User talk:Mikeblas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived to User talk:mikeblas/Archive 01. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.

If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here.
Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
Be civil and assume good faith. Trolling and personal attacks are likely to be removed.
My user talk page is archived automatically by Werdnabot, so
To see older messages please view my archives.

Welcome!

Hello Mikeblas, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 17:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1 Mike Shinoda
2 Question
3 Blu-ray Disc Player Articles
4 Doonesbury, Time cover
5 YouTube
6 Recovering deleted Sara Jay material
7 Adminship
8 what is this "fix" for?
9 Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kikkoman logo.gif)
10 Bermuda Triangle
11 ANTM8
12 Re: vandalism inaction
13 Internet map

[edit] Mike Shinoda

Dear Mikeblas, I've tried to find a solution. Instead of continuing to write "nu metal and rapcore", I've removed "rapcore" from the intro, also because there isn't under Shinoda's picture. Egr, 5/7/2006

[edit] Question

I don't know if this is the proper way to get in touch with mikeblas, but I'll try it.

It appears that mikeblas removed some material that I added to the entry "Radio Receiver". I don't understand what was objectionable about my submission. Can mikeblas or anyone else explain?

Gerry9999 K8EF—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gfoley9999 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Blu-ray Disc Player Articles

I noticed on two BD player articles (the Panasonic DMP-BD10 article, for example) that you added the "reads like an advertisement" template. Why exactly are they considered like adverts, as being a list of specifications doesn't seem to be a reason.Nick 8 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Because a list of specifications reads like an advertisement. In the Panasonic article you link, there's literally no other content. It's just a copy of the specification sheet for the product. That's unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a product catalogue. -- Mikeblas 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doonesbury, Time cover

Can you explain why you don't think the Time cover is fair use? The copyright information on the image page seems to indicate otherwise. Robert K S 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See item number seven under Wikipedia:FU#Counterexamples. -- Mikeblas 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, the uploader failed to provide a Fair Use rationale and explanation, and didn't include source for the image as instructed by template:TIME. -- Mikeblas 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to side with Robert on bullet point one of the copyright notice. I find the whole thing ironic anyway, as Jengod uploaded the image in question AND was the original author of the template you are citing. Have you attempted to contact her to fill in the gaps? --JohnDBuell 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any establishment of fair use in the article or the template. I also don't see any release of rights for use of the image on Wikipedia for non-Fair Use applications in the TOS and legalese on the TIME site, including in the cover archive linked by the template. Do you? -- Mikeblas 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The first point wording says "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover". Unfortunately that's vague. We can agree that we're not discussing the issue of TIME in question (as opposed to, say, a social issue illustrated by the cover, which is done in the Soap Opera article). So what of the cover itself? It's an illustration of the then major characters of Doonesbury, drawn for the magazine by G.B. Trudeau. Thus I don't see how the cover can NOT belong in either the article about Doonesbury or Trudeau. If it would help, one could discuss the various covers that Trudeau has illustrated instead of just TIME, such as Newsweek and Rolling Stone (recent examples of the latter include covers of a wounded B.D. in Gulf War II - prior examples are duplicated on the Doonesbury Flashbacks CD-ROM). Thus you'd get around the claim of using the cover as an illustration of the characters. --JohnDBuell 12:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the article because it's a copyright violation. Using the article to discuss the illustration or the article is Fair Use. Using the article simply to decorate the artilce--which doesn't discuss the illustration or the magazine, or its content--is not Fair Use. Discussing other artwork doesn't help. Again, I think WP:FU makes this perfectly clear; without an explict release from TIME, the cover can't be republished in applications where Fair Use doesn't apply. -- Mikeblas 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Valve? SMF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.145.51.166 (talk • contribs).

[edit] YouTube

See http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/category/legal/. There are tons of talk pages on Wikipedia which state Wikipedia Policy is that the DMCA is the correct means of enforcing copyright issues with YouTube video, not the arbitrary judgement of Wikipedia editors. This has recently been reconfirmed, if you have a question, post it at the Pump or other appropriate page - I do not keep an archive of links on thje subject as it has been resolved, excpet for the few that choose to ignore the issue. Do the research before deleting links, which is wholly inappropriate. Tvccs 10:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are irrelevant. Policy isn't placed on talk pages -- it's on the policy pages. I can't imagine WP:EL being any clearer when it says "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." The links that I deleted are to material that makes no claim of being properly licensed. -- Mikeblas 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:EL as you mentioned - right up top

Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites:

There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

I think that's clear that says YouTube is fine unless you, somehow, KNOW that the links violate copyright. I contend you have no such knowledge. I have posted numerous videos to Wikipedia and YouTube with the direct permission of the artists in question who use YouTube for that very purpose, which persons such as you have removed improperly from Wikipedia. I should not have to detail, nor is it required by YouTube, detailed copyright permission information on every YouTube listing. That permission is part of the YouTube posting agreement. Furthermore, Wikipedia's rules, rightly or wrongly, state that Jimmy Wales' viewpoint supercedes that of any other stated policy online, as has recently been evidenced and enforced as policy on several occasions. Tvccs 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

When I follow your YouTube links, I don't see any documentation that demonstrate the website has licensed the work, as WP:EL requires. Can you tell me where to find that? -- Mikeblas 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not, nor do most posters, include specific language in the video description, as it's unnecessary and covered by the YT posting agreement. You have ignored what I pointed to above, which states Wikipedia policy is that YT links are okay unless you KNOW the material is copyrighted and not permitted for use on YT or elsewhere. The burden is on the person wishing to remove the post/link, not the person who posted/linked it. Any description of a claimed license in the video description is no more and in fact less valid than anything else. WP:EL specifically permits YT links in a bold heading and does not require what you are claiming at all. Tvccs 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've read what you written and have not ignored it. In fact, I've responded directly: WP:EL says that we must know that the site hosting the work has licened the work. Your response is that the YouTube posting agreement "covers that", but it turns out that thousands of videos have been removed from YouTube because the posters don't have the rights to enter into an agreement concerning the material as they don't own it. That is, the people entering this agreement you're referencing are asserting ownership over something they, in fact, don't own. WP:EL does indeed contain the text I quote; you have to read past the conditional allowance of links to YouTube. If you still don't understand my position on this matter, it's probably best if we seek a third party opinion or take the issue to arbitration. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. -- Mikeblas 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

(Interjection - I hope you mean "mediation" not "arbitration" - <grin>). Rich Farmbrough, 10:26 16 February 2007 (GMT).

oops! Indeed, I meant WP:MEDIATION. -- Mikeblas 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recovering deleted Sara Jay material

Discussion at User talk:Quarl.

[edit] Adminship

Hi Mikeblas, I think you would make a good administrator on the English Wikipedia. Any interest? —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-14 05:30Z

[edit] what is this "fix" for?

Hi, Rich! Why does {{unreferenced|Date=February 2007}} need to be converted to {{Unreferenced|date=February 2007}}, as in Micrometer (device)? -- Mikeblas 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, strange isn't it? But the parameter is "date", "Date" will not work. (The capital for "Unreferenced" is merely stylistic.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:08 15 February 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kikkoman logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kikkoman logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bermuda Triangle

The images you removed were fair use for the following reasons: 1) the reader need to know exactly where the history of the Triangle began, and the image of Argosy Magazine qualified. The article within the Feb. 1964 issue was by Vincent Gaddis, and he was the first author to use the name "Bermuda Triangle" in any written work. 2) the image of the New York Times was put there because there has been an effort by the various Triangle writers to distort the facts of the story to make it sound dramatic, or to push their own version of the facts; in this particular example, a vessel is shown in the act of sinking, along with a newspaper story of the incident, completely refuting what the Triangle writers have been saying about it. As such, both examples, I feel, qualify for inclusion under line 7 of the Wikipedia fair use counterexamples.

But, in avoidance of conflict of the subject, I ask that you contact several administrators and present your reasons and mine. I will not change the article as written. Carajou 14:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ANTM8

Good work on referencing up the article for the contestants! It appears that some contestants' names were incorrect, and I still cannot gauge if the ones listed are "reliable". In order to avoid overlinking, I have replaced the external links with one overall link to the same lead article. Ohconfucius 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Right now, it seems like there's only two online sources. I'll try to buy a teeny-bopper magazine and confirm what I can, but I've added additional references where I've been able to find them. I think that what I've got is a start, but if we can find multi-sourced names then they should prevail. (As usual, right?) -- Mikeblas 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm discouraged by editorial and journalistic quality of today, and I feel that there is a tendency to rely on the one principal source, which is usually the show's PR department, or it may sometimes be the persons themselves, backed up by the same marketing machinery. I find it frustrating. Most of the time, for the subjects we deal with here, we just have to make do with what we got. Ohconfucius 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Then don't rent Idiocracy. It'll bum you right out! Seriously, I don't think we'll change the world by fixing up the ANTM8 article, but getting the references right will be something that will set it apart from other articles in the show series. -- Mikeblas 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the introduction ;-). You are right. Actually, all I was trying to say is that "more" does not necessarily equal "better". Ohconfucius 04:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: vandalism inaction

Hi there. Checking the contributions of the ip, Special:Contributions/71.60.13.66, delivers a single edit on March 13, this one. While a silly vandalism, he was not warned because of it, and hasn't edited since then. You warned the user because of his edits to Gateway School District, however, the last edit to that article was this one, around 36 hours ago. Blocking is not a punishment for what the user has done, but instead to prevent immediate damage by the user. As you can see, the IP is not active right now, thus it does not merit a block. Personally, I remove reports if an hour has passed without vandalism by the reported user. Others give or take 30 minutes, but basically, unless the user is on vandalism spree, we don't usually block. If you don't agree with my reasoning, feel free to report it back to the board for a second opinion, or its talk page for comments, I won't get offended at all! Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet map

Hi Mike! I just left an answer for you over at Image talk:Internet map 1024.jpg#OR.3F. κаллэмакс 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/k/User_talk%7EMikeblas_0c47.html"

Category: Discussion pages automatically archived by Werdnabot