File talk:HD DVD Night Digg Frontpage before rose blog post screenshot.png

speedy delete[edit]

There is an arbitration pending and before tagging for speedy delete (which I'm not sure if that is even a category for speedy delete) there is ongoing discussion Talk:AACS_encryption_key_controversy#Digg_screenshot_note MrMacMan^Talk 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can restore it if they need to, but the fact is we can't be distributing these numbers for legal reasons. Putting them in an image is a blatant attempt to get around the text ban of the key. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the point of the dispute is that it isn't a "fact" that we can't be distributing this number for legal reasons. Jimbo has specifically and explicitly stated that the Foundation takes no position and gives no guidance on the legality of us including this number, for the time being leaving it up to the editorial processes of Wikipedia to decide. There's no consensus on whether to ban the number and no speedy delete criterion it falls under. Bryan Derksen 06:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation doesn't get a choice in the matter, it's a matter of US law. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes the U.S is involved but wikipedia has it's own set of rules. For that matter it's not even clearly defined that this case and 'the numbers' are illegal -- so far its all legal interpretation. You might interpret the law as that the numbers are illegal, but thats what we have been taking and discussing in the talk page and many other places. Being that the foundation has no comment and Jimbo has said that we should just keep a cool head in dealing with the issue we have been using the talk page of the article to find consensus about how to proceed. I hope to hear your opinion there. MrMacMan^Talk 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you're not qualified to make decisions on what is and is not legal, you can only give opinions like any other editor. Many other editors disagree with your interpretation. This is not an open-and-shut case. Bryan Derksen 07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I see a copyvio in an article, I am not qualified to remove it? I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not here for the ZOMG-anti-DRM-crusade. This is a painfully obvious situation. Find some other website to "stick it to the man". -- Ned Scott 07:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where can you show The Number is a copyvio? Numbers, no matter the notation, cannot be copyrighted in the USA. Period. --Cerejota 13:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure he was making a parallel between removing copyvio's and removing possibly copyrighted 'code' MrMacMan^Talk 13:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this issue for the past week. I can only request that you assume good faith and review the discussion log before leveling further unfounded accusations along these lines. Konekoniku 07:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the utmost respect I am not a WP:SPA and am not here to 'crusade'. I think that my edits outside of this single issue can back this up. I am not trying to 'stick it to the man' I just feel that discussion about what should or should not be included in this event should be discussed in the right place -- right now that place is the talk page of the article. And no offense, but there was no reason to give assume i was acting in bad faith and to treat me as such. MrMacMan^Talk 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone is qualified to remove something they consider a copyvio, but if a bunch of other people subsequently come along and say "no, we disagree that that's a copyvio" you can't just declare that your opinion trumps theirs. You need to convince them you're right. Bryan Derksen 08:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the speedy tag as this does not meet any of the CSD criteria, and there is no "ban" on the number. It was added to the spam blacklist because it was constantly being spammed in several unrelated articles, not because it could not be used in appropriate articles for legal reasons. Prolog 07:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of the inclusion of this image in the AACS article has been discussed previously at Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#Digg screenshot note, or at least where most of the attempts at discussion have been held. Perhaps this discussion should be taken up over there as well. Bryan Derksen 07:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is date correct?[edit]

The image page says the image was captured on March 2, 2007. This does not seem correct. Could it have been May 2?--agr 04:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]