User talk:Mosquitopsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Mosquitopsu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. Here are a few suggestions you might find useful:

• First, check out the tutorial and learn how to write a great article
• Find out more about what Wikipedia is and how it works
• Check out the manual of style and maybe the picture tutorial if you're interested in adding images to your articles
• Write from a neutral point of view, use wikiquette, and last but not least, be bold!
• Check out the community portal if you're looking for something to do.
• Finally, feel free to contact me at my talk page if you have any questions! Remember to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I see that you are a Penn State student. I am as well, as indicated by my username name (I just finished my 1st semester of Junior year). Is this why you left the welcome message? Anyway, a neat thing about my last semester: I lived in McKee (E-House), which meant that the Lion Shrine was the first thing I saw every morning when I woke up. --Mosquitopsu 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw that you edited a Penn State article, and noticed that you hadn't been welcomed yet, so I thought I would. And actually, it's funny—if you lived in E-House, I lived right next to you (in Hamilton hall). Anyway, let me know if you need anything, and maybe I'll run into you in the fall! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You have englightened me mosquitopsu...Jeb8828 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I am glad someone noticed. :-) --Mosquitopsu 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Image screenshot of Antiword 2 AA 3 AVG 4 My Editor Review 5 Not respecting contributors enough

[edit] Image screenshot of Antiword

Hey, I see you uploaded a screenshot of a free software. You licensed it as a free image AND a non-free image. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If it's a freely distributed software, then the screenshots are free. If it's not, then the screenshot would not be free and a fair-use claim should be made. According to the article, the software is listed under the GNU General Public License, so I'm going to remove the "This is a screenshot of copyrighted computer software" fair-use tag. I'm removing the non-free image tag and leaving the free image tag up. Just wanna let you know that the next time you upload a free image, you don't have to tag it with a non-free tag. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.++aviper2k7++ 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that! I blame Wikipedia:Upload. That thing is a huge mess. It was a screenshot so I selected screenshot when uploading. All screenshots are automatically marked as non-free for some reason. There is no free screenshot option (except maybe selecting "no license"?). Also, what the heck is "Linux software screenshot" and why does it have a dash next to it? People taking screenshots of the kernel source code? That was probably meant to be something like "Free software screenshot" or something along those lines. </rant>

Anyway, thanks for fixing that. I did not notice the non-free tag. --Mosquitopsu 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AA

Why did you add the old SE article back to the external links? It is already used as a reference in the article. And why did you remove the free software portal, Ad-Aware is free.--The Negotiator 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the rootkit.com article as a reference after restoring the link to the bottom of the page. I did this because this was the second time someone has removed the link from the article and I wanted to make it more clear why the link was there. Unless they did some major changes to the software in the last year, that article should still be accurate. You called it "old" so I am assuming that you may think it is inaccurate. If you feel like getting your hands dirty, you can verify the article by compiling the provided code (easily done with Dev-C++ if you don't have a compiler installed) and having a look at it yourself. Try changing/removing an entry in the definitions file and running Ad-aware again.

As for the free software portal, we are talking about libre software where free refers to liberty, not price. Take a look at the portal itself or the free software article for the definition. For software to be free software, it must satisfy the four freedoms,

• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
• Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

Ad-Aware provides none of these freedoms, thus it is not free software. --Mosquitopsu 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can get a reference that the article still applies for ad-aware 2007 then your word is as good as mine.--The Negotiator 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I was able to run some tests this evening and I found that the rootkit.com article no longer applies. Definitions are handled differently now. --Mosquitopsu 02:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

So I can remove it from the external links? There is a paragraph about the criticisms of AA SE which uses it as a reference.--The Negotiator 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it. --Mosquitopsu 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AVG

My apologies re: free antivirus software category. I didn't realise that Wikipedia uses the term free software to denote open source software. Raskolnikov 07:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's not just Wikipedia. In fact the name "free software" is the original name that started with the GNU project in 1983 (actually "software" was the original name as all software used to be free). The name "open source" was created 15 years later in 1998 to water down the original name so that businesses, who weren't interested in user freedom, would be more accepting. So really, people (unfortunately) use "open source" to denote free software, not the other way around. For some more info: [1]. --Mosquitopsu 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Editor Review

Good suggestion! :-) Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie 20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that guy is an egotistical dick. (I hope he doesn't read this :-P) --Mosquitopsu 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not respecting contributors enough

Next time you decide to put article up for deletion please have the decency to contact the creator of the article to try to improve it first. Ja? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Without careful examnation, it doesn't appear that you were the original author. The page was already deleted before but no deletion notice was placed when you started it again. The person who does appear to be the original author is Grandapollon, who actually looks like it may be Alexis Skye herself. Besides, it is the Alexis Skye article -- some non-notable tall blonde woman in high heels. We aren't talking about the Printing press article here. Is it really something to be offended about? --Mosquitopsu 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)