User talk:Martin Ottmann

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Martin Ottmann, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:RTC-1.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RTC-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Application-8718-CSI.pdf

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Application-8718-CSI.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Application-8718-SMI.pdf

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Application-8718-SMI.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

If I were you I would respond to that question asked of you if you have the actual FOIA request, because that in addition to the document would probably be sufficient to show that the federal government did publicly release the information. Also, I would highly suggest that instead of uploading all of these images here, any images that are public domain should be uploaded instead to Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org -- Cirt (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your response. I have somehow the problem resolved for the time being. Check out the the discussion.

What I don't understand is why you propose Wikimedia Commons for uploading these documents. What is better there? I thought that I should encyclopedical content upload on wikipedia and I regard these documents as such, as they are references. Another problem on wikimedia is that you have to upload "original" federal government documents, which would cause a huge problem for the IRS records. Wikipedia on the other hand is not that strict.

Another question: I have a shitload of OSA documents from Greece and Russia. They were obtained from the courts and the federal prosecutor's office - public record. How can I upload them here? Greetings. Geo1967 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSA Docs are still copyright even if public record, So based on my current understanding of policy

here they cannot be uploaded on any WMF project, Sorry. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if they are exhibits in a court record, as it is the case with the Greek OSA documents?Geo1967 (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that even though they were cited as evidence in a court case, that fact did not change thier copyright status. You need to speak a lawyer, as Wikipedia cannot give legal advice Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borrowed Robes....

No I am NOT an admin, as you claimed in your enquiry to Cirt. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not claimed it, I just thought you were one. Geo1967 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK then :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template for the CoS/IRS documents

That is excellent :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me

Why your mass uploading of documents is not an WP:OR issue. Thanks. Shutterbug (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

Because it's not *original research*, because I am providing *verifiable references*. Read the article again, which you are refering to. Have a good day.Martin Ottmann (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain documents and Wikimedia Commons

I highly recommend that instead of uploading all of these public domain documents to Wikipedia directly, you instead upload them to Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org That way, the files could be shared across other wikimedia projects in other languages. Let me know if you need any help/advice figuring that out. Cirt (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before I'll go any further into that: when you upload a US government document on wikimedia commons, the license category, which you have to choose, states: "Original work of the US Federal government". The documents, which I had uploaded, are not "original works". They are public record of the Federal government, but not "original work".

"License: Works made *by* employees of the U.S. federal government or its agencies (such as the NOAA, the USFWS, the NPS, and many others) as part of their duties are in the public domain in the U.S. [...]"

That's it. Martin Ottmann (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if they are public domain they are public domain, and can be on Wikimedia Commons. I am sure they must have an appropriate license tag for that. I think [1] is appropriate for documents entered into public record in a United States Federal Court. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for user name change onWikimedia Commons

I am currently requesting a user name change on Wikimedia Commons from "Geo1967" to "Martin Ottmann". Martin Ottmann (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RTC-symbol.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:RTC-symbol.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Application-501-CoSWUS.pdf

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Application-501-CoSWUS.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -Nard 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional suggestion

Good luck with your work moving stuff to Wikimedia Commons. An additional suggestion would be to also have transcribed versions of text documents at Wikisource, which could prove to be quite useful for research purposes. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:CoS-IRS

Template:CoS-IRS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. ViperSnake151 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for some outside advice regarding this, will keep you posted but at the moment still waiting for feedback/clarification myself. Cirt (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks a lot. Martin Ottmann (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any event until we get more clarity on this particular issue I'd suggest you hold off on further uploads of this nature, instead it might be helpful to work on documents related to federal court cases at sister projects Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They deleted about 30% of my Scientology-related uploads on wikipedia within the past 24 hours. I am not doing anything anymore for a while. I am sick and tired of it.Martin Ottmann (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay perhaps a break is a good idea. I am sorry I have not been more helpful but I have not been able to get more knowledgeable feedback on this. If need be the images could always be reuploaded or even restored from deletion later on if the copyright issues are nailed down and turn out to be okay - but there are plenty of other ways to be helpful and contribute to this topic in other areas. We'd love for you to continue to contribute but a break might be best for now. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:License-Agreement-RTC-CSI.pdf

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:License-Agreement-RTC-CSI.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see from your talk page that you're working on transitioning some of these documents to commons; is that something that should delay their deletion here? I note that several of your PDFs are up for Speedy Deletion under I10 - Non images not used in articles. If you'd like to hold off, I'm sure we can use {{hangon}} or some such. Please advise - thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my uploaded pdf-documents have been used in references in a number of articles on Scientology organizations. You guys were quite efficient in deleting half of my uploaded documents. Thank you very much for your "speedy" deleting. Several hours of researching and uploading going down the drain. Couldn't you just fucking wait another 24 hours?? Martin Ottmann (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ottmann: Please calm down and remain civil. Using inappropriate language in discussion is not conducive to positive dialogue and nothing constructive will come of it. Cirt (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many hours and how many days I have spent going through documents, putting them on wikipedia and getting these articles on Scientology organizations in shape? And these people just wipe it away within 24 hours. Who is constructive here?? Sorry, I don't know how else to get my point across here.

In any case, I am going off for a few days. Probably there will be nothing left when I'll come back. Ciao. Martin Ottmann (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RTC-1.jpg

Image:RTC-1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:RTC-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Salix (talk): 10:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated several related images.

Possibly unfree files Covenant-RTC-CSI-AT.pdf etc

Several pdf files that you uploaded, Image:Covenant-RTC-CSI-AT.pdf, Image:Declaration Guillaume Lesevre 1994.pdf, Image:Declaration Jonathan Epstein 1994.pdf, Image:Declaration Marc Yager 1994.pdf, Image:Declaration Monique Yingling 1994.pdf, Image:Declaration Norman Starkey 1994.pdf, Image:Declaration Raymond Mithoff 1994.pdf, Image:Declaration Thomas Spring 1994.pdf, and Image:Declaration William Walsh 1994.pdf‎ have been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because their copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the files' copyright status cannot be verified, they may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description pages. You are welcome to add comments to their entry at the discussion if you are interested in them not being deleted. Thank you. —teb728 t c 05:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The first one was deleted, the rest I moved to Commons. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Scientology International

Is there a reason you're undoing my edits to Church of Scientology International? Like this, where Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly say that the corrections I made were appropriate. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 10:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting sister project

You may find Wikisource to be a fun sister project to work on. Here are some interesting documents relating to Scientology, and some of those areas could use additional documents and perhaps also index pages to flesh things out a bit more. Also, could you please enable your email in Special:Preferences? Cirt (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my e-mail address to my account. I am aware about wikisource, but first the whole mess in the Scientology-related articles need to be cleaned up. I am talking about the links that go nowhere, after these people removed all the files. I have begun to upload some IRS letters on commons, which were actually sent from the IRS. For the rest I have not yet figured out what to do. Maybe I have to find a coverletter from the IRS which makes it clear that the documents come from the IRS itself. Martin Ottmann (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you FOIA certain documents from the U.S. federal government, and include the FOIA cover letter, that would help. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Jayen466.

For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
Other restrictions :
- Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
- ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Martin Ottmann. 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]