User talk:Davidstrauss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] UT page

Thanks for your work on the UT page. Johntex 23:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I can't help but notice your comments on the Talk:Dianetics page. In an effort to understand what you mean to say, I read several of them. They show you are familar with wikipedia, oppose Dianetics and Scientology from being presented to the reader, and criticize any mention of psychology except in an exemplary manner. (you implied it is inappropriate to use IQ as a measure of Dianetics success). But the reason I attempt to get into communication with you is because your recent comments are well back in the discussion, on issues considered by most editors as already having been resolved and, therefore, I was curious what you were attempting to accomplish? Terryeo 10:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If those issues are old, then they need to be archived. It's not my burden as a visitor to the talk page to personally determine what's still in dispute. I invite you to create the archive, as you seem to understand what's still in dispute better than I do. Your argument about the IQ issue is wholly inaccurate. You just can't measure your success by a method (IQ) and discredit the method at the same time. If Scientology wants its own measurement system of intelligence, it's their freedom to develop one. IQ, however, is already taken. Finally, you are violating Wikipedia policy by assuming my actions are in bad faith ("[you] oppose Dianetics and Scientology from being presented to the reader"). Just because I don't support your viewpoint or edits doesn't mean I oppose presenting information to readers. By your standard, you oppose psychology from being presented to the reader. --Davidstrauss 10:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, that replies to selected elements of my message to you without replying to my question, though of course, I do get it about your selectivity :) Terryeo 19:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't respond to "[...] what you were trying to accomplish?" because it's a rhetorical question that indicts my motives without any reason to back up the challenge. --Davidstrauss 19:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. You took my question to be some sort of personal challenge, I get it. :) Terryeo 19:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attack?

at Talk:Dianetics you posted: Terryeo: Stop the personal attacks. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC) to my response to my statement: I guess that would make real good sense if you did, Feldspar. You seem to think every other word I say is either a "lie" or some sort of misrepresentation. Why don't you perk on over to [6] and get the straight skinny? Terryeo 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC). Are you willing to discuss what portion of my reply looked to you like a "personal attack?" Terryeo 19:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusing him of thinking everything you say is a "lie" is indicting his motives. "Why don't you perk on over to" is patronizing and thus insulting. You'd come across far better by saying, "Please remember to give my statements and changes fair consideration and not judge them based on my background alone." and, "Please visit Dianetics.com to understand my stance and gain a clear idea of how the Church of Scientology presents Dianetics." --Davidstrauss 20:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I understand what you are saying, David. Terryeo 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments - Terryeo

I've posted a Request for Comments on User:Terryeo. I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that his persistent misconduct on a range of Scientology-related articles will require an intervention from the Arbitration Committee and probably a lengthy ban. I'll keep the RfC open for a limited period before submitting it to the ArbCom as a Request for Arbitration. Please feel free to add any comments to the RfC, which is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo (but please ensure that you add your comments to the right section of the RfC). If you have any additional evidence, please add that to the RfC. I will be posting this note to a number of users who've been directly involved in editing disputes with Terryeo. -- ChrisO 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration - Terryeo

Following the recent Request for Comments on Terryeo's conduct, I've submitted the matter to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration (see WP:RFAr#Terryeo). You're welcome to add your name as an involved party if you wish. -- ChrisO 20:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding WP:RS

Thanks, David. I did not know that the Reliable Source guideline could not be edited like any other article. It was not a policy. I think my presentation was in response to User:SlimVirgin highly defensive reaction to my editing of poor wording and her refusal to provide me with exact citations of policy, which she only alluded to. Her personal attacks did not help either. I appreciate your concern. --Fahrenheit451 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you list me as a critic of scientology. A more accurate statement is that I have written some critical edits of the organization, but am a proponent of the subject. I would prefer either being put into both pro and con, or put in neutral. --Fahrenheit451 18:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's organized by POV of the CoS organization, not whether a person wants the information presented well. I'm pretty sure all parties are acting -- within their views -- to present the information well. Don't consider your account's classification as "critical" a bad thing. It's just based on edit history. Like I say in the disclaimer, the classifications are merely to help me contextualize edits and discussion. It means a lot when people from different camps agree on the same thing. It means little when, say, Spirit of Man (talk • contribs) backs up Terryeo (talk • contribs). There are so many users that I needed a bit of organization to keep track of it all. --Davidstrauss 18:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand now. Best regards. --Fahrenheit451 19:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] it's not vandalism

i removed obviously partisan content from the Delgado entry, such as "unfortunately he provided no evidence" when a google search instantly turns up dozens of copies of photos, videos, and taped presentations; the original article was short and factual, the added material was an opinion that is not supported by even the most cursory examination of the issue. Rather than adding more such partisanship on the other side of the issue, I left the article with just the factual material which i think you will agree is the point of an enyclopedia article, rather than just promoting a POV.

as for threatening to "block" me, it just makes you look childish and emotionally involved. very impressive

You swagger in and repeatedly remove information from an anonymous IP. You don't comment your changes. You don't sign your posts. You don't seem to understand the WP:NPOV policy on which Wikipedia operates. You don't even capitalize your letters. At least part of the deleted paragraph was sourced and contributed to explaining the context and significance of the topic. Your "contributions" here are not valuable.
A cursory Google search revealed that many people have raised questions about the validity (or at least the tone) of the NY Times article that promotes the person in question. Furthermore, there's nothing "partisan" about the issue. --Davidstrauss 06:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup NLP

I believe you are right David. The article is in need of cleanup, and a label is not going to do any harm at all. Presently the refs are in need of care and attention, and if we can manage to attribute things properly without undue distractions it will all be done within a few weeks hopefully. Again, I believe the label will help. ATB Camridge 09:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello DavidStrauss. I am also going to try to clean up the article. We had a ref format change a while back and we're not too used to it. We got so many different requests to do it one way or another and with all the deletes/restores you get with these kind of articles, well, it didn't help. Putting stuff in quotes seems to help a bit though, and with any luck any "believers" will come round to the fact that facts are here to stay. Anyway the cleanup is going to move forward, but to be realistic, its going to be a bit slow what with all the extra repeat questions and pressure to delete from the believers. I'm sure we'll get in better shape before too long though and still manage to shine light on the subject. Bookmain 09:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but you're the ones doing the real work. It doesn't take much effort to add {{cleanup}} to an article. The problems that most caught my eye were 1) treating citation superscripts as nouns, 2) having many, many cites for a sentence, and 3) having empty footnotes at the bottom. Good luck with the article. --Davidstrauss 11:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Davidstrauss, you wrote on Camridge's talk page: "I'd like to point out that -- according to Terryeo's recent RFAr -- Terryeo's comment above about introductions is incorrect. The idea of sympathetically introducing a topic and then covering controvercy has been formally rejected. --Davidstrauss 20:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)". I don't quite understand the implications for this. Could you comment on how this would apply to the introduction of a subject with a mix of detractors and adherants with both supportive and unsupportive research? How would you decide assign relative weight to the various points of view? ---=-C-=- 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm referencing this section of Terryeo's RFAr relating to WP:NPOV. I really don't want to restrict quality editing by being too prescriptive, but here's my take. Introductions serve a few purposes: 1) defining the topic, 2) contextualizing the topic, and 3) presenting the topic's significance. I don't think the introduction itself should be a sea of citations. The introduction should be concise. Avoid too many generalities and lists. The current NLP intro reads like it was written to list everything instead of narrow the topic to useful discussion. If the topic's scope truly is vague, find a source that criticizes it as such and boldly mention it.
  • The definition shouldn't be controversial if done properly. Stick to neutral language. This is my main sticking point with Terryeo's instructions; the definition isn't supposed to be sympathetic. It shouldn't be merely how the creator of the topic would define it. My first take on an NLP definition would be "Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a psychotherapy intended to promote healing, communication, and personal development. Typical NLP practices include [x]."
  • The context should explain the topic's relationships. In the case of NLP, this would include related therapies, conventional therapies, and what communities promote and criticize NLP.
  • The significance should explain why the user should care. What does NLP purport to treat? Is its practice harmful or ineffective?
To more directly answer your question, yes, you should weight points of view according to published support. Remember that Wikipedia isn't about what's "right" but what's verifiable. Also remember that maintaining NPOV isn't a question of equal coverage in the article. I hope this helps. Feel free to ask further questions or ask other editors what they think. Consider putting the article up for peer review if you want lots of outside feedback. --Davidstrauss 16:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Can I copy your post to the NLP discussion page? ---=-C-=- 07:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for the implied compliment. --Davidstrauss 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish constituencies

Hi David, thanks for contributing to the discussion on my proposed renaming of Irish parliamentary constitunecy articles, at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland. I have since posted a long response at Category talk:Parliamentary constituencies in the Republic of Ireland#The_case_for_a_consistent_naming_format, and I wondered if you might like to take a look? --BrownHairedGirl 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll read it right now. --Davidstrauss 21:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

This case is closed. Details of the final decision are published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narconon

Davidstrauss. I notice that you reverted my changes in which I gave verified data about the Narconon nine-step treatment program to return to the incomplete information listing only two steps. May I ask why? dcottle561

It was a copyright violation. --Davidstrauss 04:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constructive editing question

Hello David. I'm a student from Hong Kong, and am quite a fan of scientific skepticism. I understand that the Dianetics article has need of "maintenance of fact". I have done quite some research on a lot of the pseudoscientific articles of Wikipedia and would like your advice on how I can be most constructive to this and similar articles. I'll be asking like-minded editors the same thing, and perhaps can give you an idea of their replies also. Helen Wu 07:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I recommend staying civil, citing reliable sources for additions and edits to articles, and being persistant. It's hard for editors with any POV to remove well-sourced statements, though some will try. I suggest reading WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:V for a good idea of the policies and guidelines which often come into question in controversial articles. --Davidstrauss 09:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. Thanks for the advice, I have also had helpful advice from Antaeus. I will also discuss with other science minded editors before posting. I see this article has quite a few anon deletions. So I will do the sourcing more thoroughly as you suggest. Sincerely Helen Wu 04:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DeadJournal

I've reverted your contribution to the article because: In computer terminology there is in fact such a thing as web master servers/slave servers in the same way there are database master/slaves. The master would assign some of the processing power to the slave machines. A request to www.deadjournal.com would (hopefully I'm correct in this) go first to the load balancer, then to one of the slaves. If all of the processing power was assigned to just one machine, there would be delays in service (due to so many requests being queued). Hopefully I'm making sense here, if not, feel free to ask on my talk page and I'll try to explain it better. — Nathan (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In computer terminology, the "web master" is the person who manages the web servers. I would avoid using "web master" the way you do for that reason alone. Also note that in a proper load balancer setup, there may be database masters and slaves, as they keep application state and only the "masters" accept changes, but web servers rarely have the same configuration. The web servers have no need to accept changes other than updating application code. Hence, there's no need to distinguish web "masters" from "slaves". If application state is stored in the database and on the web servers -- the only configuration necessitating web "masters" and "slaves" -- it's generally a poorly designed application. --Davidstrauss 21:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well yes, I know what "webmaster" is :P. I made myself a little clearer above -- and well, an application that will use lots of requests (ie LiveJournal with millions of users, potentially tons of requests per second) need other webservers to do the work. — Nathan (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Please note: It's difficult for me to explain things sometimes :\ — Nathan (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I do understand how load balancers work. I'm a computer science major at UT Austin specializing in information systems. I still don't consider servers behind a load balancer "slaves" anymore than I consider drives in a RAID configuration "slaves." It's the same thing; a RAID controller distributes work among the drives (in addition to its other duties). --Davidstrauss 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Walhus

You noted on Paul Walhus's AfD that you know the guy. How do you know him?

Only virtually: he used to be a member of WELL (as I still am), where he has acquired, shall we say, a certain reputation. I believe The WELL eventually gave him the boot for swiping content and pasting into his websites, but don't hold me to that. He even has a topic devoted to him in the Flame conference there (all flames, all the time), discussing his, er, shortcomings. --Calton | Talk 07:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your complaint to administrator ChrisO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ChrisO#Olberon Would you mind substantiating your suspicions? What is annoying? Did I do anything that is violating or going against Wiki rules? Is there something found to be wrong about my contributions? There is by the way no relation between user Terryeo and me. No one has contacted me or urged me to post or any other. I just happened to stumble over some of the Scientology related articles. If you have something to say about me, then forward it to me! Don't go behind my back.

Would you also mind realizing the opposition I have been met with since my arrival? There is a whole track of persons opposing and reverting my edits. Strangely enough about all my additions and corrections are widely accepted by now. I've been familiar with Wiki just a couple of weeks. If you intend to accuse me or make me look suspicious, then state exactly what it is about and with all the details.

I don't know who you are and I do not recall having you seen participating in the discussions I have been involved in. --Olberon 09:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's look at a few very recent ones. You clearly edit with an agenda on only a handful of articles, barely staying within the hard Wikipedia policies like WP:3RR. Your edits and reverts against consensus are too numerous to cite, so I'll just cite some recent edits of yours.
[1] Not the revert of vandalism as you describe it as. Calling it "vandalism" is a violation of WP:AGF.
[2] So, studies by Scientologists are just studies, and critics deserve being singled out? It's also a repeated edit without consensus.
[3] Not vandalism, again.
[4] In fact, your "revert of vandalism" appears to be vandalism. You didn't just remove xenu.net citations.
[5] Look, it's the WP:RS crusader adding an unreliable source that just happens to support his/her viewpoint.
[6] It's a call to arms to your known supporters. This violates WP:Sockpuppet#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets.
[7] In fact, the version the Church publishes has no special authority. See WP:RS, the document you love to direct others to.
--Davidstrauss 10:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, you have not approached me in person, you turned to ChrisO. Secondly, why don't you say a single word about Wikipediatrix who attempted to push through her personal consensus based solely on majority vote when in fact violating RS consensus? Who has actually an agenda here? The fact you have to deal with here is that my edits remain in the articles and are being confirmed by various, and don't continue to be reverted.
[1] "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."
[2] Independent studies, your arguments and your query are missing here!
[3] 'Foster Report' versus scan of HCO PL 21 Oct 68, where are your arguments? You don't join!
[4] I invited to discussion. The main reason was the reintroduction of the inappropriate xenu.net. Wiki rules say also: Discuss major changes and edits.
[5] It's that persons study.
[6] I invited a person who is familiar with the subject. I did not call to arms. I came across this person when viewing the Terryeo case.
[7] The Widder Bibilography is the only publication that exists, Widder is by the way not even a Scientologist. The publication is official and is loaded with documentation.
You are left with nothing. Next time: Join the discussion and approach me in person when you see something! --Olberon 11:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not even going to respond to this POV-pushing tripe. I also don't need to join you on talk pages to point out how your edits violate Wikipedia policy. --Davidstrauss 11:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You bite newcomers. If you see someone doing something that is prohibited per Wiki rules you simply inform the newcomer. How long have I been around here? 5-6 weeks or so? I am sure there is lots left to learn for me around here. You approach me first not some administrator and complain. Support the co-editor. This closes our communication. --Olberon 16:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Lee listing

(not a complaint) Jason Lee is among the most famous celebrity Scientologists and should be listed on that page. Since, you're appearntly allowed to delete my contribution. I encourage to revise it with his name listed, since it logically should be (if the point of the "Celebrity" section is to list famous Scientology Celebrities). I am not interested to go through the steps to make this change myself, beyond what I've done already. Thank You.

  • Your disinterest is unfortunate, and I justified my removal on the article's talk page. I am not obligated to disambiguate and cite your addition. Official policy (WP:BIO) is that we aggressively remove unsourced claims (especially ones potentially seeming negative) about living persons. --Davidstrauss 07:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiality.com

Hi there. I saw you posted on the talk for Stephen Colbert that "significant contributors to this and other Colbert-related articles should consider sending the host (Dreamhost.com) of Wikiality.com and Wikiality.net DMCA Takedown requests." due to hosting a version of the Colbert article which doesn't comply with the GFDL. I'm a significant contributor, but I'm not extremely familiar with GFDL law. Can you give me a better idea how I'd go about doing this? I checked out the link provided and I admit I'm a bit uncomfortable with the layout similarities combined with similar content -- seems potentially confusing to the reader. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm on it. The form I'm found to use is here. I assume from it I should attempt to contact the site owner personally before sending this, which I have no problem with if needs be. The only question I have left is that Wikiality.com seems to be continously redirecting the "Stephen Colbert" to various different places with unique names -- I'm not sure how to list the infringing url in this case. I suppose I can just explain as much in plain english. In any case, thank you for keeping on top of these things. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm doing my best to comply, but its a pretty hard task with thousands of users. Jimmy himself has emailed me saying that he loves the site and wants to work with me on it, so give me some breathing room. --Dauno 05:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Logo license removal of Image:Scientologylogo.png

Just an FYI re your message. I did not create two images, merely Image:Scientologylogo.png, which was licensed under GFDL as it was an edit of Image:Scientologylogo.GIF, an image uploaded by another user (User Where100 - claimed to be under GDFL). Accordingly my edit followed the same license. Just wanted to make that clear - Glen 09:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't check very carefully. But you should be careful, too, before relicensing something under the GFDL when it's incapable of being GFDL in the first place. --Davidstrauss 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientology

Hi I made some edits to the Silent Birth section because it was slanted against Scientology and Hubbard in an inappropiate manner. ex. Mentioning that corn syrup was not available to Romans without mentioning that honey was. ex. Using the loaded term concoction in relation to the Barley Formula. ex. Making the unsubstantiated claim that Hubbard had no qualifications to give advice on children. I have children and that gives me some qualification. Hubbard was self-educated in the field of nutrition. ex. Stating that most medical experts discount anything without substantiating that claim is just silly. I could go on. I am an ex-Scientologist and though I am no great supporter of the CoS, I recognize a slant when I see one. I offered balance in the article. I imagine that you are a Scientology critic but please do not let your personal feelings color your responsibilities as a wikipedia editor. Read and evaluate before you revert and if you have contributory changes to make to my edit then do so. The sub-article is clearly heavily critic POV influenced and I brought a balance to it.

[edit] Vertebral Subluxation

I spent some time and gathered just a smattering of the scientific research that is of there in non-chiropractic journals which supports vertebral subluxation and thus chiropractic's effectiveness. I invite you back to the Vertebral Subluxation talk page to review and discuss. Thanks for your continued interest in this subject. Levine2112 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicite

Hi- assuming you are the same Davidstrauss as on Meta. In any case, please take a look at my response to your comments on Wikicat; there actually are Wikicite/WikiTextrose project proposals that address a lot of the functionality you describe from your proposal at Wikimania; would value your input on these. Jleybov 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farm Sanctuary

Hey, Davidstrauss. Thanks for your interest in Farm Sanctuary. I've never seen that article before today, but the place is well-known and well-regarded within the animal rights, veganism, and vegetarianism communities, and should have an article. I can see why the article has had problems: many of those people are young and/or have more enthusiasm than Wikipedia experience. :-) I'll take a look at the article and add it to my watchlist. I also posted a note to the page's Talk that I hope will help "remind" future editors to stay within Wikipedia policies. Have a good one. -- Writtenonsand 16:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see that the Brooklyn5 account is apparently no longer active. This could mean that Brooklyn5 is no longer interested in Wikipedia, or that he/she intends to edit in the future without a user account, or under a different username. -- Writtenonsand 16:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert by centrx

Hi

Just curious why a 3rd party would delete by reversion a communication to you on your talk page by someone (kappa)? Is there some bit of wikipolicy or wikietiquette I am missing here?? Oh, and thanks for the scorecard on Scn editors.--Justanother 18:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer my own question; I see that the user is accused of canvassing.--Justanother 18:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiality.com, part two

Hi again. Just wanted to alert you to the fact that although Wikiality.com now appears to be at least trying to comply with the terms of the GFDL, they're also using Wikipedia's copyrighted logo as part of their design for each page. I've dropped them a note (again) mentioning this and the fact they only link to the full text of the GFDL offsite rather than hosting in locally; however the I'm not sure I'm the right person to deal with issues concerning the logo. I thought I'd bring it to your attention and if you believe it's worth dealing with, you can pass it on the right person. Let me know if I can help. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 08:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Because of the modification to the logo and the nature of the site, the logo may be protected by parody and fair use. --Davidstrauss 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Really? I'm surprised to hear that would qualify as parody. I've heard that exceptions in copyright law for parody are rather liberal, but I would have presumed that since the original image file is clearly used in its entirety, the use would be unacceptable -- the only 'modification' they've really done is superimposing another photo over it. But I don't really know much about that area of the law -- regardless, thanks for checking it out. -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The site is a parody of Wikipedia. Thus, it has certain privileges to lampoon Wikipedia-related materials. I'm not saying it legally qualifies as fair-use parody, I'm just suggesting that it's a possibility. --Davidstrauss 21:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
As the owner, administrator and whatever other title may be bestowed upon me, I've talked mutliple times with Jimmy as well as the CEO and various other company members about the site. All of them are excited about it. As the previous poster said, it definitely should be safe under parody. --Dauno 05:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikia is not the Wikimedia Foundation. So, the support of Wikia's people doesn't grant you special privileges to use materials owned by the foundation. As I said before, I think the logo modification qualifies as parody (though I'm not a lawyer). But I'm well justified in asking the question; the GFDL was grossy violated on the original Wikiality site. People pointing that out were labeled "vandals" and reverted. I'm glad to see Wikiality moving in a more responsible direction, but don't mistake Wikia for Wikimedia, even if they grew from similar roots. --Davidstrauss 06:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/User_talk%7EDavidstrauss_4d0c.html"