User talk:CyberAnth/Talk Archive Nov. - Dec. 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page!

Contents

[edit] Talk Archives

[edit] My Sandboxs

[edit] Welcome to the AMA

Hello CyberAnth. I am Wikiwoohoo 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC), deputy co-ordinator of the AMA. I wanted to say extend my thanks to you for joining the AMA. Just a note, the association's current meeting is now on at AMA Meeting/December 2006. If you would like to comment on any of the ongoing discussion then you are very welcome to. I hope to see you around. Wikiwoohoo 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion of Melchizedek

Greetings: I looked again at your info but thought you were an admin. If you are not an admin, then I wish you would first rework the article before pushing for the admins only as you are new to the DOM debate and could give it a rewrite with your fresh perspective. Otherwise, there might be less chance for improvement if frozen where it is. I wish someone like you was available to adopt me when I first started at Wikipedia. I didn't know there was an adpotion policy then, or even that I needed to be adpoted. Cheers, Harvardy 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You really do need to bow out of this, for your own sake and the article's. At least bow out, be completely silent, until March 2007. Let it go. It is to your advantage. I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that any bias in the article is very largely because of your presence. Hear that. You are simply inflaming other editors to the article's disadvantage. Let me be clear I am not on anyone's side in this, except Wikipedia's. I will do my best to make the article much better per stringent adherence to Wikipedia policies over the next few months if you bow out as I described. Otherwise, I can leave you to continue with your headache-giving tactics, that are most certainly going to be for the very vast-most part continually unsuccessful anyways. Peace and farewell. CyberAnth 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Due to what I've seen thus far, I'm out. Peace and farewell. Harvardy 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnski socks

Can you please block FairHair. Far from disappearing, Johnski is continuing to use the account to vandalise Empire of Atlantium. FairHair's reverts are identical to Harvardy's. --Gene_poole 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wish i could but I am not an admin. :-) CyberAnth 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh - sorry - I just assumed you were. --Gene_poole 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yea, sorry if I may have gave that impression. I sure did not try to, if I did. I am just trying to assume some leadership on the DoM page, not at all because I am any better than anyone else, but simply because the regular editors there have been in a really long and tiring battle and I can perhaps serve them and the article with a needed new set of eyes. Okay? CyberAnth 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey no problem - I really appreciate you jumping in to help. Trying to deal with Johnski and his sockpuppet army is like wading through molasses - slow, messy and entirely pointless. --Gene_poole 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Ugh! That word picture really "sticks". :-) CyberAnth 06:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prick

Your link "Prick" points to "Dickhead", but that article doesn't exist. perhaps you want to direct your readers to the wiktionary entry? --Davidkazuhiro 12:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Hey Cyber Anth,

I've been looking through articles relating to audio engineering, and noticed that in general they are quite cluttered and disorganized. I wanted to start organizing the categories better etc., but 1. I don't know how to recommend merging categories and 2. I'm unsure when it comes to organizing things since it seems that groups of wikipedians take this on instead of individuals.

The specific categories I wanted to suggest for merging were Sound technology and Audio engineering. I'd probably start a wikiproject to organize articles pertaining to audio engineering (which includes mixing and producing audio signals for recorded medium, events and broadcast.) but I'm not sure if there's some protocol of if I can just go ahead and list the project on Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/WikiProject

I was looking at the list of categories to try to fit into and the closest project on there was Audiovisual telecommunication... but that's not really the topic I'm interested in. Sorry if I sound naive and all, I haven't delved into this part of wikipedia yet. Since you had the "Looking to Adopt" tag on, I guessed you'd be in the mood to help out :P. So if you have any pointers or could point me to wikipedians you know who are actively dedicated to this topic, please go for it. --Davidkazuhiro 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made a wikiproject page Wikipedia:Professional sound production Tell me what you think. I'm not too sure of where to go from here though. --Davidkazuhiro 00:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian views on Masturbation

I've responded on my talk page. Lyrl Talk Contribs 14:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm really amazed at what a comprehensive article has developed in your user page. Great work! I would say it's certainly deserving of being put into article space. Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! CyberAnth 00:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles D. Provan

How about we ditch Provan temporarily and I'll ask the opinion of User: Will Beback, an administrator who makes a swing by the BJU page every once in awhile? If he thinks Provan is notable we'll go with it, if not, not.--John Foxe 18:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, better to leave a request at WP:RFF and get the opinion of someone neither of us are even aware of. I will put the request in. CyberAnth 19:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The request is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback#Charles_D._Provan. Kindly avoid gaming the system, as will I. CyberAnth 19:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am going to place Provan back into the article so people can evaluate it in context and not as an abstraction. CyberAnth 20:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Onan-slain.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Onan-slain.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of promotional photographs

Hi,

I noticed you added a comment to this page on the fair use of promotional photographs of living people. There is also a proposal to speciifically address the issue that is being voted on here. Your vote on that page would be appreciated. If you support the idea of allowing the fair use of promotional photographs of living people but cannot specifically support the given proposal you might consider voting to abstain with a brief rationale so, in future, we can improve the proposal. Thank you very much for your time.

Cedars 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please be civil

With regards to your comments on User talk:Angr: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Chowbok ☠ 16:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between a PERSONAL attack and an attack against stupid ACTIONS. CyberAnth 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for twenty four hours for this. When you return, please remember to stay civil in your discussions. Naconkantari 21:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you must have gotten me confused with Anger, with whom I had the conflict. I do fully support your banning him...for much longer for than 24 hrs, in fact. His POV Pushing, unilateral and self-styled interpretations of Wikipedia policies, supremely uncivil and abusive actions toward innocent users, and his general breeches of THIS that are evident all over many talk pages make the ban of him a truly warranted action that I must, regrettably, fully support. Thank you for you even-handedness in this matter. CyberAnth 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John F. MacArthur

You uploaded an image of John F. Macarthur stating that it was free due to its source. The source did not actually specify that it was public domain (and in fact has a disclaimer saying it may well not be). The uploader there has no evident right to release the image. A Google image search strongly indicates that the uploader there is not the rights holder. Replaceable fair use images is one thing, incorrectly claiming public domain is quite another, and could get the project sued. Please be more careful in future. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The entire Theopedia project is released to the public domain. CyberAnth 00:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
The copyright statement of Theopedia makes it clear that images may be included under fair use; the image page does not give sufficient detail to establish whether this picture is uploaded as such, and there is no indication that the uploader is the copyright holder, since this appears, from a Google image search, to be a publicity shot. You need to prove that it's GFDL, and the link does not prove that. In fact, the link goes a long way to demonstrating why we have a problem and need to be stricter on the use of unfree images. Guy (Help!) 14:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image text

   * Copyright © 2002 Grace to You. All rights reserved.
   * Source: Grace to You, PO Box 4000, Panorama City , CA 91412, Phone: 1-800-55-GRACE, Fax: 661-295-5871, Email: letters@gty.org

The uploader of this image believes its use on Wikipedia servers in Florida falls under safety of United States fair use doctrine as contained in Title 17 of the United States Code, Circular 92 § 107, "Limitations on exclusive rights", which mandates a four-pronged test in evaluating fair use claims:

(1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes:

PURPOSE of USE
a. This image serves to identify the subject visually in a way prose cannot and conveys a particular characterization and non-verbal communications about the subject as depicted by his or her appearance and demeanor in a way deemed desirable by the subject and per his or her sensitivities per his or her personality rights in the State of California.
CHARACTER of USE
b. The image is being used in an article or articles mandated by Wikipedia to conform to a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and sourced by reliable sources WP:RS, and per Wikipedia's heightened standards for biographies of living persons WP:BLP whenever such is the case. Wikipedia has published clear and straightforward mechanisms whereby subjects may resolve disputes with the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization, when subjects deem Wikipedia articles as not adhering to this character of use, and Wikipedia has demonstrated rapid responsiveness to such disputes when initiated by subjects.
NON-PROFIT USE
c. As hosted on Wikipedia's Florida servers, this image is being used in an article or articles for exclusively non-profit educational purposes. Commercial uses of Wikipedia under its GFDL license must exclude this image.

(2) The nature of the copyrighted work:

a. The image is in the particular unique appearance which is copyrighted and approved by the subject for his or her pictorial depiction in works such as Wikipedia and as such no further rights relinquishment beyond fair use or image releases are deemed necessary or desirable or forthcoming by the subject.

(3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole:

a. The amount is in whole and non-derivative and attributed to the subject. The copyrighted work is per (2)a.

(4) Effect of the use of this image upon the potential market for or value of it:

a. As the subject, photographer, and all other related parties have released this image for fair use purposes such as in Wikipedia, and as it has proliferated under such terms, there is no potential market for or value of it.

Anyone on Wikipedia, from Jimbo on down, who fails to accede to a subject's claim such as this, and to such a fair use claim, is indicating to me that there is a plan to eventually convert our content to a commercial venture of some sort, with only a few "in the know" about it. All of you delete campaigners, behaving a lot like Tonton Macoutes, should cease all activity until you obtain a clear, legal statement from the Wikipedia Foundation that Wikipedia content is and always will be free and can never be used for profit.

Perhaps this whole project needs to go:

FROM:

"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license..." (From Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License).

TO: Creative Commons - Attribution, Noncommercial, Share Alike

CyberAnth 16:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ropes

CyberAnth, Thank you for the offer, I'll definitely take you up on it. I know that I still need to read many more "how to" files. Dkreisst 02:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free content

Greetings. I've noticed you talking about Wikimedia's motives for minimizing use of non-free content. Have you seen the financial statement? No one here is getting wealthy from this. I don't know what your motivation is to continue airing those theories, but I would like at least to know you've seen all the information available to you before airing them.

We all want to create the best resource possible within the restrictions of our mission. However, the mission is defined as being to promote the development of free content. Putting up a reference work available free of charge is no big deal. Plenty of reference works are available that way; even Britannica has up an abridged version free of charge for anyone to view. For Wikipedia to be simply another, more inconsistently-edited version of that is no great innovation. What is an innovation is the idea that people will wish to makes this free as in speech— and "free" means any purpose, not just noncommercial use.

I think we can all agree that it would be great to have the highest-quality media possible. But if the sort of media available commercially were easily available for any use, we wouldn't need to exist. You can't take an unfree photograph and use it for whatever you want, say, to put on your CD cover, or to crop and filter and use in a collage. You can't take unfree media and use it on your website without permission, or make more than a trivial sample part of your own musical work. There's a reason it's not done more often: licensing fees are prohibitively expensive, and rights are difficult to get. We want to provide content that is easy to reuse... which, as it happens, means there will be none of the exorbitant licensing fees that make the record companies so wealthy.

Some of us believe that ensuring that there is new content being created and distributed, that isn't locked up by corporate interests, is an important goal. Allowing uses that are very dubiously legal for us, if at all, and not legal for downstream users, discourages people from creating new free content to replace it. (The uses that are clearly fair, where no substitute is even possible, aren't in dispute.) And that's harmful to us, in the long term. The project is barely six years old, and there are over a million files of free media uploaded to Commons already; this for a project that was barely known for the first few years. You may not find media you want for an article in the next few months. But what about over the next several years, now that Wikipedia is a household name? This is very much a project for the long term.

From the FAQ on the Foundation website: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." That's our motivation, the one we are bound to abide by, and the one our media policies are meant to further. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to care and reply, Kat.
My-oh-my, could I ever tell you horror stories - from very painful personal experience - about organizational behaviors conducted within parallel-and-underneath structures not in keeping with their mission statements, stated ideals, goals, public financial statements, etc.
The only way to eliminate or at least minimize charges of mistrust is to do something along the lines of what I am saying HERE.
CyberAnth 21:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)