User talk:Orangemonster2k1: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:37, 8 February 2007

/archives

/archive 1

Re: Question

Not unless the copyright for the logo has lapsed. Many images published between 1923 and 1963 (& all prior to 1923) are now in the public domain because no one renewed the copyright. However without explicit confirmation of copyright status, it's best to assume that all of these are fair use images as far as Wikipedia policy is concerned. Creating new versions of these old logos would constitute creating derivative works, this would also infringe on the original copyright. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use with permission is not allowed (see this for explanation). Wikipedia policy does allow the fair use claim of a logo, but I am not sure of the policy regarding fair use claims for multiple logos/identifying marks. I suspect that if there is a significant amount of critical commentary on the history of the logo then a fair use claim could be postulated, but this is a gray area, and most veteran contributors tend to lean on the side of caution. You are probably better off discussing this issue at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transforming logos into free material is pretty much impossible, many of them don't ever even expire because of trademark law. There are legal provisions for their use, and I think that fair use applies here, but Wikipedia has its own policy that adds extra requirements. Again, I'm not sure what to suggest to you in this situation. You could try to draft a blanket fair use rationale for these logos and submit it for review at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Be careful though, veteran Wikipedia contributors can be very pedantic, so you might want to brush up on WP:IUP, WP:FU(&WP:FUC), trademark law, & fair use before you submit any proposal. Welcome to the beureaucracy. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ATHF/Adult Swim Apology

I saw an item on the news here in the Netherlands about the "panic" in Boston. At the very end they showed the LED board and I recognized it immediately. So I started searching for more news. Wikipedia had something about it (of course). I always correct typos on Wikipedia since I'm not yet confident enough to do large changes, even although you should be bold.

Anyways, glad I could help ; ) --JVersteeg 18:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence.

If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

I've seen you are a good editor and I hope you join. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the Open tasks here, and if you wanna be a member, add the userbox or just add yourself to the category (more info here. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shakti Gawain

Hiya. Thanks for your message about my tagging the article on'Shakti Gawain'. I don't doubt that she is a big cheese within her field, but I nominated it for deletion because the article itself doesn't give any references that prove it. The only link is to her own website, and I'm afraid that doesn't count. If she has sold millions of books, put up a link to somewhere that can verify this and you'll be fine.

Cheers, Chris 09:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KXGN

Just trying to show that KXGN is a dual-affiliated station that airs NBC programming,

Which you do by saying "KXGN is a dual-affiliated station that airs NBC programming."

..but actually show what NBC programming they air. They air shows off-schedule (My Name is Earl and The Office are aired on Saturdays).

Uh huh. And as Wikipedia is not TV Guide, the point of documenting their exact programming schedule is what, exactly?

Having to add all these references is just annoying.

As is seeing the entire schedule reproduced. It's ludicrously pointless detail, not even useful to readers who happen to be viewers in KXGN's own market. --Calton | Talk 05:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do a Google search, you will see KXGN is something of a legend, if you will, on radio and TV sites. Even having it's own page on TVNewsTalk.net for a short time...even though it was started as a joke, it expanded. They dropped it when TVNT went down for a couple weeks.

Uh huh. And the point of this ramble -- utterly unconnected as it is from anything mentioned so far -- is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 05:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

::Just making a point....no need to be rude

For the third time, what point are you trying to make? Asking to you to explain yourself instead of slapping irrelevancies onto my Talk page is NOT rude, but you're pushing me in that direction.

Let's make it simple: no explanation, no schedule. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Just trying to show that KXGN is a dual-affiliated station that airs NBC programming, but actually show what NBC programming they air.

Which, to recap "you do by saying 'KXGN is a dual-affiliated station that airs NBC programming.'"

They air shows off-schedule (My Name is Earl and The Office are aired on Saturdays).

So? You could show that by writing "They air shows off-schedule (My Name is Earl and The Office are aired on Saturdays)."

KXGN is the only station in the nation to have affiliation (sp) of 2 of the "Big 3" Networks.

A statement which doesn't require a schedule.

Saying that they air "select" NBC programs tells the reader nothing,...

Not even wrong.

... saying they air only the 10pmEST/9pmMST programs would be false, saying that they only broadcast programs from NBC aired that day would also be false as stated above.

Again, so? Telling readers that they give away free ponies on Friday nights would also be false and as equally relevant as your examples.

A schedule shows the reader the very unique situation that is KXGN's prime-time programming.

First, there's no such thing as "very unique": it's unique, or it isn't. Second, describing their schedule shifting does not require anywhere near the level of obsessive detail you're bringing in -- including the syndicated show schedule -- any more than explaining the predominance of Irish-Americans in the FDNY requires listing every surname in the department.

Something that is best described with a schedule. Most readers that don't leave in Glendive will probably never come across a station like this, so explaining it this way is, I feel, best and easier than a long-winded paragraph.

Most readers -- and certainly almost every reader outside the United States -- won't give a rat's ass about the subtlety of the shifting of specific shows from their specific customary time slots, since they they won't know -- and won't care -- what those time slots are. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am working with A Man in Black on this one, so that all the references are up to Wiki's standards. He has requested a reference that says that KXGN is the only station that airs both CBS and NBC programming or is the only station that airs any programming from any of the "Big 3" networks...if you would like to help out, I would appericate a little help looking that information up.

None of which has the slightest bearing on whether the complete schedule is appropriate to begin with. Oh, and don't forget WP:OWN. --Calton | Talk 07:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you PM me just to argue?

No, I am responding to your damned continual posts on my Talk page and asking for for reasons I shouldn't delete the schedule-cruft from the KXGN article -- which you are NOT providing.

I started it, so...um...yeah it is mine to end.

Again, take a read of WP:OWN whenever you get the chance. Short answer: no. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, I never said I "owned" the KXGN article...

Your messages to A Man in Black suggest otherwise.

...but am working to add references to it so that the schedule may remain

Again, you're completely missing the point: the schedules don't belong, period/full stop, whether you have no references or 100 references. --Calton | Talk 07:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look, I am giving him links, he tells me "no", I keep looking....I asked AMIB if a different reference would be acceptable. Since he is an admin and you (and I) are editors, he outrules you on whether something stays or goes. So, when I find that reference, it goes back up. No period, no full stop...what AMIB tells me, goes. Sorry

A whole lot of nonsense, but let me concentrate on the one big one: he removed the schedule with the edit summary Still not TV Guide, but the one useful reference is good here. That's not saying "it needs a reference to include the schedule", it's saying "the schedule doesn't belong because Wikipedia is not TV Guide". Or, as he notes explicitly "We don't need the schedule to establish that". Still doing "what AMIB tells" you? --Calton | Talk 07:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, he said nothing about the inclusion of the schedule itself. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio/WV radio stations

Thanks for fixing those. Trouble is those were both categorised as Category:Television stations in Ohio, so the 'bot was thereby fooled. I think the trouble is that some people are using these as "serving parts of", whereas others take them as meaning "actually physically in". Alai 10:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion

I actually don't know anything about TV stations... but it was not you that I was worried about, it was the anonymous IP which is a likely sockpuppet of User:BenH. I was doing some vandalism patrolling when I came across this user.. it appears he has been and continues to make many many subtle edits, a few of which are good, but many of which are just made up or downright wrong or cannot be verified by any sources on the internet. The user never used edit summaries or talk pages, so thats one reason he was blocked, and now has many editors trying to stop his sockpopettering for good. Since you edit these pages you should watch out for him and be wary of his edits, although hopefully he won't be around much longer. Danski14 00:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want you can post them on my talk page. Also, if you see any of those IPs making those kind of edits, you could tag them with {{sockpuppet|BenH}}. If the user responds, then it's most likely not BenH, but if it is it would be nice to hear his side of the story. Anyways, I'm kindof new on the anti-vandalism scene, and this is more of an issue to be delt with by admins I guess, who can trace IPs (see WP:SOCK)). It's also probably the strangest case I've seen so far. Danski14 01:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TV schedules

Hi Orange,

I saw your comments on WP:AN. Please do not add schedules to local TV station articles. As you must be aware by now, Wikipedia policy (specifically WP:NOT forbids TV Guide-style schedules, although we have been allowed national programming grids. I understand the station is notable as being the last local station to be affiliated with more than one of the Big Three Television Networks, but some editors feel a blanket approach to the policy is best.

As far as user:Calton goes, I agree some of the comments have been overly aggressive, and will leave a note. Meanwhile, just go back to editing your usual articles (without adding the schedule, naturally). Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Calton

I'm helping to flesh out the RFC on Calton's behavior. Thank you for getting this much-needed process started. You should endorse the RFC, by adding your signature under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum link

Hello. Please refrain from entering that forum link onto Wikipedia articles. See the {{spam}} template for more information. Thanks in advance. El_C 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question

Hi - use <sup></sup> tags. <sup>(Yell)</sup> becomes ^(Yell). Hope that helps. Cipher ^(Yell) 11:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go into My Preferences - put this in your signature:

[[User:Orangemonster2k1|SVRTVDude]] <sup>([[User talk:Orangemonster2k1|Yell]])</sup>

Select Raw Signature. That should work. Cipher ^(Yell) 14:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

100000watts

I'm not sure...seems like a reputable source. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 14:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think it would be reputable as well. Ntropolis 21:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used 100000watts ever since M Street bought it from Chip Kelley and started charging subscriptions. Chip did his best I'm sure, but the data were not always accurate, especially for TV stations' affiliations, so I refused to subscribe. Apparently, Scott Fybush is the news editor, or was as of April 2005 - he's publisher of NorthEast Radio Watch and highly respected - and in a bulletin board forum, he claims that the data are now being compiled by researchers whose job is to call around to get info and to scour the news releases. So apparently, there are processes in place that could make the site a reliable source, whereas I wouldn't have said so when it was a free site. I guess the best thing would be to contact 100000watts.com and ask what kinds of auditing is in place that would make the site reliable. Having read Scott's post and knowing his reputation, I may just sign up for a short trial subscription myself just to see how it's changed in the last 5 years or so. dhett (talk • contribs) 00:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

Hi Orange,

Thanks for your notes. I agree several of Calton's comments were incivil. I'm not sure a request for comment was needed at this point. Wikipedia is huge, with well over 1.5 million articles. There are over 2,000 TV station articles alone. I feel like the encyclopedia is large enough that two users who disagree with one another can still continue to edit Wikipedia without ever having to bump into each other on a regular basis, so an RFC is/should be a last resort. On another note, please don't remove tags like this. Weigh in on the discussion page, but don't remove tags. Anyway, happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Orange,

Thanks for your note. It sounds like, aside from a few incivil comments, you have a good attitude and I look forward to seeing further good contributions from you. The RFC process is long and drawn out, and I can only hope it will result in a solution that will be acceptable for all parties. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WNEP

Thanks for the props bro! Hope I did this right, Still new to me!Heartbreak 08:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Things came out okay

Try not to be worked up over Calton anymore. It won't help to respond every time he says something about you; it just gives him an opportunity to say even more. Let one salvo pass you by and it will almost certainly stop after that.

I mean, I want to reply to his RfC response and say how full of crap he is. It would be immensely satisfying for about five minutes. But then my reply would be sitting there making me look like a putz, and it wouldn't help to show anything about Calton that people can't already see anyway.

You expressed dismay about the RfC on my talk. I think the RfC was moderately successful for an RfC -- yes, it devolved into a bunch of confused opinionated people all pretending to agree with each other while simultaneously saying that everyone should just shut up, but pretty much every RfC does that. It was moderately successful because most of those people mentioned somewhere that Calton is being a jerk.

So what good came of all this? I think Calton will at least think twice before the next time he flies off the handle -- not because he has a change of heart, but because I think he prefers to avoid hearing idealistic fools like me comment on his conduct. Just speculating.

Cheers, rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]