User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive22

What's the point?[edit]

In regards to this ... what's the point? I could easily unprotect for a minute, make the changes, and then re-protect. Those links I removed are already on the spamlist and not linking them is simply a way of getting around that. Plus, Wikitruth is publishing libel that was removed from Wikipedia upon legal threat ... we really don't need to be associated with that anymore. --Cyde Weys 04:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no...[edit]

...please don't leave! We need more people like you on the encyclopedia. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back... largely because Jimbo treated me with respect and tact. I can safely say that due to the WMF, Wikipedia is in safe hands! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear. :) - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Thanks for the response re the citations in the Patriot Act article. I haven't changed the style back yet because interestingly enough there's discussion on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes about this very issue. Feel free to contribute. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 18:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

userboxes[edit]

were do you get userboxes? the article about it is not there these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Splamo

Article on AfD[edit]

I noticed that Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II was nominated for deletion. I thought you might be interested. —ERcheck @ 00:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't stress over an AfD for your article. IMHO, every article should go through the AfD process. It's just another way of bringing the community together to think about what it is that we're doing, not a way to slap down editors. PS: Good article. -Harmil 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that. It's the sheer unreason behind the listing that has me down. Seriously, I've needed a Wikibreak for some time. I'll be back, but the articles won't be done in a long while. There is always some idiot who comes along and knocks others efforts. Looks like I found mine. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the nature of a Wiki. You and I have been around long enough that "don't let that get to you" would be redundant ;)

PS: I fixed the FAC link on the talk page as best I could. The template doesn't take page moves into account, sadly. -Harmil 16:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth[edit]

Yeah I know. I'm on their front page. I tried to point out their mistakes but nothing came of it. What really annoyed me is the Village Voice article calling them "witty". Yeah. Nothing says "witty" like making fun of a fat man. Oh well. Not much can be done. --Woohookitty^(meow) 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitruth[edit]

I'm not an administrator anywhere, I'm sad to say, and very unlikely to become one. I'm also not much interested in "who's who" type speculation. There are thousands of Wikipedians and hundreds of admins, and I don't have enough hours in the day for sleuthing through them all. Grace Note 05:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, Ta bu, I wouldn't worry about what Wikipedia Review says about you. I consider it almost a barnstar to be slagged off by them. Grace Note 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I very much enjoy Blissy's forays into conspiracy theory. You're a Wikitruth admin, I sold out Wikipedia's critics to butter up the cabal and as for poor Antaeus Feldspar! It's all good fun. Stops us from taking ourselves too seriously, I hope.Grace Note 07:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL but I promised[edit]

User:Taxman that I'd alert the legal talent that did the analysis section of NSA warrantless surveillance that an anon vandal's contribution needs work to be incorporated. If you want to revisit an old arena, see =>Talk<=. Metarhyme 19:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Though I can't say it was vandalism either." ???
He blanked all the material in the legal analysis section and replaced it with his own stuff. Metarhyme 08:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Study[edit]

Hi Chris, just thought I'd let you know that my study you participated in (that you've linked from your user page) was deleted from Wikisource and moved to Meta - your questionnaire is here. It'll possibly be moved again - this is a temporary home, and Meta isn't really for this type of thing - I'll let you know if/when that happens. Cormaggio ^@ 12:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose it was deleted because it was an unpublished, non-peer reviewed text - those are the relevant criteria according to s:Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes. But what to do with original, academic content is unclear at the moment -it may be a part of m:Wikiversity, or it might warrant its own Wikimedia project (nearest equivalent is the academia wikia). Cormaggio ^@ 19:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe Wikinfo would be worth a look. It's not a Wikimedia project of course. Andrewa 04:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney meetup[edit]

Any progress on the May meetup idea? Keep me posted, anyway. Andrewa 04:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your username[edit]

Please tell me it doesn't mean "he is not a big fish". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an award for the most asked username. -- Newhoggy | Talk 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smiles[edit]

~Linuxerist E/L/T has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}} or {{subst:smile2}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt[edit]

I'd like to invite you to review and participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Daniel Brandt. This is not a request for your endorsement, simply a request for your participation in the discussion. Thank you. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox OS[edit]

Can you please clarify the meaning of "Source model" and "License", possibly with reference to Linspire, and suggest some way of disambiguating them in the template? Many thanks. (Pls reply on template talk or my talk. Thanks.)

Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some more guidance at Template_talk:Infobox_OS#Source_model? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Studies related to Microsoft[edit]

Any ideas how to improve this? All the useful content is already in the criticism article (Criticism of Microsoft). You mention that studies may refer to other things, but this article has never contained any information on those other things, and will likely never will - besides an article can always be created there once someone has that kind of thing to put there :). No problem about the sig BTW - I tried it myself, I guess the thing sets the span in the href or something... It is as it always was ^{T | @ | C} 10:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opus Dei[edit]

I've done some work. Please check. R Davidson 03:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ta bu shi da yu. I've reverted your deletion of the link label to "The Unofficial Opus Dei FAQ" in the Opus Dei article because it was unjustified IMHO. Frankly, I'm quite astonished about your edit commentary "is this info important?", as just 1 hour before your edit you've visited Talk:Opus_Dei:_Bibliography, where this question was discussed. In order to save you the time to re-visit this page, I recommend to read WP:EL#How_to_link. And yes, the point of view of a critic is important, especially if it is a ideologic position generally opposed to the topic criticised. --Túrelio 19:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSA[edit]

Well, it's getting shortened up - I bitched at Wikipedia:Requests for investigation a second time. FTS - time for a nice loooong vacation. Bye. Metarhyme 05:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfD[edit]

Missed your second edit with the result, so I reverted. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Has been corrected. Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton} 08:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is using word like Myth vs. Reality[edit]

NSA warrantless John wesley 14:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the talk page for 67.98.154.35. He/she has been dumping and deleting from the NSA page against the protests of others also. He uses words like MYTH or REALITY to paint one side,,... this is blatant bias. John wesley 14:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC) User 67.98.154.35 is making mischief using anon ID. This is bad faith and trying to hide. John wesley 14:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is exposed: [[1]]

This was in talkpage of anon poster I mentioned above:[edit]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:FloNight. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. - Dakota ~ ° 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above shows his bad faith from past bad acts. John wesley 15:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identity of anon poster, It could be, but the frequency and type of activity suggests a unitary motive and hence personality. I cannot prove it is the same guy but looks too suspicious by half. John wesley 15:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSA controversy article is just too long[edit]

How do we reduce the other stuff, i.e on date X Rep Conyers etc... without ruining the article. The article could crash people's browsers if it gets bigger. :( John wesley 16:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment[edit]

Hi, this would probably make more sense at the DRV that's still going on. Angr (t • c) 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising users[edit]

Hey there. Do you know if there's any way of putting your own user ID into a category e.g. Users from France or something? Not sure about this. Charlie 09:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible admin[edit]

Reminder to myself: User:Scott5114 seems like a good potential admin. Check this later. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin coaching[edit]

Hello, I felt nice to hear from you. As regards your query, you may find my response here: [2]. Regards. --Bhadani 10:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I am sure that we are the most vibrant virtual community and we can continue to move forward towards our mission to build the best global encyclopedia: Better than the Best. --Bhadani 10:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a relief[edit]

This morning I checked my watchlist and got such a big relief when I saw your name and another PATRIOT ACT article listed as the most recent change to FAC. I had heard you were leaving Wikipedia, and hadn't seen you for a while, and seeing your article on FAC was a double blessing. Keep up the good work (pick one of the following, depending on your political leaning:) exposing the corrupt power grabbing of this self-aggrandizing US administration/detailedly cataloguing George W. Bush's crusade to protect the American people, and have a nice day. I hope to see more PATRIOT ACT articles in the future! RyanG e rbil10 16:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be bothersome, but I have a small request. I've wanted to be an administrator for a long time, and I know I'm still probably not ready. Here's where I am now:

1,100 edits
Registered since December 2004
Frequent FAC voter
Member of the Spanish and German translation projects, and Esperanza
Never been accused of vandalism, incivility, mentioned in an RfC, or any other negative thing

I was wondering, could you give me your opinion on close I am, and what I could do better to become an admin? I'm eager to help Wikipedia even more. Thanks for your time, RyanG e rbil10 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I guess I better go to the library and get a book to add references to Crystal Lake, Illinois, my pet project. RyanG e rbil10 19:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Status[edit]

Hi there I understand the neem to sometimes split an article, though I still believe that whilst an article may be well written, to be a featured article, means that it needs to really distinguish itself. I feel that it is very important for the article to be very relevant and be of a standard that works on a front page. I'm not so sure that such an detailed article can be appealing to many people.

However, my position is not firmly held, and if this issue can be in some way overcome, some time in the future I may consider switching my vote. I don't blame you for appearing combative: you probably worked hard on this! -- Chris Lester ^talk 14:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So can I change my position to neutral? -- Chris Lester ^talk 13:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hiii[edit]

Hello. Please this messsage on page and kindly do the needful. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bhadani&diff=55695237&oldid=55649719 I am not able to do this. Thanks and regards. --Bhadani 14:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scienter[edit]

I've undeleted the article, so feel free to expand it now. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shahrukhkhan 20041011 time.jpg[edit]

Sorry I took a lot of time, but I just realised that you have deleted Image:Shahrukhkhan 20041011 time.jpg (in February) saying (Remove copyrighted TIME image. Sorry, fair use does not apply in this instance), but Wiki does have a TIME copyright tag in the upload image section. So why did you delete it?--PremKudva^Talk 07:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "No fair use criteria, no source, didn't follow the fair use policy at all." So how should I go about it? The source was a scan that I took of the Time magazine cover. Also how do I determine or mention fair use criteria for future use?--PremKudva^Talk 06:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSA controversy: comprehensive reorganization[edit]

I've proposed a new version for the NSA warrantless surveillance controversy article, which is a complete reorganization of the current version. I'd like to replace the current version with the new version (applying all changes that have been made to the current version to the new version, to bring it up to date, ofcourse). I'm interested to hear your views/thoughts on it here. Thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say that this is a million times better! At the very least it removes that silly "News coverage" section, which really has no place in an encyclopedic article. Let's give this somewhat over a week of debate and see what else needs to be covered then switch over. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repression is impeded if freedom of the press is allowed - denying its role is better. Metarhyme 13:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright tags[edit]

what is the approate copyright tag to use on a picture that is copyrighted, but granted with permition from the owner as long as the source is specfied? Jerrycobra 09:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK[edit]

On June 1, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle B, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 12:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT articles[edit]

My lord they are impressive. Something other Wikipedia articles should aspire to. --Grouse 14:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta bu shi da yu is a PATRIOT Act god. Snoutwood (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment on User talk:TaranRampersad[edit]

Hi, since I'm not sure if you're monitoring the talk page and since I feel you gave him slightly incorrect advice, I thought I'd point out that I've replied to your comment there. Cheers, jaco♫plane 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kuenseonline-ss-05june27wiki.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kuenseonline-ss-05june27wiki.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I tagged this as having no source because it was taken by someone else. But I guess since Wikipedia is covered by the GFDL and the GPL, and this image is a derivative work, then it must also fall under these licenses. So there's no problem. Sorry for the hassle. —Bkell (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III peer review[edit]

I have left some comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/USA PATRIOT Act, Title III/archive1 for you.

— Wackymacs 06:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman[edit]

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair use[edit]

Please see my comments on your proposed change to fair use policy. You should really change the wording since you've probably used too strict a standard unintentionally, one that would require deletion of every fair use work in Wikipedia.

As someone interested in fair use you might also find the recent decision in Graham v. Dorling Kindersley Limited (PDF) of interest - it specifically rejects many of the arguments people here have often used against fair use. Jamesday 00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is it that...[edit]

IP addresses shared by multiple users are allowed? If a user on the IP address is really intent on helping Wikipedia, they should create an account. Multiple user IP addresses are mostly used by people to vandalize articles and add immature commentary to talk-pages. Just wondering why Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against this sort of thing, as it is a fairly common problem, I should think. Any reasons? Is it because it's unreasonable to effectively force someone to create an account? I'm asking you this, as I noted you'd attempted to block the Ozemail subnet... I assume it worked, as there haven't been any contributions from that IP address in about a year, but there are many more, lurking in the shadows. Heh. ^Triana_C 02:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

Hi, TBSDY, remember me? I asked about amonth ago what is required of admins. You said you'd nominate me if I met certain criteria, like writing an FA. Would it be acceptable if I simply translated a German FA which doesn't exist in the English Wikipedia? The only problem is that the Germans aren't very hung up on references, so any German FA I translated would likely fall short here, but the level of writing would be equivalent. By the way, as a separate type of Admin project (I feel it's like a PhD dissertation), I redesigned the WP:GTIE page, and its subpages are on my to do list. I'd like to be an admin by the end of summer, because when I go back to school, I'll probably be less active, and I've seen that it's easier to be a less active admin than to gain adminship after a period of inactivity... Thanks for your time, (wait... this is really long. Have a cookie) RyanG e rbil10 (Drop on in!) 06:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use[edit]

Thank you for your amendment, it's long overdue. I find it interesting that it was virtually labelled dead in the water before you brought it to the consensus page. I think it's an instance of the "new idea, negative feedback" rule on Wikipedia - new ideas tend to get lots of negative feedback because the people who tend to give feedback are those who have issues with the idea. However, the idea itself may be widely supported and therefore reach consensus. Wide and shallow support often doesn't lead to comments unless provoked into it by what looks like a vote, while narrow and deep opposition materialises on talk pages more often.

You ought to read Graham v D.K. by the way. I expect it will bring a smile to your face - I can't help but think you'll be shouting out "that's just like I said!" Everything from the need for transformational (not purely decorative) use, reducing image size, the focus on reduced image size, no "presumed categories" (so much for the misuse of all those boxes), it's all in there. I honestly don't see why anyone would think it goes against anything you've ever said. Just keep the good fight going: Wikipedia would be a much-less-free encyclopedia without editors like you. TheGrappler 17:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Better than the Best[edit]

Hello. I would request you to please give your valuable inputs to make the Project page more useful. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fermi paradox[edit]

I made a couple of changes re your concerns. Let me know what you think. Marskell 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins[edit]

Didn't mean to slam admins, but I really don't want to attract any attention on the encyclopedia. If I want to get into a debate with somebody, there are 88 jillion other places on the web. Here I just want to work on the articles as quietly as possible. When I read that description of an exopedian, it did seem like it was written for me. Well, I like to think I'm not "cold and aloof" (wink). Casey Abell 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vaknin[edit]

I notice that Sam Vaknin has been deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&offset=1500&type=delete&user=&page=

16:44, 27 June 2006 Ta bu shi da yu deleted "Sam Vaknin" (This was already decided to be deleted. Gone.)

Bestlyriccollection

hi ! just come here to congratulate you for counter the vaknin's article...we support u!!!

che 06:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FUC proposal[edit]

Do you currently have any templates or any ideas on how to tag images as such if your new proposal becomes added to the policy? Regards, Iola k ana|^T 23:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost-it notes[edit]

Hi there; I've added the bare bones of the Vaknin thing to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-03/In the news for this week, but I won't have time to do my usual polish before family arrives (somewhat unexpectedly!) tomorrow for Amer'can festivities. If you're interested, maybe you could expand it a bit (letting the facts speak for themselves in a nice neutral journalistic way)? If you have time to expand any of the other news bits with a little paragraph and/or pull quote (and add yourself to the byline), it'd be lovely if you would; if not, Michael Snow can give it a shot, or it can go out as is. Thanks for the good work you did on the rebuttal! — Catherine\^talk 08:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh! Well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting your assistance:[edit]

This editor has a problem accepting complaints and criticism on his talk page; he thinks he owns his talk page and has the right to delete them. He is a notorious POV-pusher throughout all articles he is fixated with. Common "hot buttons" are words like "Right" and "Conservative", but may entail a slew of tangential disputes. See [3] and User_talk:Lord_Loxley#Histrionic.3F for my attempt to warn him about having a "mission" on the Wikipedia, because I have noticed off and on, just how obsessed his article editing has been with being a vigilante for the Left and trying to portray the Right as wrong. I'll bet all that I have that most of the edits by him are politicised; I believe he should see this here: [4]. Lord Loxley 14:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Vaknin[edit]

Hi, I came across this deleted article while collecting some stuff in this page. I'd like to check Vaknin's claims in this story. Alternatively, I would be grateful for any information you can supply about the edit history of the original article. Can you at least say whether his statements in the story I just cited are accurate? Did he perhaps confusing "blocking" with "banning"?---CH 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent writings[edit]

Hey TBSDY, I saw your recent writings at a Chicago Tribune blog page and at the American Chronicle. Just wanted to say, good stuff! Cheers, JDoorj a m Talk 22:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus[edit]

You queried me apropos of my strong oppose, and I rather untowardly failed to reply. you will not, I hope, thence infer that I am an editor who shows up only to chime in on copyright-related issues and then to disappear or that I less-than-collegially ignore others with whom I disagree; rather, I was working on a few projects here to which I devoted attention to the exclusion of all else. In any case, I suppose I ought to reply here, since the amendment discussion page has long since become difficult to navigate. In sum, there are four points on which I expect that we disagree:

(I) Whether, as a free encyclopedia, we ought to prefer, in all cases, free images to those on which we'd have to claim fair use, consistent with WP:FAIR, or whether we ought not inordinately to limit ourselves, especially inasmuch as copyright law would not always require our preferring free images to fair use images. In this case, you are eminently correct to suggest that current policy militates in favor our implementing the proposed amendment—after all, any user claiming fair use ought readily to be able to explain his/her reasoning—and that the amendment discussion page was perhaps not the best page on which to raise the discussion. I generally concur in such reasoning, and, for example, even as I may think some secondary (and surely all primary) schools to be non-notable, I invariably support keep at AfD of such articles, recognizing that, where a consensus exists, editors who think the community ought to think otherwise ought to raise concerns at the policy page itself and not tangentially at, for example, an XfD. Here, though, one encounters a practical problem, viz., that almost all those who object to current fair use policies here suffer from (a) a lack of conversance with United States copyright law and fair use caselaw and/or (b) a pertinacious unwillingness to discuss issues, where the latter is often found in those who don't contribute particularly productively. I raised my concerns at the amendment page only in order that others wouldn't dismiss them summarily, as they (and I) might be inclined to do were they raised elsewhere.

(II) Whether Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. really goes toward the proposition that each criterion of the four-part test must be fully satisfied for fair use properly to be claimed, or whether the analysis of Kelly v. Arriba Soft (only a 9th circuit case, of course) better interprets the relevant governing legislation, such that one's claim that his/her use is consistent with a given criterion may be altogether tenuous if claims about other criteria militate strongly in favor of use's being declared fair (especially in view of the fact that the first and second factors will almost certainly be disposed of in favor of fair use).

(III; this is the one proposition on which I think my views might command consensus) Whether the use of copyrighted images in portal space can be considered fair. Of course, whenever one raises this issue, others note that, if exceptions to our fair use only in mainspace policy are introduced, users will begin trying to claim fair use for userspace uses or that, at the very least, our adding namespaces to those in which we consider whether use is fair is likely to engender confusion and make more difficult our policing fair use issues. I am confident that most portal uses can qualify as fair use, and I think the issue to be important since many prospective editors happen upon the project at one of the reference desks or at a portal, and our using quality images in portal space is, I think, important to our claiming new editors. Most portals include a good portion of text in a selected article, such that an illustrative photo or other image most certainly—ceteris paribus, at least—can be claimed as fair use.

(IV, similar to I). Whether, from a moral perspective, we ought to concern ourselves with compliance with contemporary fair use law or whether we ought to weigh the likelihood of our being sued relative to a particular use against the propitious effect a given use has on the encyclopedia. Plainly, I think a general reticence to contravening malum prohibitum (or even malum in se) laws—either those criminalizing certain conduct or those making certain conduct civilly actionable—to be altogether provincial. Why we ought not to use an image where we can be relatively confident that we'll not be sued is beyond me, notwithstanding that such use might be contrary to law. Of course, practical problems are presented. Since we can't monitor every use, I'd likely suggest that we expand our policies to permit the use of copyrighted images for which fair use cannot be claimed (with the exception that images challenged on grounds that civil action is likely to ensue should be deleted). Surely one doesn't elect not to rob a bank only in view of the intrinsic immorality or criminalized nature of such robbery, but, rather, in view of the fact that he/she deems his/her chances of success as multiplied by his/her likely gain against the likelihood of his/her being caught as multiplied against the utility value he/she attaches to spending time in jail; a similar line of thinking ought to govern here.

I readily concede that amendments of the breadth that I'd essay are unlikely ever to command the support of the community, but neither do I think that extant policy is favored by most editors. You are right to suggest that I ought to raise these concerns elswhere, and I will; they ought, nevertheless, to inform our discussion of the proposed amendment. The amendment certainly appropriately tracks our current policies, but those policies, IMHO, need to be reexamined. Cordially, Joe 04:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In turn, I must thank you for your pensive and responsive note. You are, to be sure, correct insofar as my objections are rather to extant policy than to your proposed amendment (which is surely consistent with—and, indeed, appropriate in view of—policy), but, like you, I am not at all convinced that changes on the scope of which I'd consider would ever command a consensus, and I'm quite certain that there are more important issues on which I ought to focus my time (both for the project and for myself, although those on which I've fixated lately involve WP:BLP and WP:NOT EVIL, which are similarly tangential to encyclopedic goals and so muddled as to be ineluctably immutable).

The one change for which I might seek support is relative to fair use in portal space, and I'll surely write you again should I think the time to be right. In the meanwhile, I hope you continue to be well, and I thank you once more for the time and energy you've expended (and, FWIW, it is certainly my fault that my writing is sometimes inscrutable, and it is a problem on which I'm working—I'd gotten my writing well under control but, having become enamored with the project and the intellectual stimulation it provides, I've had a logorrhoea relapse, and my inability to communicate well—fostered, I think, by my hyperfear of solecism—serves no one). Joe 05:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation page[edit]

In case you're interested, I thought I'd mention that I finally did update the text at the top of MediaWiki:Cite text -- does that look good to you? — Catherine\^talk 04:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia list[edit]

Hi, I seem to remember that at some point you may have been involved in making a list of articles that would be good for an Australian wikreader (or I could be completely mistaken). Did you - and if so do you still have a copy?--Peta 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An accessibility issue[edit]

... talk:List of Virtual Boy games. Thanks in advance. ed g2s • talk 12:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use template for 48h rule[edit]

I doubt it. It shouldn't be difficult to make one based on nsd/nld. ed g2s • talk 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stealth Barnstar[edit]

I hereby award you the Stealth Barnstar for constantly accomplishing important wikipedia tasks while continuing to stay off the radar. I often find your signature at the end of a particularly cogent post on discussion pages and many times have found that you have already finished jobs I had intended to schedule for some future time, but have never gotten to. The Stealth Barnstar does not have an associated image, of course, as recipients of the award typically eschew the display of their awards. Thank you for your excellence. Pedant 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Photo STATE OF 300RGB.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Photo STATE OF 300RGB.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replaced with image:Valancecrop.jpg) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin![edit]

Thank you, TBSDY, for the helpful hints you gave me on becoming an administrator. They were so helpful, in fact, that I've become an Admin! Thank you. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Linux[edit]

In case you are interested in this wikiproject... Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome[edit]

Hi, thanks for the welcome! USSTRATCOM PAO 19:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit much?[edit]

Did I go a bit overboard this? Comments appreciated. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 06:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your remark on my 2a page[edit]

Glad to know that you went throught it. But what I need to know is whether you think it helped you overall ... Tony 08:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that will be the proof of the pudding—whether it helps people to write better. I'll be interested in your comments on the other sections, as I gradually contruct Q/A pages for them. Tony 14:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USA PATRIOT Act, Title II[edit]

Please check Talk:USA PATRIOT Act, Title II#Good Article nomination has failed. I did say why the nomination failed. Lack of citations and a section needs updating. Iola k ana|^T 14:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC[edit]

Hi, I took that confusiong section out of G. Ledyard Stebbins, if there are any more bits that are hard to comprehend let me know. --Peta 00:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not necessary to understand the main points of the paragraph, I think it read better without it.--Peta 08:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going over the article - it's really good to have someome unfamiliar with the topic read over it and point out the clunky bits.--Peta 08:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

omg[edit]

Hi Ta bu shi da yu,
I am so thankful that you pointed the whole "me wrong, anon rite" thing out haha, thankyou so much ;)
--Deon555|talk|e 09:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

I award this Barnstar to Ta bu shi da yu for his(her) awesome efforts to stay cool.

You could have sworn at me, and called me a liar, but all you did was put the suggestion in that possibly i was wrong. and i was. That's what makes a great Wikipedian, and an even better Admin.
Wear this with pride.
--Deon555|talk|e 09:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.[edit]

I appreciate you straightening out that mess for me. It's nice to know that there are still a few good users here. The returning to-obscurity former Lucky 6.9 via 71.102.76.166 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]