User talk:Pencil Pusher~enwikinews

Thanks
Thanks for the article, Pencil Pusher! Dan100 (Talk) 07:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Sorry for any misunderstanding in regard to the copyvio assumption, but all quotes really need to be cited in every paragraph to avoid confusion. This is especially due to the fact that Wikinews articles can have multiple editors and paragraphs may change order location within the story (or be deleted by someone) by the time the final version of the piece is archived. -- Davodd | Talk 00:15, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't throw around "Copyvio" if you don't understand copyright.
Title 17 of U.S. Code defines copyright protection in the US.

Section 102(a) generally lays out the protection:


 * Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression ...

Before I go any further, lets take a quick look at "fixed", shall we. As defined in section 101:


 * A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. A work consisting of sounds, images, or both, that are being transmitted, is "fixed" for purposes of this title if a fixation of the work is being made simultaneously with its transmission.

So, why is this important, say, in the context of congressional testimony?

Well, who is the "author" of testimony? That would be the speaker, right? If the washington post makes a transcript of what the speaker says, under normal circumstances can a reasonable person be lead to believe it was done "under the authority" of the speaker? What about CSPAN's recording -- is that "under the authority"?

No. Not even basic copyright protection attaches to testimony.

And, as if that wasn't enough for you, section 105 states:


 * Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government ...

Now you may not have known the precise legal basis for why congressional testimony is not copyright protected, but you either (1) had a gut feeling that it wasn't protected, or (2) had an incorrect belief that it was protected.

If it was (1), the you are simply dishonest for bringing it up. After I challenged you here http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Memo_shows_Gen._Sanchez_perjured_himself_to_Senate, you knew you were wrong, but you persisted because your ego got in the way.

If it was (2), then you really shouldn't flag someone's work for "copyvio" because you don't have a clue. Let someone who has a better understanding of copyright make those calls. If someone challenges you, then apologize and explain you just thought someone who actually knows the law should look at it. How egotistical is it to stick to your guns when you know you don't have a clue?

So, which was it? Did your ego make you knowingly assert falsehoods, or did your ego make you pretend that you knew what you are talking about?

Pencil Pusher 19:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I just saw on your user page that you are a law student. Well, I guess that answers the question of (1) or (2).  You knew damn well that congressional testimony isn't copyrightable.  Pencil Pusher 19:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In the spirit of Etiquette, I will disregard your personal attacks as things said in the heat of the moment that you (hopefully) regret.
 * To avoid such misunderstanings in the future, when you are using Congressional testimony, be sure to cite it as the source in the first paragraph of each new speaker. It was unclear in the article where the quotes were coming from. No where did it say that the quotes used in the article by Mssrs. Sanchez and Reed were, indeed from the testimony (it may have been implied, but it was unclear). How is the reader to know they were not from interviews with other reporters - the work of other writers? Our job as journalists includes not relying upon the reader to do our work for us via guesswork or gruntwork to track down the sources of quotes we use.
 * Finally, let me turn to the writing style (plese review WN:SG). Perhaps we all should try to look at our stories through the eyes of someone who is unfamiliar with the situation. If the writing was confusing to me, a professional journalist for almost 20 years, there is a good chance it was confusing for others. Imagine being from the United Kingdom and you have family or friends in Iraq and stumble across the article. Sure, you may be interested in the story. But, are left to your own devices to figure out the following:
 * What does ACLU mean?
 * What does "D-RI" in "Jack Reed (D-RI)" mean?
 * What is Snachez a "Lt. Gen." of? Army? Navy?
 * Our international audience may not get what you mean when you use too much American-specific jargon. -- Davodd | Talk 00:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I withdraw my above comments and have striken them out. Pencil Pusher 03:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Pencil Pusher. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Pencil Pusher~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)