User talk:NeonMerlin/archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, NeonMerlin/archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

And here's something to know; please understand the difference between a user page and a user talk page. Georgia guy 16:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Block

Thanks for your e-mail. I'm surprised that you were affected by the block on 207.35.188.13 (talk · contribs); I'd understood that opening an account meant that IP-address blocks wouldn't affect you. I'll ask around, and try to find out what happened. The block has expired now, so I assume that everything's OK? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocked?

Are you currently able to edit? You should be. The block on User:38.116.192.13 is still in effect, but there is no block on your username. If you can't edit, something's funny. android79 05:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Alice obstrum

This article makes no sense, and it reads like patent nonsense. Is it? - SimonP 03:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't do such things, it is considered vandalism. - SimonP 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Danger

Template:Danger has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Danger. Thank you. --cesarb 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cotw-screen.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Cotw-screen.gif. 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 on Wikipedia 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. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. --OrphanBot 04:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The game itself has been released PD, and I took the screen shot myself. Does that mean I hold the copyright, or is the screen shot ineligible? Seahen 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, actually - I just asked on WPT:ICT. Just thought you'd be interested in knowing. :) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've put it back, because I'm at least sure it's fair use or better, if I don't uphold copyright to it (which I don't). Seahen 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Convention of using Nuvola icons

Where can I read more about it? --logixoul 06:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but when exactly has such a standard been passed? I don't see any reason to change the icons of a random selection of stubs, since editors and stub sorters are used to them. It is a particularly bad idea regarding the flags, since some of us at WP:WSS (particularly me) have been working hard in bringing order to the original mess regarding the flag icons. It'll look very bad when articles are double- or even triple-stubbed, if some of these stubs use a "straight" flag and others a waving flag. Such articles are all over the place. For what I can see, the Nuvola package doesn't have icons for all nations, particularly not icons of a similar design. Moreover, it would have been a nice idea to debate any largescale edits with WP:WSS since we're the ones maintaining the stub templates. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits to the templates using flags. Please do not undo them unless consulting with WP:WSS first. At the moment, the system is consistent, and we'd like to keep it that way. Regards. Valentinian ^(talk) 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mariostar.gif

Moved to Image talk:Mariostar.gif Seahen 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Windows-stub

File:Nuvola samba Windows.png is not fair use. It is GFDL, because it is part of File:Nuvola devices samba unmount.png, which in turn is part of the GFDLed Nuvola icon set. This means it is free to use on Template:Windows-stub. If you have any further questions, I would appreciate them on my talk page. Seahen 19:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't claim "GFDL" while at the same time infringing on someone else's trademark. The item in question is a near-perfect copy of a trademarked logo[1], and as such isn't considered a "creative work" under United States copyright law. It's actually a form of trademark infringement, which can open up Wikimedia to litigation, and that can't be allowed. You're going to find that Wikipedia will put up a lot of resistance to such an image being used, so please, don't bother with this. Warrens 23:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'm infringing on a trademark with this logo, then so is David Vignoni (creator of Nuvola), who claims he can release the above icon under the GFDL. Seahen 00:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to learn more about U.S. fair use doctrine before making such claims. One of the central points of fair use doctrine is the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that makes up the new work. Refer to Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, and Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, among other decisions. Thus it is entirely possible that the first image is copyright infringement, but the second image falls under fair use. The trademark issue is completely separate. Kaldari 07:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Even though this user uses userboxes, they prefer not to be associated with userbox zealots who defend offensive and obscene userboxes.

Here you go, though may I please suggest you tone down the wording before reusing it? (By the way, I would have subst'ed it onto your userpage, but my browser froze trying to load it. That page is huge.) Dmcdevit·t 03:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Then this is what I'll use. Seahen 20:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This user prefers to limit sexually explicit content to the article namespace.

Code monkey question

Just out of curiousity, why the change of image? was the second drawing Len did, and (in both his opinion and mine) better fits the song than File:Code Monkey colour.jpg does. As to which more resembles the typical code monkey, I'd say the both have issues. The code monkeys I've seen tend to dress in button-up shirts and slacks; generally it's the hackers who are the ones programming without any pants... scot 15:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I chose the first, because it was in full colour and contained additional elements (such as the code backdrop and the computer monitor). But it doesn't have to be one or the other. I see three other options:

1. The article could use both images, despite their similarities.
2. I could rework (the license allows derivs), colouring it and adding some code similar to what's in File:Code Monkey colour.jpg.
3. We could use a different image altogether [2], but we'd probably have to settle for fair use.

What do you think should be done? Seahen 03:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

userboxes girl/boy lover

I'm going to assume good faith, and assume that you don't know the history of Pedophilia userboxes on wikipedia. Safe to say, that a number of editors were banned by arbcom for creating these things: see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Please don't go there. --Doc ^ask? 00:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of this history; however, I believe the userboxes have a valid function anyway because changing "pedophile" to "boylover" or "girllover" eliminates the criminal/abusive connotations, and implies only the desire and not the act. This is quite different from the common media portrayal of pedophilia; see Pedophile activism#Childlover. The main concern with the existence of the old template was that it (a) would tend to generate bad publicity and (b) sounded like we were condoning criminal, abusive pedophilia. I believe the language change will answer those concerns. That and the numerous keep arguments (IMO, there was no consensus) raised on TfD are enough for me.

This does not fall within T1. Without the stigma, the template is (a) not inflammatory and (b) no more divisive than Template:User gay. Seahen 01:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The previous boxes were finally deleted by Jimbo Wales himself. It is my understanding that the concerns were not legal, but that such brought wikipedia into disrepute. I consider that you boxes fall under the same category. Thus, I decline to undelete them. If you wish to take the matter to deletion review, you are free to do so, however it is only fair to warn you that your actions may well be considered as trolling if you do so. --Doc ^ask? 10:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, they're up for review. Any further discussion should probably happen there. Seahen 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Enough

Enough is enough. I've blocked you for being a particularly dense troll and for talk page spamming in an attempt to rig votes on WP:DRVU. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Following discussion with Tony on WP:AN, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. Please do not mass-mail users asking them to 'vote' in discussions, it is almost never taken well. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The templates I had made differed in language, and thus in connotations, from the ones previously deleted. I was asking for a speedy delete to be reviewed because T1 was not demonstrated to be satisfied. I did not "spam," I posted to the talk pages of less than a dozen users, to ensure that they became aware. I also request that the vote I opened be undeleted, and remain undeleted until closed. I was not trolling, just speaking out against what appears to me to be clear discrimination. (unblock request denied)

Sorry about the mess, but I don't see how your actions of the past few hours have contributed to the encyclopedia. Please come back in 24 hours and resume editing; I appreciate your work. Ashibaka tock 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What makes the userboxes I made so different from Template:User gay? The harm caused by both homosexuality and childlove is disputed; both practices are illegal in some places and not others. So how can either one of them harm the encyclopedia? They both just tell us about what POV an editor is writing from, and contribute to the autobiography of anyone who chooses to use them. Why doesn't Wikipedia consider childlove to be accepted? Seahen 17:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Libertarian utopia. If you personally would like to write about your opinions on pedophilia, you can use your userpage for that to the extent that it does not disrupt the encyclopedia's mission. Making pithy little boxes and spamming people about them is unambiguously bad. Ashibaka tock 16:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking request declined. --Doc ^ask? 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Votestacking doesn't appear to me to be an unaccepted practice. The only previous exposure to it that I can specifically remember was #Brainwashing and Mind Control, where I was a recipient. I didn't mind at all, and actually made the vote requested. If there is a no-votestacking policy, someone could and should have told me about it before blocking, just like they did with Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. I personally compare it to some of the scrutineering practices used by real political parties in my neighbourhood. They'd have a list of supporters, and make sure they all showed up at the polls, and phone those that didn't. Seahen 17:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, this is only a temporary block. If I were you I would just take a break! It's a lovely day out! Ashibaka tock 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Even if I had known to look, I would only have found the proposed Wikipedia:Vote Stacking and the rejected Wikipedia:Infestation.

Unblock request denied. You were well aware of the pedophilia-userbox affair; poking your finger back into it, even with some change in language, was obviously going to cause disruption, which it has. I think Tony has it right at this point when he calls you a Troll, sorry, and I think the community deciding to limit your block to 24 hours was generous. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Userboxes

I'm sorry, I explicitly don't take place in userbox debates any more. Too many overzealous people on both sides. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Saturday, 6 May 2006 @ 22:11 UTC