Talk:Max Headroom pirating incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Screenshot copyright 2 Transcript? 3 References 4 Similar incidents 5 External links 6 RfC: External links to videos

[edit] Screenshot copyright

I have removed the request to delete the screenshot of the pirate broadcast as, IMO, the screenshot meets fair use guidelines and adds signifigantly to the article. If you wish to revert this please justify it here first. 195.72.170.227 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The request was ridiculous in the first place! The illegal broadcaster is certainly not protected under copyright law. Did someone think the culprit will now come forward to complain about a photo in Wikipedia??? More likely they revel in it!!!

Perhaps the request was because of confusion over the actual Max Headroom show rather than a picture of someone in a mask.

I found no such request in the archives. Apparently is was removed when the article was renamed. So this section should be archived or deleted as well.

75.39.152.138 04:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcript?

Should there be a transcript of what was said? (or what might have been said, as many people disagree on what he's saying on many statements) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.10.228 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I went ahead and added one, based on the two videos linked to in the article, and some of the comments to those. Not sure how to attribute those. Also, is there any way to make the text 'click to reveal', since it contains the 'B-word'? --24.252.10.228 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for a "click to reveal" measure. Wikipedia is not censored, and in this case removing the profanity would provide a less accurate transcript. Rob T Firefly 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reformatting the transcript section; I made a few corrections to the overal grammer and provided a few wiki-links. Hopefully, all here will be in agreement with the new layout and its readability. If not, please feel free to add your own input. And thanks to person who created it to begin with. It is a much-needed addition to the entry. Labyrinth13 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I added a section for References and inline citations and also provided the first two inline cites.

Other editors may want to consider reformatting and/or providing inline citations for many of the statements made in the main body of the entry. Labyrinth13 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar incidents

I added a new section to the entry for incidents of a similar nature and provided inline citations for them. Labyrinth13 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Jonrev: I reverted your removal of the video link that I posted. The link you removed was to a different video than the others that are already posted there.

Granted, it does use some of the same footage as the others already listed, as does your own video, but it offers a different perspective than the others (as does your video).

Before removing it again, please state in detail your reasons for removing it here in this thread. Thanks. Labyrinth13 22:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How does your video provide a "different prospective"? All I see is an intro, short info on the hijack that you probably got from the description fuzzymemories provided, the screenshot thats on this article with an extremely annoying (loud) noise, then fuzzymemories' footage. It's not worth posting to Wikipedia since fuzzymemories' video is already up here. It's like those people who upload that "Shoes" video a million times, pointless. Mine is different because it has translations, yours is footage stolen from the original poster.

I'll leave it up for now but it will probably be removed soon.--jonrev 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The description I used on my YouTube page was adapted from this Wikipedia entry and I cite this page.

As far as I know, the footage is public domain, so it matters not where it came from, or whether it is in my video or yours or in the person you call "fuzzymemories." (No one owns the copyright, because it was an illegal transmission).

My video is as "different" as your video is and is no more "stolen" than your own is. If those are the rules you are trying to impress here, then it follows that if my video is to be removed, than so should your own.

However, it is not up to either me or you to decide that, but rather, whether or not the rules of Wikipedia are being followed as far as this is concerned. I'm aware of no rules or regulation that backs up your original reason for removing it or the reasons you posted in this thread. If you do, then please post links to those rules.

You wrote, "I'll leave it up for now but it will probably be removed soon." By whom? You? If that is the case, then you will need to post a reason as to why it is being removed and not just the arbitrary ones that you have used so far. Prior to you or anyone else removing it again, we should get a WP:RfC on this or ask an administrator for advice. Thanks. Labyrinth13 00:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask, what's the point in having 2 of the same exact damn videos??--jonrev 02:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, the videos are not the same, so I have no idea of what point you think you are making here with that statement.

Also, I will ask you to please not use profanity when addressing posts to me per WP:Civil. Thanks. Labyrinth13 02:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not continuing this discussion anymore. You read my reasons. Dont be surprised to see your video gone. It makes no sense to post the same video that the article already links to with some garbage at the beginning. --jonrev 03:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to discuss this with you in a reasonable manner, but you seem to want only confrontation and to engage in personal attacks.

Since you have not cited anything that can show how the link to my video violates Wikipedia’s rules, then your removal of the link is simply being done out of spite and violates the tenants of WP:AGF.

If you continue to remove it, I'll ask an administrator to get involved. Thanks. Labyrinth13 03:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with jonrev here. The subtitled version by jonrev does contribute something extra to the article, but your video is redundant to fuzzymemories's version. There's really no reason to have both. By the way, unless someone is violating WP:3RR or WP:NPA (neither has happened yet) or some other relevant policy, you won't get much assistance by involving an administrator. Jonrev, please do remain civil. I'm going to remove the redundant video. Labyrinth13, if you disagree with my assessment as well, you are welcome to open an RFC or ask for a third opinion. — coelacan — 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding your opinion, but I disagree with your assessment and have opened an RfC for this below. Labyrinth13 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: External links to videos

Issue under discussion:

User User:jonrev deleted a link in the External links section to a video because he believed that it was the same as another video already linked there. Another editor User:Labyrinth13 restored the link because he believed that the two videos are different and that the link should stay.

Comments:

I am aware of no Wikipedia rule that prohibits either linking to YouTube videos, nor does anything in Wikipedia:External_links mention whether one YouTube video must be substantially “different” from another that is linked.

Also, if there is a Wikipedia rule that says that a historical document or in this case, a segment of video, must only be linked to minimally, I also cannot find that rule.

Finally, the amount of links in the External links section is not at all excessive at present, which should not exclude adding an extra link to the video.

Here is what I found in Wikipedia:External_links concerning YouTube links:

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.

Your comments are welcome. Labyrinth13 00:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• All that is different is that you've taken the more concise video, added your logo to the beginning, followed by a rehashing of information already in the Wikipedia article, some of your commentary to the effect that the man was a "genius", "may he live long and prosper", and a sound effect of a vacuum cleaner, to make your version. Can you explain how this is not redundant? — coelacan — 01:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you. One video has the raw footage only (and that doesn't make it "more concise" as you put it); one has the raw footage with a rather amateur attempt at superimposing a "translation" onto the video screen; my video has an intro that offers a nutshell explanation of the event, a clip featuring photos of the "pirate" to the sound of a theremin playing (not a vacuum cleaner) just for the fun of it and then the raw footage. (And as does one of the other video being discussed here, I also provide a detailed explanation of the event and a transcript of the dialog in the comments section of my listing and I refer readers back to this Wikipedia entry for more information).

But is "redundancy" really what is the issue here? Where does it say in the Wikipedia rules that one must avoid redundancy by not posting more than one link to the same historical document in the External links section? (Remember, we are not talking about inline citations or references in the body of the entry where the issue of redundancy is more clear-cut). Or where does it say in the Wikipedia rules that one can only link more than once to historical documents so long as there are variations on the theme or different versions of that document?

Finally, I would point out that my video has only been uploaded for a few days, yet I have already received quite a few hits on it and many positive comments from viewers who really seem to have enjoyed watching it. So far, the only people who are complaining about it "not being original" are you and the other person here who are trying to keep a link to it off of this entry for some reason. Labyrinth13 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Random House Unabridged Dictionary: concise: expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope; succinct; terse. It would seem that the raw footage is indeed "brief in form and comprehensive in scope". Yes, redundancy is an issue. Otherwise there is no reason to stop the inclusion of even more links that add nothing further. The list would could grow to fifty and still have no reason to stop. Your video has an intro, which does not add new information beyond what this article already informs the reader. So your video might be helpful for people browsing YouTube, but it doesn't add anything for readers coming from Wikipedia. Your video has (a) screenshot(s) taken from the raw video, these do not add further information either. It also has the sound of a theremin; the "fun" of this is subjective so I won't address that one way or the other, but it doesn't add more information for our readers. That's all you've asserted above as the difference, and those differences are redundant and/or extraneous. If you want me to pull out the rulebook, fine. WP:EL#Important points to remember: "Links should be kept to a minimum." That means if there isn't a good reason to add something, don't add it. Besides "the rules", you have opened up an RFC and directly asked several people for input here. That's fine. Having done that, you are likely to see a consensus emerge one way or the other regarding the inclusion or exclusion of your link. Since there aren't hard and fast rules either way about this, the consensus will just emerge from different editors' personal evaluation of the link. I hope you'll be okay with that. From my perspective, we shouldn't have redundant external links, and that really is the issue here. What else did you suppose my motivation or reasoning might be? — coelacan — 06:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I had no idea what your motivations are, hence my reason for asking. I have been around here long enough to encounter editors who are simply seeking a confrontation and that sometimes puts me on guard.

If consensus says remove my video, then you will not hear another word from me on the issue. I believe in playing by the Wiki community rules. Labyrinth13 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So you know, I wasn't looking for confrontation, but before you opened the RFC you posted to two user talk pages on my watchlist, and used the word "pirate". That was enough to get my attention and ensure I'd read the whole discussion, watch the videos, and come to a conclusion. — coelacan — 16:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Coelacan; there are 3 video clips that are essentially the same thing; we only need one. Parsecboy 01:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you also think that jonrev's version should be removed? I thought it was helpful, but if consensus develops to remove it, well, that's how we do things here. I'm just wondering. — coelacan — 06:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the jonrev version, as opposed to the Labyrinth13 version, for the reason you named below:it's far easier to follow along with the video with the subtitles, instead of with the typed script here at the article.Parsecboy 19:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave mine, since few people can figure out what he's saying, I made things easier for them. And Labyrinth13, your video is getting positive reviews because you are screening the comments before they are posted. I know because I tried to post one saying your video is the same but you didn't post it.--jonrev 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Positive or negative reviews on YouTube have no bearing on encyclopedic value for Wikipedia anyway. Let's try to focus the discussion here rather than there. — coelacan — 06:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonrev: So far, I have deleted only your comments on my YouTube page and I did so because they were petty and vindictive and I don't allow either nasty comments or profanity on my page. Labyrinth13 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove jonrev's video. I cite all of the same reasons why others think that my own video should be removed. I point out that Jonrev's video is merely a redundant version of the original and very amateurly done. A much better and more precise translation is already provided here on this entry and one from an amateur video is not needed. If we are going to play by the rule of "redundancy" then the only two videos that should remain linked are the original footage and the CBS News report about the incident. Labyrinth13 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Although the text is in this article, I still found it very difficult to follow the monologue while watching the version without subtitles, and much easier with jonrev's subtitles. That's why I think his version does add something helpful that isn't redundant (the opportunity to follow along with the script without pausing the video and alternating windows). But I'm not going to push hard for keeping it if many others disagree. — coelacan — 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate what seems to be a real effort on your part to be as neutral as possible about this issue, but I still disagree that jonrev's video adds anything important to this entry.

As far as following along with the script is concerned, all one has to do is open up the original video in a seperate browser window and follow the voice while reading the text on the entry. I've done that a number of times myself and it is quite easy to do. So again, I disagree that is a good basis for keeping it.

In my opinion, the interpretation featured on his video is very much open to debate as far as the accuracy of it is concerned and, as the main article here notes, not everyone is in agreement to what is actually being said. I say that giving the “green light” to linking to his video can be seen as an endorsement of his interpretation of what is being said and I do have a problem with that.

You say that you are not going to push hard for keeping his video if others disagree with keeping it and that is good as far as maintaining a neutral stance is concerned.

So far, I see one vote to keep Jonrev’s video link (by Jonrev himself), one vote to remove it (by me) and what seems to be one neutral (by you). I say that we should wait for a few more days or longer to see if anyone else takes enough of an interest in this discussion to voice an opinion about it here.

Since you seem to have assumed the role of “mediator” in this discussion, I would like to think that you would insist that those who either oppose or favor removal of both jonrev’s and my own video or just one or the other, will be required to state in detail their reasons why in order to truly validate their vote, and not just render a simple “keep” or “delete.” In that way, we can insure that this remains the real spirit of fairness and is not driven by a popularity contest or whomever can get more of their Wiki friends over here, rather than the other. Thanks. Labyrinth13 16:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that any WP:JUSTAVOTEs can be silently ignored. — coelacan — 18:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Labrynth13, I never put any rude comments on your version of the Max Headroom hijack, I only said you didnt need to make another one. The only reason I'm now totally against your video is because you bitched at me for removing your video from this Wiki article.

And by the way, you're overreacting by blocking me from commenting your other videos. Some of your other ones (the alien voice hijack one for example) were pretty decent.--jonrev 20:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on any of my work is neither wanted nor appreciated, primarily because of your penchant for being confrontational and for your use of profanity, as is amply in evidence on this thread. And I will remind you that this is not a general message board for back and forth about non-Wikipedia related websites, but rather, for discussing the issue at hand. Let's both agree to confine all future comments to the discussion here. Labyrinth13 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make some final comments about this (see my reasons below). You're calling my video amateur, Your video was probably done with the same program I used (WinMovieMaker) and did not seem to be done no better than mine.

I am not trying to be very confrontal (if you mean confrontal as in I'm looking for a fight or something), but what irritates me is that you seem to be heavily aggravated when your work is removed /criticized and then you overreact by throwing a long complaint at me. I will again say that your video is still not necessary and isn't worth having two of the almost exact same video on one article.

I am no longer discussing this issue on Wikipedia because I know you or someone else is going to attempt to find a way to have me blocked. You may contact my by Yahoo IM (shockwave_4_life) if you need to discuss this anymore with me, but there's obviously no reasoning with you and I'm not willing to continue this here. Good bye...--jonrev 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For clarification purposes, I originally objected to your removing my video link without bothering to even discuss your reason for doing so on the talk page. When you responded to my request to discuss, it was only to complain about something that I felt applies equally to you, as well. Take that for whatever you want to, I simply don’t care beyond this point.

Since the time that this discussion began, it has been brought to my attention that all of the same reasons why my video link should be removed actually apply equally to your video, too. That is not simply “throwing a complaint at you” in order to be confrontational, but rather is a realization of what the discussion about such videos as mine and yours amounts to here. (In other words, what is good for the goose is good for the gander). I'm actually convinced now that the only two videos that should be posted in the links section are the original and the CBS News report. Anything beyond that truly is redundant.

I can quite easily be reasoned with, but only by reasonable people.

Bottom line for me is this: I am so tired of constantly having to battle over such things as this at this place that it is really beginning to turn me off to the whole idea of Wikipedia. Whatever happens to my link as far as keeping it or deleting it is concerned, I’ll leave up to whomever comes along next. Thanks to everyone who commented.

-- Labyrinth13 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)