Heya Mike! Good to see you here, welcome, and all that stuff. The Wellites are taking over Wikipedia! Get the lawn chairs! --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard! — xaosflux ^Talk 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Welcome! Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike and welcome! I actually saw Godwin's Law use correctly and it really worked to prove that the discussion was over. Have fun with you new job. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all for the nice welcome. MikeGodwin 12:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On JUL-07-2007, article Mike Godwin was linked from slashdot, a high-traffic website.

...reads like a resume. :) It's impressive but maybe it would benefit from some links? in particular to the EFF, to Godwin's Law, to DRM and a bunch more. Ya, it's a wiki but I'm a bit loath to edit other people's user pages since mine is locked down to prevent randoms from editing it. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update it when I have some spare time, which isn't just this minute, Lar. Not that I'm disagreeing with you. MikeGodwin 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly spruced it up. I hope you like it. ←Ben^B4 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also stated this on what I thought was your user talk page, but was your article talk page. Someday, when I get to be notable like you, I want my own article, too. :-) Best wishes, counsellor. Bearian 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see I get to be the first to shake your mop wielding hand. Here is what KillerChihuahua told me when I got mine:

Since you're a lawyer, I better mention that he released it under the GFDL, so I think I'm covered. Best of luck to you, and may you have at least one day when you never hear anything about short men with small moustaches. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like great advice to me! MikeGodwin 01:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are now giving us copyright law guidance in your official capacity, we need to keep track of it. So there's a new page here. Hopefully, this will save you from having to answer the same question 1000 times, and it will allow us to be more consistent in applying the "precedent" promulgated. Please edit or modify the contents of the page as necessary to keep us all on track. Thanks and thanks for your guidance! -- But|seriously|folks  00:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this a little thought, and I think that for now at least I don't want to turn my User Talk page into a general advice page. There's a good reason for this -- an answer that may be appropriate for one case may *seem* appropriate for another but may be distinguishable. I'd rather not risk having my User Talk page be used to give seemingly good but actually inaccurate advice, even accidentally. MikeGodwin 04:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I'm one of the handful of intellectual property lawyers who can be found roaming the metaphorical halls of the project (lately I've been spending most of my time in the relative calm of Wiktionary). In any event, I thought I'd introduce myself, as I'm one of those folks who occasionally gets sucked into the legal debates that tend to arise. Lucky me, I'm a Florida lawyer too, so people who assume liability lies with the servers tap me for opinions (in fact a large portion of my real-world practice is defamation and right of publicity). I had a cordial interaction with Brad Patrick, and hope to have the same with you. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator is deleting images he uploaded under the GFDL because he doesn't want them moved to commons. This is causing a bit of a hoohah on the Administrator's noticeboard/incidents here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BetacommandBot and commons

The admin states that he can revoke the license whenever he feels like, and makes a fairly involved legal argument here: User talk:Neil#Revocation of GFDL on images I have uploaded

This is a bit too much for mice without a law degree, but seems to fall squarely within your court. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, not whenever I feel like, only if no substantive or transformative derivative works have been produced based on the original contribution. Neil ム 19:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would an article that used an image constitute a substantive derivative work even if the original image hadn't been altered? 66.92.70.157 19:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the image was the element being used to substantively amend the article, and not the other way around. The image itself remains unaltered. Neil ム 19:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained that waiving copyright with a release such as the GFDL does not have to be a contract to effectively prevent future enforcement of the copyright on Neil's talk page. ←Ben^B4 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read the entire statement, Ben. As GFDL is a licence, if no amendments or substantive changes have been carried out upon, or derivated content created from, the original submission, then by giving notice to the licencee, the original contributor can, technically, revoke the previously-applied licence from any unaltered contributions they wish. This argument becomes invalid as soon as any alterations take place, though, as the original contributor is then not the sole attributable owner of the content. Neil ム 20:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no lawyer, but the phrase "world-wide, royalty-free license, unlimited in duration" seems to mean that the license lasts forever. I don't see a provision for revoking the license, and I think that a license is like a contract in that unless you make a provision for canceling it, it is binding. But, as I said, I am not a lawyer, I look forward to Mike's interpretation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research on this. Under British law, a license is revocable at any time upon serving notice in writing (I'm not sure what that would entail.) Wikipedia's servers are governed by US law, which allows for license revocation "during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant" 17 USC 203(a)(3). ←Ben^B4 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's for copyright law, not GFDL licencing. Neil ム 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Neil, it says right at the top it says it deals with "license of copyright", secondly, a license is a set of terms regarding a copyright. GFDL information is copyrighted with specific terms. So the two are really the same thing. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related to all this, could you please comment here? It seems important. Cheers, WilyD 14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose we will just have to use our layman's interpretation of the license pending some sort of response. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As WP's unofficial copyright lawyer, yes there is a difference between a license and a copyright. Say I own a car, but I sign a contract which gives you permission to drive it around as you wish. The contract does not divest my ownership of the car, it merely gives you rights to it. If I give or sell ownership of the car to someone else, what they get is a car in which you still have usage rights (this actually happens with property all the time, see Easement). Uploading an image on Wikipedia gives Wikipedia (and all downstream users of Wikipedia) that right to use the image, and is an irrevocable gift of that right. It does not divest the copyright owner of ownership of the copyright, but does bar them from taking action against Wikipedia's use of the image. Once that upload button has been hit, the uploader has no more right to delete the image than any Wikipedian has to delete any image. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(general comment) I know that the specific situation of deleting self-contributed photos initially brought this conversation about, however, I think that when we discuss whether individual actions are acceptable or not, we should be talking in terms of the policies and guidelines of this site (no one has to be a lawyer to do this) rather than in terms of legalities (copyrights and licenses -which expertise as a lawyer is needed). That is to say the guidelines and policies (G&P) should be well within copyright laws and the time to discuss the law is when changes to the G&P are considered, not when individual actions are taken.
A case in point is our Fair Use policy, we don't have to discuss/know whether a photo meets Fair Use or copyright laws (pick a country), our policy is more restrictive, such that if our policy requirements are met (things any editor can discuss) an included image will automatically meet most, if not all, Fair Use laws anywhere (which lawyers can discuss). If current policy doesn't already address this image deletion situation, we should fix the policy, and not necessarily address the legality of the actions taken. Just my 2 cents. R. Baley 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Videmus Omnia and User:Angr have removed Iraqi insurgent group logos here from the Iraqi insurgency article, claiming that we are not allowed ever to use non-free content in galleries. I disagree, pointing out that the instructions at WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use says that non-free image use in galleries is not allowed because it "normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)."

The criterion in question states, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

I claim that including the gallery would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic because they allow readers to identify an insurgent group from its logo, a function that you would expect a comprehensive reference on the topic to serve. Omitting the images removes that very useful ability from the article, impacting readers' understanding, and there's no way to do it with text. As {{logo}} states, use of non-free logos for identification is explicitly permitted under the current policy.

There is a dispute about this at Wikipedia:Fair use review#Iraqi insurgency and Talk:Iraqi insurgency#Logo section. As I know you don't want to use your talk page for answering such questions, would you please reply at Talk:Iraqi insurgency#Logo section? Thank you for your help. ←Ben^B4 14:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need legal input regarding the GFDL and how it interacts with the English Wikipedia's BLP policy. Of particular concern is largescale history deletion such as that at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Berry where the history now shows the first edit being Phil Sandifer even though the vast majority of content was not written by him. There is an ongoing discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Selective_deletions_and_the_GFDL . The consensus seems to be that legal advice is necessary. JoshuaZ 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has raised a concern about Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice; see the talk page for details. It's a guideline that describes the types of medical questions that we avoid answering on the Reference Desks and a primer on how to recognize that a question seeks medical advice.

Your professional opinion would be appreciated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Copyright on highway shields as a page to discuss and determine the copyright status of logos for highways, mainly toll roads. I would especially appreciate your input on the threshold of originality. Thank you. --NE2 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you are the originator of Godwin's Law. Thanks for that one; you've no idea how many hours of entertainment I've had watching individuals (here and elsewhere on the internet) prove your adage correct.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, we at English Wikiquote have been trying to settle some outstanding issues with Wikiquote-related logos, especially commons:Image:Ncwikiquote2trans.png, our official logo, created years ago by q:en:User:Neolux. The problem is that this (and other) logos have apparently inadequate licensing information by current standards (i.e., the ones we're using to justify actively deleting massive numbers of images on Wikipedia), and further do not make clear how the Wikimedia Foundation has the right to hold a copyright on them, as there is no clear statement of the assignment of rights to the Foundation from the creators. I am trying to eliminate the apparent hypocrisy in this situation.

Neolux, who is no longer active on Wikiquote, just passed word to me that he had assigned the rights to his logo to WMF, and that Brad Patrick and Jimmy Wales know about this. (I assume you would be holding this information now.) I would like to translate that into something we can cite on the image description page, so that the chain of copyright licensing is public and unambiguous. Could you point me in the right direction? Do you have some record that I can cite (e.g., "copyright assigned to WMF in private correspondence dated DD MMMM YYYY, on file [wherever]", or similar)? Thanks. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could give you a better answer than this, but I am taking action generally to rationalize and inventory our logos and trademarks, and that's going to take a while. Yours is not the only question about ownership of logos. MikeGodwin 11:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Public domain#Public records has another fascinating legal dispute comprised of non-lawyer editors trying to make sense of conflicting legal authorities. Please help! ←Ben^B4 18:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... was proven again: [1] (it's in Portuguese, but you can take a look at the last paragraph and get the point). Regards, PatríciaR ^msg 09:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

..Did anyone invoked this law against You? (calling you Nazi) SYSS Mouse 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your law was used at DRV yesterday. It is very amazing to see it work. Would you consider adding a user subpage so we can add examples of its use in Wikipedia? -- Jreferee T/C 03:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be... silly? :-) Carcharoth 03:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Mr. Godwin. Based on a recent incident where a violent threat was made in a vandal edit to the Ewing High School (New Jersey) article, there has been some discussion as to whether there should be guidelines to coordinate Wikipedia volunteer's efforts in response to such incidents. You can find relevant discussions at WP:ANI#Terroristic threat made in school article and WP:VPP#Template for ANI emergencies.
My opinion is that our guidance on this should come from the Foundation, perhaps from you personally as its General Counsel. I realize numerous such empty threats must occur from time to time at the various projects, and thus our liability in this regard is extremely minimal, but the consequences of ignoring such a threat that ultimately comes to fruition could be quite severe. If you have the time to give an opinion, here or at WP:WPP, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your time, Satori Son 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you removed the entire Infobox, rather than just the trademarked image. Is there any reason I can't restore the rest of it, including the names of the chairman, the revenue data, etc? Thanks, <eleland/talkedits> 19:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to restore the Infobox. MikeGodwin 19:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed "by request" a bunch of sections of discussions that Geoeg and I were involved in. As long as you're at it, can you go ahead and remove or archive the whole lot? Maybe if we started over we'd do better. Or if you're just removing stuff that seems too controversial or something, how about taking out his rants against me? Dicklyon 01:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just pitch in as an admin who has been watching the Geoeg situation? He has taken your removal as permission to remove many other discussions of his behaviour, including an arbitration request which has not yet been rejected by the Arbitrators or removed by the clerks. I think such removals should best be done by them rather than by the user whose behaviour is under examination. Sam Blacketer 14:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has also removed the COI notice about him, citing Mikegodwin approval. And laughed at us about it. Dicklyon 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike please can you confirm whether you authorised the blanking of sections of the RFA page and archives from admin noticeboards? This seems pretty radical and I would like to understand the reasoning as this appears to be a new policy. Its a long standing convention that you don't remove comments from other users and I'm minded to block Geoeg for this if it hasn't been authorised. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Spartaz. While I could imagine reasons for removing some of the material you removed, some clarification here would be greatly appreciated. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I slept on this but I simply can't see how your agreeing to remove some talk pages can be extended to Geoeg claiming your approval for the removal of a RFAR by the subject of the request. This user has been in the last chance saloon for some time and the disruption that they bring is no longer justified by their very limited contributions. I have therefore blocked them indefinitely. Of course, if I have misinterpreted your intent, you are welcome to reverse me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I hope you will be patient with me for not always being able to explain every detail of a particular editorial choice arising out of a dispute. I'm trying not to fuel the fires, but I can't always tell you why a particular choice was made, for legal reasons. And, yes, I know that my edits don't always solve the particular problem, but I hope they sometimes reduce the problems. MikeGodwin 04:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Logo inclusion in football club season infoboxes there's a Wikipedia editorship debate over whether such use of logos is fair use or not (and, though I don't think it was raised in such terms, there's also the trademark issue; logos are legal chimeras, after all). I've rather WP:BOLDly tagged that entire discussion with {{Stuck}}, because I do not believe it can be resolved other than via WP:OFFICE, i.e. you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton, it seems clear to me that fair use doctrine applies in these cases, but sometimes we pull logos anyway because we have to pick our battles. I'm not the only WP:OFFICE person, as I think you know -- if this is turning into a problem, send me e-mail. MikeGodwin 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike: I have written an explanation on the Lubbers Disc page. --Joel Mc 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added material and asked what's happening? on Lubbers discussion page.--Joel Mc (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Mike!

Someone mentioned the user page way above, in July. Is it possible to cut your user page back from a resume, to a regular user page, maybe refocusing it on your activities for the foundation and on the wiki, and other important information a user here looking up your page might want to know about your role here? Jimmy Wales' page is a good example of how this can be done!

Many thanks, and let me know if anything needs discussing or you need a hand - I'm sure many people will be glad to help!

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FT2. I think I'm okay with my User page as it is. My role as general counsel is already mentioned in the Wikipedia entry about me, and on the Wikimedia.org site. Like other users, I am comfortable being nonstandard in how I present myself on my User page. MikeGodwin (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring an expressed and justified claim for fair use contributes to the erosion of fair use. I thought, I was sure in fact, that you of all people would be for strong fair use, free from any mystic incantations necessary to use it. Sigh! 68.40.34.93 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I'm for strong fair use, free from any mystic incantations to use it. But I'm probably missing your point here. MikeGodwin (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that refers to this statement by Cary Bass that you said we either need permission or an "expressed" fair use justification to use non-free content. That is currently the norm here on Wikipedia; it predates your statement, has always been controversial, and even though it's technically a "guideline," it is treated as the strictest policy and is the only guideline enforced by bots. Wikipedia is so big now that this requirement is having an impact in the real world: people look at Wikipedia and figure what we are doing is the right thing, and it isn't. It impacts expectations of rights holders who otherwise wouldn't bother fair-users with pressure and litigation. If you would mention at WT:NFC that in fact a written justification is not actually needed for fair use, please, it would do a world of good. MilesAgain (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Wikipedia surrendering users' info without a fight. It was stated there that it was not an appropriate discussion forum for the topic of how hard the Foundation should and did fight to prevent revealing the IP addresses of registered users to parties who had been criticized in a Wikipedia article and who subpoenaed the user information. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump policy page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)# Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Two other websites successfully avoided releasing the subpoenaed information. As legal counsel for Wikipedia, the reported non-response to the initial subponea and the later release to the aggrieved party of the IP address of an editor seem to be related to your role. Your comments are welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to this query on Village Pump. MikeGodwin (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please take some time to read this thread and respond at the Village Pump discussion that is referenced on Jimbo's talk page? Several of us have the opinion that Wikia Annex has crossed a line that overtly solicits content and labor from the Wikipedia community that directly benefits the shareholders of Wikia, several of whom are directing the Wikimedia Foundation in key ways. - John Russ Finley (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

at the moment, there's a controversy over at the German Wikipedia about users who license their images as GFDL version 1.2 only (as opposed to the standard GFDL "Version 1.2 or any later version"). Some argue, that the "or any later version" part may not be valid according to German laws because nobody knows how the license text will change in future versions. But there are already plans to ask a German lawyer to look into that, so that's not really the issue I want to talk about.

In the past, some users (who uploaded a huge amount of good pictures) chose to license their works as GFDL because such images can be used in Wikipedia, but are rather difficult (almost impossible) to use in magazines, on posters, etc.. due to requirements such as the need to print the whole license text. However after the recent discussion concerning future versions of the license that would make it compatible to a CC license, it seems those users panicked a bit - as this would mean that their images become much easier to use commercially. So they chose to create a license template that only includes the GFDL version 1.2 (same as {{GFDL 1.2}}), to prevent most commercial usage of their images in the future.

Other users (including myself) think that using such a license to prevent the easy use of free Wikipedia content by others (or trying to make it as difficult as possible) is not in line with one of the main ideas of Wikipedia - creating free contents for everybody to use. Additionally, someone pointed out that the GFDL license text only mentions two licensing options: a) GFDL Version x "or any later version" and b) "GFDL" without a version number.

So, do you or the Foundation have any opinion about such a license template? --Kam Solusar (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is a controversial subject for many, and I don't want to wade into the minutiae of that debate here. I will say that there are ongoing efforts among FSF, Creative Commons, and the Foundation to try to harmonize licensing conventions in ways that both maximize the usability and maintain the propagation of free licensing of content. The fact that these three stakeholders are involved in this discussion should suggest that lots of points of view are being represented, and you also may be sure that any proposed harmonization will be submitted to the affected communities for discussion as well. Human beings being what they are, it is unlikely that any outcome will escape criticism, but I'm generally pretty hopeful about this effort. MikeGodwin (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you're the legal counsel here - however - your resume on the userpage is not in keeping with policy. WP:NOT#WEBSPACE:
Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog or to post your resume', please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet or any hosting included with your Internet account. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration
Don't worry - I won't mess with it - just a heads up KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 16:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike's resume is "information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" because it shows that he works for the Foundation. MilesAgain (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to give WP:UP a read through--the user space is designed to give other editors a bit of information about who they're dealing with, and since Mike is the legal counsel of the Foundation (and will thus be called upon for legal matters), his resume is certainly in line with this. I have some additional comments and questions, but I'll post them on your talk page rather than clutter up Mike's. --jonny-mt 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. Did you guys read WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. The resume is not allowed and

there are other ways to show he's general counsel over here, that keep with the rules of Wikipedia. (Note - This isn't intented to have a nasty tone - rather an incredulous one! ). The friendly alien formerly known as Kosh The Vorlon, from the Vorlon home world, in the Tarus constellation, now currently residing beyond the rim, with Capt. Sheridan! —Preceding comment was added at 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It's entirely appropriate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#WEBSPACE notes that "The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration" (emphasis in the original), a sentiment reflected in WP:UP. A number of active users ("active" being the key word) have CVs or resume-like information on their personal pages, but they are allowed by the community insofar as this information is used to highlight their areas of knowledge and expertise, which in turn is very helpful when considering their work on the project. If you need more verification that this is indeed the current consensus, I encourage you to take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KeyStroke/Subpage 1 for an example of this consensus in action. You are tilting at windmills here, and so rather than get more worked up I suggest you step back and consider the possibility that our arguments are sound. --jonny-mt 03:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I described in the mail I sent you, we would like your feedback at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BusinessWeek's Terms of Use. Thanks in advance. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the Seinfeld and Twin Peaks cases mentioned here [2]. I really hate to ask, and I'm trying to find a way to frame this which doesn't mean you have to give legal advice or answer in a way that could be misinterpreted. Does the community need to look at the way it covers fictional universes, like how much detail it goes into etc. If you can't answer, that's fair enough. Actually it's probably best if you don't, thinking about it, because it might well be misinterpreted. Hmm. Should the community limit its coverage in light of the above, is that a better way of phrasing it? Or should the community discuss limiting its coverage in light of the above? Or, if we did discuss it are their things to bear in mind? Damn, this is hard. I'll leave it there. Like I say, if you can't answer that is fair enough, and I'm sorry to have troubled you, it is just that a number of people have pointed me here to the point that I probably have to come here, if you see what I mean. Hiding T 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a legal standpoint, I see no reason for contributors to worry about coverage of fictional universes, so long as relevant provisions of copyright law, trademark law, etc., are followed. MikeGodwin (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hiding T 11:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harder for me to play a role in DC meetups now that I work in San Francisco. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be brought to your attention that User:WebHamster is using his userpage to host what appears to be child pornography. Despite admins removing the pictures he seems determined to edit war them back in as per here, here, and here. His original image was removed via this AN/I discussion and he has since updated his page with yet another child porn image, the one which is now currently being hosted by wikipedia. Please note that like the previous picture, the current image being hosted has no information declaring that the subject is over 18 years of age, and is found in no other part of the encyclopedia. Given that this user is immune to admin decisions or removals, and in his defense uses comments like this this this, I believe User:WebHamster must be removed from the project immediately, for the integrity of the encyclopedia. Prester John (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced the imagery is child pornography, but if you think I'm wrong about this, properly you should report the user to the FBI. They do forensic analysis of photography all the time. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd make a great attorney general.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not; while he, supra, takes a casual attitude with respect to pornography, a good AG insists on hiding with drapes anything more sexual than a potted plant. At the very least, though, I think a commitment to nominate Goodwin for AG might attract some support (including, quite probably, mine) for your presidential campaign. Joe 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Alexandra Dupré's attorney has issued a letter to the news media (more details here) disputing fair use of her photos. We currently have one of these photos uploaded at Image:New York Post Cover.jpg. Should it be deleted? Nesodak (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for your information:

The Ninth Circuit made a potentially big decision yesterday ... that could significantly increase website companies’ liability for content posted by their users ...

— Publius, Cert the 9th Circuit Before It Kills Again

Bovlb (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told by Mrs.EasterBunny that she sent you proof (in confidence) with people's driving licenses to prove that several people are unique and not socks. You are mentioned here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=203695745&oldid=203694086 Thank you. 165.21.155.109 (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm just covering myself here, no need to reply unless the mood strikes you. You and I exchanged emails today, which I posted verbatim (after the initial formalities) here. As I mentioned, the main point was to make sure that we weren't hurting Wikipedia in any way by removing Jimbo's WP:BLP quote, and also to deflect any possible uninformed "legal opinions" when we admit to WP:VPP what we did :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several discussions underway on whether Wikipedia should make it common practice to provide attribution to authors of a photograph in its caption. I spend a lot of time asking Flickr users to relicense work for use on the site, and have been asked by some of them to include their name in the caption area. These are people who appear to be confused about having to click on the image to find the credits. I imagine they aren't the only users who never click on an image while reading an article. Would it place us on stronger legal footing to attribute works in the caption as well that are licensed under a Creative Commons license? Thanks for your time. (Mind meal (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Incidentally, here is the current discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions. (Mind meal (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I hope you don't consider this impertinent or otherwise inappropriate... but could you please confirm here using your account here at the English Wikipedia which of the two accounts on Commons (commons:User:MikeGodwin and commons:User:MGodwin) is you? If both are you, it's ok, but if not, there'd be an impostor at Commons. Wouldn't be the first time something like this happened... Sorry if you feel I'm being dense about this; we'd just like to be sure we're actually talking with whom we think we're talking with. Regards, Lupo 10:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are me. I've recently begun trying to standardize on MGodwin for all projects except Wikipedia itself. MikeGodwin (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. That's a relief. Lupo 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any specific reason why you removed the Caterpillar Inc. logo in the past? I was just wondering, since I recently created an SVG version for the page, but I was directed to you after you had removed there logo from the page previous to me adding the SVG version. CoolKid1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have raised a question as to whether use of company trademarks as usernames should be forbidden on grounds of trademark infringement. The discussion is here, should you wish to comment/advise. Thank you. JGHowes ^talk - 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mike. I have a request to unprotect Barbara Bauer and redirect it to Barbara Bauer Literary Agency. The article is currently deleted and full-protected. Since there were WP:OFFICE actions involved in the deletion and protection of this article, and particularly given the legal actions involving it, I wanted to ping you on the question before taking action. The relevant discussion on the matter is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive144#Barbara Bauer and your comment at ANI - both are dated May of this year. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, perhaps you wanna look there ? If it is you, we would need a confirmation link (on en.WP is also ok). ----Erkan Yilmaz (talk ?, wiki blog) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't me. MikeGodwin (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was, today, a WP:AN/I report,[3] raising an issue about a user page and claiming that there was a violation of child endangerment laws. The IP editor claims to be an attorney, but did not threaten legal action. The report was civil. However, when it appeared to the editor that administrators weren't going to take action, but were instead debating the law, and irrelevancies as well, the editor posted [this].

The editor was then blocked for making legal threats.[4]

The editor, denying making a legal threat, requested unblock,[5] which was denied.[6]

Both the block and the unblock denial cited WP:NLT which clearly does not apply to the AN/I report. In a response to my note on the IP user Talk page, made on my talk by the blocking administrator, it was said, "Most people don't contact an attorney to bake cookies."[7] What it looks like to me was that the IP editor, an attorney if we take it at face value, saw that she was discussing the matter with non-experts, and simply wanted to discuss it with an expert, who would actually have the power to take action on behalf of Wikipedia. I don't see a shred of hostility or legal threat in the post.

The blocking admins also considered the post to be trolling. I can't eliminate that possibility without verifying the attorney's information, which should be possible, since it was given in the AN/I report. But trolling on that level wouldn't merit a block, unless it was a known abusive user.

By the way, I think I knew you, back at the The WELL, back in the 1980s, I forget what user name I had then, it might have been Abd ul-Rahman or marjan, or Daniel Lomax, but I was pretty active for a while with the Islam conference and others. I remember when the huge 1 gigabyte drive system was filling and people had to start deleting stuff.... --Abd (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that the name given by the IP editor, Ann M. Haralambie, is a published author in the field of child sexual abuse, child custody, and child advocacy. --Abd (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My own provisional view is that someone asking for my contact information is not necessarily making a legal threat.MikeGodwin (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Denise Caruso requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PamD (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was told to notify you. The plagiarism is extensive and examples are provided. Lots of examples :( [8]--Manboobies (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the context of an WP:NFCC-related image deletion debate (related to NFCC#2 "respect for commercial opportunities", and particularly its application to photographs owned by commercial news organisations), somebody quoted you, from memory, to the effect that: "The foundation had Mike take a look at non-free fair use and his response was (to greatly paraphrase) that we're not in any danger of being sued for what we're hosting, that our standing policy is far stricter than it needs to be from that standpoint." {[9]). Being asked for a source, he said he was paraphrasing a Foundation-l mailing list post of yours, but couldn't point to the exact place (here). Could you confirm whether you made any such comments, and perhaps point us to a link? Thanks a lot, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or better, could you simply restate your current position on the issue? --Damiens.rf 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from context what "the issue" is, so am reluctant to state my "current position" about it. Obviously, if someone wants to quote me with regard to something, it's probably best to use a direct citation. MikeGodwin (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear enough. I'll try to provide the context. The issue was a debate sparked by some speedy image deletions, about to what extent NFCC#2 ("Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media"), together with the list of negative examples given at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use, automatically precludes use of images owned by commercial news organisations. There was a wikipedia-process internal issue, about whether such images constitute prima facie speediable material under the letter of NFCC#2, but also a real-life copyright issue about what kinds of sources such a prohibition should apply to. There seems to be a consensus that we should apply it to news agencies like AP; some people are now questioning its application to news sources like bbc.co.uk. A relevant DRV review is currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 24. Georgewilliamherbert was periphrasing you in a related discussion at ANI; his claim was that the strict interpretation of NFCC2 that includes all press images was an arbitrary "reinterpretation" of policy and contrary to your judgment of what was actually necessary in terms of the law.

I suspect he may have been thinking of this [10] posting of yours, but that seems to be saying something rather different from his summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on legal ramifications on the policy proposal? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See [11]. I am not familiar with the entirety of the situation, but there is a complex question over the rights of a person to remove text they added, where such text was copied from an earlier work they themselves may own copyright on. If you could weigh in on the discussion, or perhaps contact the persons involved in the dispute, it may help difuse a situation. None of us really know anything about copyright law, and no one is sure how to proceed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike, earlier today I came across this news release which seem to indicate there exists, in some countries and US states, a legal requirement which would require a private citizen who has witnessed some sort of incident which would harm someone's life to contact the authorities. Not doing so is a criminal misdemeanor and punishable with fines and jail time. There currently exists a discussion here regarding the issue and if Wikipedia editors might fall into some legal jeopardy if they purposefully obstruct or downplay a response to seemingly credible threat of violence. Your opinion is extremely valued as you are the legal mouthpiece for the project. Thank you. Bstone (talk) 18:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also emailed this to you, pursuant to your instructions on the top of this page. Bstone (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, the attribution of images (required by the licenses of most of them, such as GFDL) is done by the image linking to the image description page. However, there are some images which don't - for example, {{Featured article}} (used in every featured article) places a (Image:LinkFA-star.png), which requires attribution. Can you please state what the attribution rules about such images? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, questions about compliance with free licenses, such as GFDL, are best directed to the community, and not to me. If it's not self-evident to the community how to apply the terms of GFDL, it's almost certainly not self-evident to me either.MikeGodwin (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike,

Your POV would be useful here   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you prefer to let us resolve copyright questions surrounding images ourselves, but given the discussion doesn't appear to be having much success, any help you can provide at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rubiks cube.jpg would be appreciated. Nil Einne (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view the image of a Rubik's Cube -- provided that it was taken by an independent photographer and not taken from the Rubik's Cube manufacturer's site or image repository -- as either infringing or a derivative work. I believe the Rubik's Cube manufacturer's statements regarding the company's intellectual-property rights are overbroad. MikeGodwin (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike. There is a thread at AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses which may be of interest to you and the Foundation. It appears that there is a possibility that the Internet Watch Foundation in the United Kingdom may have flagged Wikipedia for inappropriate content. DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with your notice at the top of the page, I have emailed a similar message to your wikimedia.org address. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed this in the Do not add logo. Logo has been removed by Wikimedia's General Counsel due to trademark violation concerns (Just as I was about to add the logo which I uploaded but I have requested a speedy) in the Caterpillar Inc. article. I'm just wondering if the trademark vio was a request from Caterpillar itself? You may email or not explain the reason to me if you don't wish to have it public which is fair. Also Wikipedia may need a template on the top of the article's talk page if an image/logo can't be added or uploaded that way it may help others in the future? Just that I didn't see anything until I went to add the image but then seen something on the talk page almost at the bottom but even then didn't say much. Bidgee (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, it was a copyright argument, not a trademark argument, so we removed it under DMCA's takedown provisions. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion here [12], please ensure in the future that if you edit articles about yourself in en.Wikipedia that you are logged-in to your account. Cla68 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the value of this suggestion, but please consider that one of my goals is to prevent my edits from appearing to represent official Foundation actions.MikeGodwin (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is something wrong with your brain or why did you move all these pages in an act of vandalism?Wandalstouring (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's refering, of course, to this impersonator: [13]. That person has been blocked now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring can apologize anytime he feels like it. ;) MikeGodwin (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you've probably weighed in on this stuff a million times, but you might (or might not) want to weigh in one more time. The issue is that a page was created (and recreated 5 times under two names) called "Criticism of Barack Obama", giving, well, criticism of Barack Obama, without any consensus on any talk page to split up the discussion in that way. I speedied per WP:Attack and WP:BLP, but there's some discussion even by some admins at the deletion review that suggests that perhaps attack pages shouldn't be deleted, they should be given some time to see if they can grow into something more balanced. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that criticisms belong in the main page, if at all. A collection of criticisms separately seems to me to be inconsistent with NPOV.MikeGodwin (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone referenced your comment here from the DR page. I love your law, by the way; violate it all the time. At issue are a few concepts, the first one being that criticism sections themselves are wrong, or else just don't belong on the Obama article. They do of course belong on the Bush article, the Blair, Putin, FDR, (you get the idea) articles but not Obama's - this fact doesn't seem to matter; the first-100-days/honeymoon-period argument is in fact the prObama side's only real argument. So, while you might say (rationally) that criticisms belong *somewhere, I am dealing with people who think criticsm's don't belong anywhere, and certainly can't be organized from the dimension of criticism. They claim that the main article is not the appropriate place, and a "criticism of" article would be a BLP violation, a POV fork, a honey pot, a useless waste of time, or all of the above. They don't really have any other argument except FUD. I'm actually quite not a Republican, an Obama critic, or even much interested in the related politics. The criticisms are almost all crap. But it doesn't matter; criticisms made by notable people are historical, notable, and therefore encyclopedic. I won't even get into the cheap policy games Dank and others have been using. Their FUD argument is a study in obtuse obsession; 'we can't allow a criticism section because it will get overrun by POV critics, and infect other articles, and Obama will look bad and the Republicans will win, and they will start more wars and trash the economy again.' That's a comical characterization, but it at least gives the fictional impression that they have some actual thought process going on. -Stevertigo 02:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at an issue that has come up recently? An admin contacted a user's ISP and told them that the user was committing "libel". I've outlined my concerns about this in this ANI thread. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm being asked for here. MikeGodwin (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a moot point as I have asked for the thread to be closed. Sorry to have bothered you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike! Can I kindly invite you to chime in on the legal aspects of allowing non-free (fair-use) image uploads on the Simple English Wikipedia as outlined and the and . There is some concern in the community bout the legal ramifications in allowing these uploads. I've taken the position that with named editors only uploading, the legal exposure is minimal but I think we need a legal opinion here; not one of a legally well educated but non-lawyer medical doctor. Basically, we need to know the legal pitfalls for us as editors and for WMF as a whole. (I'll also email you) Cheers! :) fr33kman -s- 05:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike,

Please see Wikipedia talk:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#Should we update this to 1.3? and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Ask Free Software Foundation to explicitly amend GFDL 1.2 to allow upgrade to 1.3?. Thank you! NCC-8765 (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL 1.2 expressly says this: "Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation." Seems clear to me that there's no need to amend 1.2 to allow use of 1.3. (That's certainly what the FSF intended.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGodwin (talk • contribs)

Please express your opinion on relicensing at m:Talk:Licensing update#Poll of editing community. Thank you! NCC-8765 (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to repost my comments there. I don't want to give the impression that I've entered a discussion when I don't really have time to follow every on-wiki discussion.MikeGodwin (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion at WP:NFCC had led to the question of whether we can use images that are likely under some copyright but the original copyright holder is unknown (for example, say a photograph taken in the 1930s that is published in a book but the publisher does not list or can provide the photo credits - we can source the photo from the book, but that's not attributing it to the original author and it would still likely be under copyright). From the standpoint of fair use concerns, is attribution of the copyrighted work an issue that can impact whether a use is fair or not, and can this impact how we use such works on WP? If attribution is important to US copyright law, then our NFCC should explicitly require original copyright holder; if attribution is not, then it's up to consensus if this is necessary or not. --MASEM (t) 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you got my account restored on the Wikipedia I decided to come here to thank you for what you tried to do. I have spoken with the Administrators on the Wikipedia and it seems that they just don't understand where I'm coming from. I know now that I'm not alone after doing some research and finding several people out there that don't think the Wikipedia is open at all. Now I can see why (if you have the beliefs and morals people say you have) you said you respect what I'm trying to do with PediaOpeness.org. Under the About US section on our page I mentioned you and put your picture there for people to see. I tried to be respectful. I read the article written up on you here: and I must say they make some good points. Why would a man with your character and standards work with this company? Are you trying to help them overcome their non-openess and acceptance? (you don't have to answer that) These are the thoughts I have. Your currently signed up to openwikipedia.wetpaint.com and not pediaopeness.wetpaint.com. Just wanted to make sure you knew. Neutral777 (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Godwin, I'm so sorry you had to get dragged into the debacle with that Moller character. You're someone genuinely devoted to the ideals of free speech, and also to free speech on the Internet, and I know you gave up some very good opportunities because you believe in what Wikipedia is trying to be. But please, you have so much potential, don't let the people behind Wikipedia take you down with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.146.100 (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...on being chosen as new general counsel. Bearian 23:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the above congratulatory remarks, Mike. I know Steve Jackson well also. Wrote for him when he was editor of the student newspaper at Rice University in the early 1970s, and then again when he was CEO of the Austin-based ISP Illuminati Online in the late 1990s and early 21st century. An unattributed source 15:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mike,

I would like to ask the following questions:

• does the "History" tab fall under definition of the "History section" in GFDL and considered this way?
• does the "История" tab (which is "History" translated in Russian, and used in the MediaWiki Russian user interface) fall under definition of the "History section" in GFDL?

Thank you!

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 13:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Godwin,

Wikipedia's non-free content policy states that "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." This has generally been taken to mean that when a corporation such as the Associated Press sells the right to use an image, we may not use that image on Wikipedia for free. In a noted case from 2007, here, a user had uploaded an AP photo of a plane crash -- it was absolutely non-replaceable, and had a detailed fair use rationale -- but Jimbo himself deleted it as a copyright violation. And the AP sues sites that use their content without permission.

But AP images are frequently timely, of high quality, and useful, so editors frequently upload AP images in good faith thinking that it's acceptable. For instance, File:Corralesx.jpg was uploaded in 2007, and was nominated for deletion here on May 19 of this year. Several people wanted to keep it, so it was not deleted, and it went to deletion review here. The closing admin kept the image with the statement "'keep' closure endorsed. Further discussion should take place at WT:NFCC to clarify the criteria; the issue can be revisited if there is a consensus there that these files are not acceptable." Since then, the image was speedily deleted by another admin, and the issue is back at deletion review here. If this matter concerns the Wikimedia Foundation, it would be beneficial for some statement about AP images be made. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir:

Please help support the human readable version of the new license at Wikipedia talk:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Splargo (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mike Godwin, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Godwin. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Nomination deleted; sockpuppeting trolls blocked. Nothing to see here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a shortish discussion here about the use of photographs of buildings. Basically, there is a disagreement about whether photos of copyrighted buildings in countries without a freedom of panorama are copyrighted in the United States. As this seems to be a legal matter rather than a policy matter, I was wondering if you could shed some light on the situation? J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please confirm receival. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in an interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#File:Man Utd FC .svg. Your comments & suggestions are very much appreciated Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 08:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in a discussion about a proposed policy called Wikipedia:Involuntary Health Consequences that might well fall under the "legal" category. I'm not sure. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, a discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 10 (see also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 16) over whether or not the "disclaimers" from the GFDL license need to be preserved as a part of the migration to CC-BY-SA. My contention is that even though both licenses require maintaining disclaimers, for the single unique case of migration, because we are the party originally publishing the content under CC-BY-SA, we can choose not to publish it with disclaimers. Can you review the license, make a determination, and comment at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 10? Thanks. --B (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This discussion has gone all legalese and that's not my language. It's about the inclusion of a quote as a sidebar of my talk page. If this closes as delete, I'm fine with it. However, this has all the trappings of a precedent setting discussion and is muddied-up with other issues such as my history and the "E&C issues that center on WP:AFD and WP:NOT.

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses

Note that you've already been quoted in there.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• m:Wikimedia Forum#A serious non-free content problem on the English Wikipedia, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's so cool that the guy who invented Godwin's Law is here! You're a celebrity! Bloodbottler (talk)

Hiya,

A wiki called WikiMobiPedia is using an adapted version of the Wikipedia logo, with no permission, [14].

I left a note for the founder a while back [15] but it has been disregarded; another user actually changed it to a big smiley (not the top-left logo, but the huge one on their main page) - but they've reverted.

Not sure what do do, and I was advised to mention it to you. Thanks in anticipation,  Chzz  ►  08:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I was hoping you could help with some more information on the removal of content from Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System, which was a table of the categorisations used in the UK. I gather that someone has complained that this information is copyright?

The information is sourced from a UK Government publication, available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and is therefore in the public domain (certainly in the United Kingdom).

Are you able to give any advice on whether this information can be returned to the mainspace?

Below are some instances of this appearing in published material:

Department of Health Emergency Call Categorisation Datasets 2009

2005/2006 999 call determinants

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OwainDavies, I have not look into this in detail, but at first glance it seems that a company made a legitimate request for removal of copyrighte material, and Cary Bass (a Foundation employee) removed the material. Seeing the information on a Government website that puts its own work in public domain, does not mean that all the material on the website is free. On these government website, all material on the website is not copyrighted in a way that we can use it on Wikipedia. It is likely that some of the content of the website has a pre-existing copyright that is not compatible with our licenses. In any case, please do not revert Foundation staff doing an Office action with an edit summary noting it as such.

Questions need to go on the talk page of the article, or you can contact Foundation staff by email for a prompter reply. This may be a temporary action that will be reviewed and changed later, or one done in error. But either way we need to solve this through discussion with the staff instead of reverting them. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up with Cary and he said that indeed there was a legitimate DMCA notice, and that the only way the material can be returned is someone issuing a DMCA counter-notice. He left a message to that effect on your talk page, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#WikiChiro.org_.2F_ChiroWiki.org

WP:PLAXICO See [16] - it should be deleted instantly - no process should need to be followed for such BLP nonsense - original creator of the page should be given a stern talking to. I've seen you handle similar manners in the past. I have also posted this on Jimbo's page Thanks, 99.150.255.75 (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of rampant vandalism and having all abuse reports ignored by AOL, the community has started a proposal to softblock the entire ISP. My contention is that official attempts to resolve the issue with AOL (by paid employees of the WMF) needs to occur before we seriously consider this. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Throwaway85 (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you'd be amused you were just listed as a reference in the article Bomb-making instructions on the internet! Terrorist! :) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it might be prudent for you to review this new article, and see the relevant WP:ANI thread regarding editor concern. Thanks. Tan | 39 16:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and help Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed "books" for 50-100 dollars each in Amazon.com, with no prior warning before actual purchase Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived link is added. Kasaalan (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike Godwin, two site to make another copy of wikipedia different languages and logo wikimedia foundation.

• kredki.nieruchomosci
• kolorowy.priv

Thank you very much. w:fr:User:FrankyLeRoutier ; FrankyLeRoutier (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there must be something somewhere that I can point the IP to that will answer their question. If you know where it is can you please let me know. Thanks. something lame from CBW 14:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike, just a heads-up on a press story you might miss otherwise; Wikifounder reports Wikiparent to FBI over 'child porn' - I expect you'll see the coverage, but thought you might miss the Reg's spin on things. Best,  Chzz  ►  06:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Register inaccuracies. Most likely intentional.MikeGodwin (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Godwin. Since you were involved in the investigation of User:Keegscee's email abuse, and getting my complaint about that abuse forwarded to the ArbCom, I'm listing you as an involved party in the case. If you have anything to contribute to the discussion, your input is desired. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I'm hoping that you are the right person to check with;

In WP:REUSE, we have;

• 1 Text content

• 1.1 Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribute Share-Alike
• 1.2 Re-use of text under the GNU Free Documentation License
• 1.3 Example notice

The current example notice is all about GFDL, and I think that it would be more helpful to provide an appropriate example under CC.

The text explanations are complicated, and a 'copy paste' example would help, I think. I would imagine (from my attempt at understanding it) that this would do;

An example notice, for an article that uses the Wikipedia article Metasyntactic variable under CC-BY-SA, might read as follows:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/">"Metasyntactic_variable"</a>, which is released under the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0</a>.

I would welcome your comments,  Chzz  ►  03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After checking back here for a few months, I've now suggested it directly on Wikipedia_talk:Reusing_Wikipedia_content#CC_example. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An issue an ANI has arisen which may need your input, vis-a-vis liability to the foundation regarding the presense of certain images. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_WP:LEGAL_situation. --Jayron32 03:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been paying attention to the national news today, you're probably familiar with the "barefoot bandit" who was just captured today. As such, editing of the article on Colton Harris-Moore has naturally increased substantially. The question has arisen over the use of File:Colton Harris-Moore.jpg, and whether this image qualifies as non-replaceable fair-use or not. The image was allegedly taken by the subject himself, using a stolen digital camera that was later found by authorities in Island County, Washington (Time Magazine article on this). The photo, or derivatives thereof, are currently being used by numerous websites all over the Internet, including in the FBI's wanted poster. I originally tagged it as copyrighted, and posted a fair-use rationale in the image, since I'm assuming that technically, copyright is attributed to the subject of the photo, since allegedly he took it. I'm thinking that fair-use should apply since (a) at the time it was uploaded, he was a fugitive, thus making it difficult to obtain a free image. And (b) just because the subject has been captured, doesn't automatically make it "replaceable". If it becomes replaceable, then by all means, let's replace it. But until then, my thinking is that it remains non-replaceable.

There's currently ongoing questions regarding this right now -- here at the village pump and on the talk page of the article itself. One user, Hammersoft, appears to be wikilawyering and citing various policies and is very adamant over removing it, so it would be appreciated if you could add some thoughts or insight on the legality and fair-use of this image. Thanks! WTF? (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Godwin, it has been suggested that your input be sought in reference to the Inclupedia proposal at m:Inclupedia and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Inclupedia. Specifically, this proposal calls for creating a new WMF project, Inclupedia, whose sysops (some of whom might not be sysops on Wikipedia) would be able to view deleted Wikipedia content as part of the necessary maintenance tasks that are central to Inclupedia's work. Users are wondering whether you would be opposed, on legal grounds, to Inclupedia sysops having such access. Thanks, Tisane ^talk/_stalk 16:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For defeating the FBI without winding up in handcuffs. Keegan (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Your reply is the toast of the internet. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go sic 'em, Mike. :D --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was certainly the toast of Jimbo's talkpage. Jeez, whodathunk a flippant remark would gather so much attention?--*Kat* (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you deserved a barnstar, but someone beat me to it! I wonder if the FBI's complaint applies to "Winners Don't Use Drugs" also. In real totalitarianism, everything is mandatory and forbidden. Wnt (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This letter is a work of art, a priceless gem! You seem to have a sense of humor as subtle as it is sharp, along with a sense of style that reasonably merits the term "brilliant". Not to mention a hero's allotment of courage in penning such a forthright reply. I salute you sir, and thank you for your extraordinary service to this project! Doc Tropics 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mike, I was wondering if you could advise on a dispute.

There has been discussion about using a still of Superman from the old Fleisher Superman cartoons to illustrate the List of vegetarians article on Wikipedia Image:Fleishersuperman-big.png. The cartoons are apparently in the public domain, but an editor claims their use would infringe upon the Superman trademark owned by DC. Another editor believes we are free to use trademarked material that has fallen out of copyright. The trouble is these are opinions, not an experienced interpretation of the law and would welcome an expert opinion.

There have been a couple of impartial discussions relevant to this dispute:

Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#List_of_vegetarians_Superman_image_copyright.2Ftrademark_issue

Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Can_.22likeness.22_still_be_copyrighted_in_public_domain_content.3F

Thanks for any help you might be able to give us. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some action at Commons and Wikipedia about a photo of an FBI badge. Your recent letter to the FBI is being cited both as reason to keep and to delete the badge photo from Commons, and editors are trying to interpret specific laws - please advise. Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:FBI Badge.jpg Wnt (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, I'm aware how boring and perennial these discussions are, but I'm bringing this to your attention anyway because the discussions at WT:RFA#New_user_rights (permalink as of now: [17]) seem to be overwhelmingly supportive, for the first time since, well, never. The proposal is to allow "clerks" or whatever to block vandals with accounts that are no more than say 5 days old. This inevitably splits the community on whether the blockers should be able to see deleted pages that these vandals have created, because that's an extra userright, and your position is well-known: non-admins shouldn't be able to see deleted contribs. Would it make a difference to you if clerks could only see deleted pages created by these 5-day-old accounts, and only if the clerk had already pulled up a blocking screen or tool? That would mean, to create liability for the Foundation, a clerk would have to "go rogue" and start invoking blocking tools all over the place where it's not appropriate, and this kind of behavior would stand out like a sore thumb. And ... wouldn't it be more likely to create a legal problem for the Foundation if someone blocking did not have access to the potential vandal's contribs, to make a more informed decision, than if they did? - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, the discussion today at WT:Vandal fighters suggests that this is not the slam bang that it appeared to be at RFA. We'll see. If you'd rather wait til there's a clear proposal, fine by me, although I'd love to hear an opinion if you want to give one. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also at Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention#Completely messed up (end of that section) there's a discussion supportive of a "clerk bit" to allow clerks to view deleted edits. Those of us who have commented there don't understand why this would be a problem from a legal standpoint. That is, if it's a problem for clerks, why isn't it a problem for administrators to see deleted edits? Some clarification would be appreciated. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During a discussion, it came up that there's a typosquatter http://www.wikkipedia.org/ (webcite:[18]). I see the foundation has been active in this area before so thought you might be interested if you didn't already know. Also while trying to work out if anyone had raised this issue before, I came across http://www.wikepedia.biz (webcite:[19]) which even uses one of the wikipedia logos, http://www.wikimwdia.org (webcite:[20]) and http://www.wikkipedia.com/ (webcite:[21]) which is different from the earlier one (.com instead of .org, confused me first) and perhaps the least annoying of the typosquatters. I thought it might be better to leave this message here rather then by e-mail so others see it's been raised. Nil Einne (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that you are leaving. In my opinion, you have been a great help to the organization and your talents will be greatly missed. I wish you all the best in the future. Remember (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too am sorry to hear about your leaving. Although I only found out today that you are the same Godwin that penned the excellent Godwin's Law (which I first became aware of when I read it in an appendix of the book "The Darwin Awards") I can appreciate your work over the years for the foundation. Also, as was mentioned above, your handling of that FBI thing was brilliant. It will be a sad day for the Foundation when you move on, as the Foundation will lose one of their greatest minds. Thank you for all the work you've done. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more to add to the above except weight of numbers. Thank you for your efforts, the Foundation is stronger and healthier by them. Powers ^T 20:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter of your administrative privileges was raised here. FYI. –xeno^talk 16:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified by email of the thread that time forgot --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again =) For greater certainty, could you confirm that you made this edit? –xeno^talk 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can confirm I made the edit about ongoing legal obligations that bind me to Wikimedia Foundation. MikeGodwin (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MGodwin,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 04:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

• Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Wikimapia
• Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Wikimapia
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Thoughts.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Template:Coord_unsourced

It started out as a dispute about WikiMapia being possibly 'unreliable', but other issues came into it.

Whilst you are no longer the official legal representative of the Foundation your rational views would be greatly appreciated, as there seem to be arguments that it is both acceptable, and not acceptable to do GeoCode capture from Google imaging (and sites using it).

Whilst simple facts are not copyrightable in the US, the argument seems to be that Google's Terms of Use appear to not to allow the capture of GeoCode's from it's mapping or imaging, thusly Wikipedians should not be capturing coordinate data using Google's imaging. If the particular clause in Google's ToU isn't actually enforceable then there is no issue (at least in the US).

However, it has been argued by some, that 'geo-code' capture across Wikipedia as whole, from Google' imaging is the creation of 'derived work' or a 'data-extract', which leads to a conflict with so called 'database-rights', which whilst not existing in the US do exist within a number of European countries.

Some questions.

 i) Simple facts are not copyrightable. So if using Google to confirm a GeoCode acceptable ignoring the ToU issue?
ii) Would the 'collective' geo-code capture across WikiPedia, be the creation of a substantial derived data-set?

iii) Is Google's ToU clause about no 'geo-code' capture actually enforceable?

Your feedback on this in the threads concerned would be appreciated. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Godwin. I notice that you reverted the {{dubious}} tag I placed in the Gene Wolfe article[22] without responding in the linked discussion at Talk:Gene Wolfe#Style. Would you care to explain or cite reliable sources for your (apparent) position that the use of unreliable narrators goes against genre conventions?

Mr. Wolfe writes primarily in the Science Fiction, High Fantasy, and Horror genres. Reliable and even omniscient narrators are common in Science Fiction, but this is not a genre convention: unreliable narrators occur too often to be considered anomalous or exceptional. Unreliable narrators are not unusual in Fantasy and are actually very common in Horror. I have read quite a lot of literary criticism of Wolfe's work and do not recall anyone saying that he breaks genre conventions, except in amateur venues and in Wikipedia. My impression is that this is a misleadingly poor way of expressing the fact that his is not your ordinary hack writing. There is broad consensus that his work is exceptional in its sophistication but not, I think, for flouting genre conventions. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded in private mail. MikeGodwin (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please explain why you removed a "multiple issues" template from the A'bunadh article? As far as I can tell, the criticisms included in that tag (at least most of them) seem to still be valid. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The first criticism (unsourced) has stood for six years without anyone's either addressing the issue or complaining about it. The second criticism (original research) is unsupported, but it seems highly unlikely that anyone is basing the listings of ABV content of different batches (for example) based on original research (that is, analysis or inspection of bottles). Most likely it came from a publication, even if the publication isn't listed. The third criticism (orphan) seems irrelevant, since it's the nature of premium cask-strength single-malt scotches of this sort that they don't come up as a topic in other articles very often (if at all). There are other criticisms that might be made (e.g., notability), but I believe the tags I saw were gratuitous, and, in any case, they weren't triggering article improvement. I think the article could be improved, but the way to get there, I think, is to have people look at the article afresh and tackle the improvement project. I had planned to do this myself when I had a little more time. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Of the three problems listed in the "multiple issues" tag, I think the OR problem is basically the same issue as being unsourced - if there was a source, it wouldn't be OR. The article isn't really a complete orphan anymore (it is linked by two other articles), so that tag doesn't belong. I just condensed the three complaints into one - i.e. being unreferenced. I wouldn't think we should remove the tagging (if valid) unless the problem is resolved. Hopefully such a tag can alert the reader to be somewhat skeptical of the content, even if it does not successfully motivate anyone to fix the article content. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an improvement, and I'm okay with it, provisionally. But I don't think "unsourced" logically engails "original research." I doubt the editor who added all those proof numbers for each batch researched that personally. It seems fairly clearly drawn from an external source, even if the source isn't listed.

Still, I think you've improved this. MikeGodwin (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.

Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

simple:User:Fr33kman/Non-free content proposal

Hello! As there is a Wikipedia article about you, you are cordially invited to contribute a short audio recoding of your spoken voice, so that our readers may know what you sound like and how you pronounce your name. Details of how to do so, and examples, are at Wikipedia:Voice intro project. Please feel free to ask for help or clarification on the project talk page, or my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MGodwin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MGodwin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic access for all users to the Deleted pages would, I imagine, create such problems.

Ten years later, what is your estimate for the result when any user can apply for readonly access, signing a contract of non-disclosure?

[23]

--Mick2 (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MGodwin. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Users with indefinitely protected user talk pages". Thank you. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 12 § Wikipedia:Don't call people Nazis

There's an interesting question here of whether this redirect's title is an accurate characterization of your famous observation. I see you're not too active these days, but thought I'd offer you the chance to comment if you'd like. The RfD should be open for at least a week. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, it isn't so much about whether or not it's accurate, it's about the usefulness of the redirect. It's not a common synonym, nor is it easier to type or remember, so it's not useful. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: Accuracy was part of the question, per Beeblebrox' vote there. I didn't say it was the whole question. Either way, @MGodwin, thanks for your response. :) -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 17:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]