User talk:Guyjohnston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Removing "pirate"?

Hi, Guy!

What's your basis for labeling "pirate" a biased term and removing it from so many pages? Also, in some cases, you made other changes (not always trivial) along with your specified rewording. I think it would be good to indicate that in the edit summary. I originally posted in Talk:Coded_Anti-Piracy#"piracy" as a biased term? but maybe here is better. Thanks. jhawkinson 07:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your comments. I've replied with my views on the use of that term at Talk:Coded_Anti-Piracy#"piracy" as a biased term?. It's true that I do often make some changes which I don't include in my edit summaries. I generally just summarise what I think were the most important changes I made, to avoid having to write a really long edit summary. That doesn't seem to cause many problems what I can tell, because people can always check exactly what changes I made using the History page. But if you know of any official Wikipedia policy on what edit summaries should include, which means I'm doing something wrong, and you can point me to a page which explains it, I'll be glad to read that. Guyjohnston 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Guy. Please remember that User pages are not the same as User Talk pages, and that you should use the latter for communication. User pages are a user's public face on Wikipedia, and aren't the place to leave messages (you left your reply on mine; see WP:USER for details). I agree, let's talk keep the discussion on the word piracy on the CAP page. With regard to edit summaries, WP:ES talks about them, but doesn't give huge detail. I'm not suggesting you're in violation of a policy, just that I think people would appreciate it if an edit summary didn't appear to be comprehensive, but actually omits some changes. Maybe saying something like "and more", "+eds", or "etc.," would help to make it more clear? Looking back now, I don't see which example I had been thinking of, so it's not a big deal, or maybe I over-reacted? Perhaps it was removing the wikilink to Anti-piracy from the CAP page. All the best! jhawkinson 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial design rights

Hello! I noticed your edit to the above page; you have removed the term "Intellectual Property" as propaganda and biassed. As it appears to be the accepted term for the property rights created due to intellectual efforts, I reinstated the term. I have also started a discussion at Talk:Industrial design rights on whether the term is acceptable, so if you have any comments on the matter, please direct them there. --Harris 21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Intellectual property is a widely used term—to try to avoid it is in itself PoV. There are certainly some who feel that Property is theft, but it remains the role of an encyclopedia to describe the world as it is, not how it should be! Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated Criticism on CC

You added the {{outdated}} tag to the CC criticism section. Can you please discuss this on the talk the page. The references are a couple years out of date but I think the area is a reasonably good summary of criticism of the section. If it just a few things, perhaps you can go ahead and fix it. I don't want to edit the section because I am mentioned in it and feel that I have a conflict of interest. mako (talk•contribs) 11:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)