User talk:Toksyuryel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a shoutbox. Please keep comments constructive.

[edit] Draconity Stubification

Hi Toksyuryel - you wrote: May I ask why? That article is only 4 paragraphs, far from complete given what it's about. If you do happen to agree with me that it is in fact a stub, have I used the wrong kind? Do you have advice for what sort of stub I should use? Thanks in advance for responding kindly.

The length of an article is irrelevant as far as being a stub is concerned. An article can be quite short and still cover a subject in sufficient depth for it to be a reasonable article on the subject, as is the case here. Some subjects are successfully covered in far less text than this one has taken, in fact. I didn't realise that the previous edit (your edit) had been to add the template - sorry. If you think it's still a stub, then socio-stub is probably the best one to use. (stub sorters don't really like the stub template to be used on user pages like here - it clogs the categories they're trying to reduce!) Grutness|^hello? 00:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the stub templates from this page and from my user page, sorry I wasn't aware they don' work here :) As I actually know first hand (being a dragon myself) that the article in its current condition is way under par, I will be adding the socio-stub template to it as you suggested. Thanks again for for understanding :) -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 02:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the riaa

You changed my description as music file-sharing as piracy into the RIAA "claiming" that it is piracy (without addressing my justification on the talk page). Regardless of how anyone feels about it, sharing others' copyrighted music is piracy ("The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material," from dictionary.com). I'm changing it back. --Cruci 21:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The RIAA invented the meaning and are the ones advocating and imposing it. It is in fact their claim. The majority of music listeners and music artists (not labels, artists) do not believe it is piracy in any way. dictionary.com is not a reputable reference. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} Image:Toksyuryel wikipedia sig img.jpg 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am using the fact that piracy means unlicensed reproduction of copywrited material. That definition of piracy can also be found at Merriam-Webster ("the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright"), wiktionary ("# the unauthorized duplication of goods protected by intellectual property law (eg copying software unlawfully)"), Cambridge Dictionaries Online ("to illegally copy a computer program, music, a film, etc. and sell it") and of course dictionary.com. The disambiguation page on wikipedia for "piracy" suggests that users try "Copyright infringement, the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material".

To counter this, you are using an uncited claim that some people do not "feel" that music file sharing is piracy. Which of us is using facts, and which is using vague and unsubstantiated assertions? Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that the RIAA invented the term? The site I cited on the talk page (which you have not bothered to make an appearance on) records it as first appearing in 1701. Do you agree that unlicensed reproduction is copyright violation? Do you agree with all my links suggesting that copyright violation is piracy? I'm not even sure where you think the ambiguity lies. It's fairly clear. --Cruci 00:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying the RIAA invented the term piracy, only the meaning with which they use it. While it's true that it's a claim that sharing music is not piracy, it is equally a claim that it is. The RIAA calls it piracy if the artist themselves distributes their own work for free! Clearly something is askew here. It is still a factual statement to say that the RIAA claims it is piracy rather than to outright decide that it is in fact piracy, and it more accurately represents a NPOV. Although I admit that the interpertation most people have of the word "claim" is one of a POV bias, thus I have changed to the word "asserts", which I think is more NPOV. Additionaly, what is reputable about etymology online? It cites no sources whatsoever! And we have already established that dictionary.com is not reputable. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} Image:Toksyuryel wikipedia sig img.jpg 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have established that at all. How about all the other dictionaries I sourced? You didn't answer my questions. Is music file-sharing copyright infringement. Is copyright infringement piracy?

Secondly, do you have an alternate source as to the origin of piracy? If not, I'm not sure why etymology online is not a valid source. Maybe they are shills of the RIAA as part of some vast conspiracy?

Thirdly, what is the new sense in which the RIAA has used the term piracy? They use it to mean copyright infringement (as it has for some 300 years).--Cruci 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NavBoxes or Series Boxes

In my experience NavBoxes usually go at the bottom of the page. (Looks for example) If you made the navbox into a side bar then it could go at the top (Like on History of Russia). It should go to the bottom because the content in the navbox is not what the article is about (more relevant information goes to the top- to me it's like a see also). Look at the navbox on United States, it's at the bottom and it's the same for all nation articles (same with Currency). I'd like to discuss this, however, it's midnight where I am and I'm quite tired (I was about to go to bed when I saw this, can you tell by my spelling and grammar?). By the way a category of all of the TIs may make navigation easier without having a navbox at the top of the page. Finally I found the page relating to wikipedia policy on navboxes here. What does it say? Argh, it doesn't mention it. I'd say bottom is better, it just takes up to much space where the reader expects to see content. Sorry again for being incoherent. Talk to you later. BrokenSegue 04:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see *nods* Well, I suppose I'll just do that then. You were quite coherent by the way, so don't worry ^^;; -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} 05:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toksyuryel_wikipedia_sig_img.jpg removed from your user page

Iamunknown 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)