der Kempen (NED)
 * 1st in Stage 1 Ster van Brabant (NED)
 * 1st in Stage 2 part a Teleflex Tour, Schijndel (NED)
 * 1st in Stage 2 part a Olympia's Tour, Goor (NED)
 * 2nd in Stage 4 Olympia's Tour, Valkenburg (NED)
 * 2nd in Stage 8 Olympia's Tour, Zwolle (NED)

 * 1994
 * 3rd in General Classification Fresca Classic (USA)
 * 2nd in Ster van Zwolle (NED)
 * 1st in Stage 4 Závod Míru, Prostejov (CZE)

 * 1995
 * 3rd in Hel van het Mergelland (NED)
 * 2nd in Stage 5 Geelong Bay Classic Series, Torquay (AUS)
 * 2nd in Stage 5 Olympia's Tour, Meerssen (NED)

 * 1997
 * 1st in General Classification International Cycling Classic (USA)
 * 3rd in Stage 7 Tour of Ohio, Zanesville (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 3 Geelong Bay Classic Series, Torquay (AUS)
 * 2nd in Stage 5 Geelong Bay Classic Series, Saint-Kilda (AUS)
 * 2nd in General Classification Geelong Bay Classic Series (AUS)

 * 1999
 * 1st in Stage 15 Commonwealth Bank Classic (AUS)
 * 1st in General Classification International Cycling Classic (USA)
 * 3rd in USPro Ch'ship (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 3 Rás Tailteann, Killaloe, Clare (IRL)
 * 1st in Stage 5 Rás Tailteann, Sligo (IRL)
 * 1st in Stage 6 Rás Tailteann, Killybegs Donegal (IRL)
 * 1st in Stage 8 Rás Tailteann, Drogheda (IRL)
 * 2nd in Points classification Rás Tailteann (IRL)
 * 1st in Stage 1 Mount Buller Cup, Mansfield (AUS)
 * 1st in Stage 2 Tour of Tasmania, St. Helens (AUS)
 * 1st in Stage 4 Tour of Tasmania, Salamanca (AUS)
 * 1st in Stage 4 Tour of Wellington, Masterton (NZL)
 * 2nd in Stage 6 Tour of Wellington, Wellington (NZL)
 * 1st in Stage 7 Tour of Wellington, Wallaceville (NZL)
 * 2nd in Stage 1 McLane Pacific Classic, Downtown GP (USA)

 * 2000
 * 3rd in General Classification Sea Otter Classic (USA)
 * 2nd in Stage 2 Ster der Beloften, Valkenburg (NED)
 * 2nd in Santa Maria (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 5 Tour de Beauce, St-Georges (CAN)
 * 3rd in General Classification Dayton (USA)
 * 1st in Syracuse, Criterium (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 3 Killington Stage Race (USA)
 * 3rd in General Classification Killington Stage Race (USA)

 * 2001
 * 1st in Stage 3 International Cycling Classic (USA)
 * 2nd in General Classification International Cycling Classic (USA)
 * 2nd in Stage 2 McLane Pacific Classic, Footshill Road Race (USA)

 * 2002
 * 2nd in Stage 1 McLane Pacific Classic, Downtown GP (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 5 Redlands Bicycle Classic, Redlands (USA)

 * 2003
 * 3rd in Proving Grounds (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 5 Vuelta Ciclista de Chile, Pichilemu (CHI)
 * 2nd in Dominguez Hills, Criterium (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 2 International Cycling Classic, Menasha, Wisconsin (USA)
 * 3rd in Stage 3 International Cycling Classic, Manitowoc, Wisconsin (USA)
 * 3rd in Stage 5 International Cycling Classic, Burlington, Wisconsin (USA)
 * 2nd in General Classification International Cycling Classic (USA)
 * 3rd in Stage 2 Cyclefest, Bill Bone GP (USA)
 * 3rd in Stage 3 Cyclefest, Sunday Sizzler (USA)

 * 2004
 * 1st in Garrett Lemire Memorial GP (USA)
 * 1st in Stage 2 International Cycling Classic, Otto Grunski Menasha Classic Criterium (USA)
 * 2nd in Stage 3 International Cycling Classic, First National Bank Maritime Bay Classic (USA)
 * 2nd in Stage 9 International Cycling Classic (USA)
 * 1st in General Classification International Cycling Classic (USA)
 * 2nd in General Classification Cyclefest (USA)

 * 2005
 * 2nd in Mothballs Criterium (USA)
 * 2nd in Valencia Grand Prix (USA)
 * 1st in Torrance (USA)
 * 1st in Garrett Lemire Memorial GP (USA)
 * 1st in Devils Punch Bowl RR (USA)
 * 2nd in Chuck Pontius Criterium (USA)
 * 2nd in HealthNet Barry Wolfe Grand Prix (USA)

title: Harm Jansen


text:
User:Bonnie Ventura

About me -- Bonnie Ventura

I live in the United States and believe that the Internet is a wonderful force for bringing people together all across the world. I support open-source projects and the free flow of information because they are vitally important in building a decentralized society where governments and big corporations no longer have all the power.

title: User:Bonnie Ventura