User talk:AKMask/Archive 5

My own steamroom

I've created my own steamroom, but hopefully it won't get as lengthy as yours (no offense). ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Perhaps the software cleans up editor sloppiness, however, it's still grammatically correct to use commas in US dates. Matthew 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. US dates are used in US related articles. As a British person I use UK dates in British articles (Doctor Who, etc). But, in American articles I use US dates, and Medium is a US article -- and so should use American dates. Addendum: forks of articles will not contain the comma, thus reusers will have grammatically incorrect dates if they're not using the same setup as Wikipedia. Matthew 09:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Sorry if you got the impression that I was reproving you in any way. I just tend to automatically clear clutter up in the edit box. It makes the discussion easier for me to follow. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy day!

AKMask has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as AKMask's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear AK! Love, Phaedriel 01:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

My sweet dear AK, your words mean the world to me. I am speechless, and that's not usual in me. So I'll just exchange a great, virtual hug with you, and enjoy the happiness they give me. But today's your day to enjoy, not mine, so happy Day, sweetie! :) Love, your friend, Phaedriel, 01:21, 3 May 2007

Hooray for AKMask Day! bibliomaniac15 03:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how come I can't have a wikipe-day? ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the feedback. I note that you choose to archive your edits, as do I. I will likely soften the template some, but still find it important to help other users understand that they should and can consider archiving notices instead of deleting them. Newer users generally do not know about this procedure and practice. Best, --Kukini ^hablame aqui 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so inclined, why not take a stab at improving my template. Here it is: User:Kukini/userpageusertalkpage. Thanks in advance!--Kukini ^hablame aqui 20:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change something to "othe"?

... [1]? Matthew 16:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well I've fixed the typo anyway. Have a good evening, Matthew 17:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make personal attacks

Maybe you got confused, but it looks like you called my restoration of an image "blatent (sic) vandel". If this is what you meant to say, I'd encourage you to read wikipedia's vandalism policy. It seems you either may misunderstand it or may be intentionally making false accusations for whatever reason. Cheers. --Minderbinder 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

They moved the discussion, and I wanted to continue our short tangent..if you don't mind. If you do..disregard, or delete (as you see fit).

...No fair use whatsoever? I don't think I could image a featured film article with absolutely no images on it. I say no images, because I'm curious as to where you would find "free" images for a film. If there was critical commentary on the visual style of a film, we certainly wouldn't be able to show what the individual was referring to..that would be a copyright violation (unless it's a film that managed to not have its copyright renewed, and is like 40 years old...). I could see easily obtaining images for the entire cast..you'd just have to wait outside the red carpet for them to get together. You'd definitely not be able to show criticized campaign images (e.g. the controversial Friday the 13th Part VIII poster, which almost caused New York City to file a lawsuit against the Paramount Pictures). I know there are plenty of cases to be made where fair use is abused, and is nothing but eye candy. But for film and television articles (not talking about lists here, but the main pages), there are not "free images" readily available for them, because by nature everything they are is copyrighted and trademarked. In essence, a plot summary falls under fair-use, because its a summary of a copyrighted film. It would be harder than hell to be able to win a suit against someone for writing a 600 word summary of a film (in my personal opinion, but I could be wrong), but the fact remains that it's still subject to fair use itself. So, we'd have to ditch the plots as well... maybe that's for the best... that would certainly keep those that are over eager to write detail for detail.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's comparing the oranges of Florida to the oranges of California. They may be still oranges, but they are grown differently. My point, most foreign countries don't have our (US) guidelines on what is and what is not protected under copyright, and we don't have theirs. You can see that with the argument about how the Star Wars image is labeled "public domain" in Germany, but we know that isn't the case here in the US. What's free for one isn't necessaril free for all when it comes to countries. Look at Germany's Star Wars Episode IV and compare that to our ours. Are you saying that these two articles are equal in weight? Other countries may say "no fair use, whatsoever. It must be free to everyone", while ours might say "limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review..." If Wikipedia changes its system and says, "we are going to follow the country with the strictest guidelines for copyrights and fair use usage"..sure. But our guidelines state that they must meet US regulations. Now, I'm not saying that people are follwing US regulations they way they are supposed to, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have non-free content period.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems counter productive. We have two things going on with the regulations here. Wikipedia says, "we are a free encyclopedia...we want free, find free", but then later says "but if you must have non-free, make sure it abides by US laws". It's hypocritical. They want free, but yet, they allow non-free. I completely agree with images in lists. I think they are an abuse of FU guidelines, but I don't believe, that to make Wikipedia the best "free" encyclopedia, we have to sacrafice all non-free content.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Review Thanks

Dear AKMask,
Thank you for your participation in providing me with a critique in my recent editor's review, archived here. I read and take each person's comments very seriously, whether or not the content is critical or praiseworthy. I look forward to working with you in future Wikipedia projects.
-- Real96

AACS encryption key controversy

Since you reverted the page, you might want to state your opinion in our list of opinions instead ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat

Keep to the article and category talkpages and avoid poking him on his talkpage, it's not nice.

People who make active attempts to insult my intelligence can expect to get a response. But you're certainly right that it's an obvious waste of time to engage with a relentless wikilawyer, since it's playing their game by their rules. --Calton | Talk 22:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oberth

If you can source it then I won't complain if you re-add it :) Matthew 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking Policy

Hello, Yes, I do understand the policies put out by Wikipedia but I continue to find them too lenient. Keeping Wikipedia clean is the number one priority but also the site needs to maintain order. Blocks need to be used more often than not for more serious Wikipedia offenses such as verbal attacking, vandalism, copyright infringement, etc. Many times, some users do not use their account for serious contributions but to cause disruption and disorder. I, on the other hand, work to keep this site as clean, safe, accurate, and serious as possible and will take such harsh measures, such as excercising user blocks, in order to maintain that such attributes exist and are very much prevalent and that the public continues to question. If you have any questions, comments, concerns, etc., please feel free to post them on my talk page. Redsox04 17:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Love of God

I already changed my sig, and what rule is the flashing logo violating? Just wondering. I just put it up cause I thought it looked cool. Sorry I offended your sensibilities. Peace. - Bagel7^T's,^C's,^A's 06:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions and BJAODN

While we don't know for sure who the contributors are, in the case of a major portion of Wikipedia such as the deleted pages of BJAODN, the number of potential contributors is so large that the problem of contacting many of the editors concerned could be solved by alerting all of Wikipedia, via notices such as that early-registration-for-Wikimania banner near the top of your screen. It is smaller, less-used, multiple-editor Wikipedia pages which potentially violate GFDL, that are probably a bigger problem than BJAODN in this area - because such pages are not as widely edited or don't flow from as many sources, and thus, in case of the smaller articles, it would not be advisable to alert all Wikipedia. It is a bigger problem in smaller cases because one would have to work more at locating some or all of the editors involved. In the case of BJAODN, however, alerting most of the unknown editors is potentially easy because it would be appropriate to alert everyone that uses Wikipedia. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And BJAODN contains those original users' edits, too. Thus, it is only fair to try to seek them out and warn them by posting notice of such a deletion on Wikipedia, because it concerns the original editors, whomever they are, and the most efficient way of doing that would be to post a notice of such a deletion on Wikipedia at top. Also, even if most of the posts to BJAODN are done by anons, there are some regulars who like to add to BJAODN, too. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I fail to see how asking or requesting something, in and of itself, constitutes trolling. Can you enlighten me on what separates trolling from non-trolling? — Rickyrab | Talk 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wheel-warrior involved appears to be rehabbing some BJAODN anyhow behind the scenes, so I'm satisfied on that score. Moreover, my issue concerns not only the deletion of the BJAODN, but some issues with the nature of GFDL itself that were only unearthed when the person deleting the BJAODN explained his reasons for doing so. There is commentary that I wrote on my talk page about it, and what I feel ought to be done about it. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Images

Explain to me how any of those images violates policy. They meet all the criteria on WP:NFCC. Ganfon 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Burgess

Please explain why you killed the gallery on Anthony Burgess. John Vandenberg 08:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apology; I did not see you first two edit summaries; the second two were along the lines of "cleanup" so they seemed at odds with what you were doing. I'll go review the discussion about galleries of DVD covers. John Vandenberg 08:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your nom

AK sweetie, I've just made a nomination draft here - please have a look, tell me what you think, and feel free to retouch whatever you want. You may also wish to answer the questions as soon as you want. Have fun! :) Love, Phaedriel - 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: redirect

I would be interested who came up with that policy, as it is clearly non-nonsensical in this case. Could you point me to the relevant section of our policy pages, be so kind to restore the redirect or at least show the politeness to turn it into some kind of link to the page it previously redirected to. —Ruud 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be kept per point five in the section below that, as I quite frequently use this page to quickly access my subpages. A friendly message on my talk page, about this messing up Special:BrokenRedirects, might have been a better way than your quick "fix". Cheers, —Ruud 23:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The point referred to actually only speaks about "cross-space redirect out of article space". —Ruud 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Ruud 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, dear AK! :)

I'll do it for you, sweetie :) Btw, could you hop on to Gmail for a minute? I have to go out for a while, but there's something I need to tell you before. Love, Phaedriel - 19:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A notice

I have left a question for you on your RFA page,Thank you-Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 19:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]