Jump to content

User talk:Mikeblas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mikeblas (talk | contribs) at 04:44, 31 October 2007 (→‎Forgotten Realms characters: each discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 90 days are automatically archived to User talk:mikeblas/Archive 01. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.
  • If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
  • Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
  • I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
  • If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
  • If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here.
  • Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
  • Be civil and assume good faith. Trolling and personal attacks are likely to be removed.
  • My user talk page is archived automatically by Werdnabot, so
  • To see older messages please view my archives.

Welcome!

Hello Mikeblas, 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:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 17:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Shinoda

Dear Mikeblas, I've tried to find a solution. Instead of continuing to write "nu metal and rapcore", I've removed "rapcore" from the intro, also because there isn't under Shinoda's picture. Egr, 5/7/2006

Question

I don't know if this is the proper way to get in touch with mikeblas, but I'll try it.

It appears that mikeblas removed some material that I added to the entry "Radio Receiver". I don't understand what was objectionable about my submission. Can mikeblas or anyone else explain?

Gerry9999 K8EF— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfoley9999 (talk • contribs)

Blu-ray Disc Player Articles

I noticed on two BD player articles (the Panasonic DMP-BD10 article, for example) that you added the "reads like an advertisement" template. Why exactly are they considered like adverts, as being a list of specifications doesn't seem to be a reason.Nick 8 00:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because a list of specifications reads like an advertisement. In the Panasonic article you link, there's literally no other content. It's just a copy of the specification sheet for the product. That's unencyclopedic. Wikipedia isn't a product catalogue. -- Mikeblas 06:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doonesbury, Time cover

Can you explain why you don't think the Time cover is fair use? The copyright information on the image page seems to indicate otherwise. Robert K S 22:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See item number seven under Wikipedia:FU#Counterexamples. -- Mikeblas 23:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the uploader failed to provide a Fair Use rationale and explanation, and didn't include source for the image as instructed by template:TIME. -- Mikeblas 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to side with Robert on bullet point one of the copyright notice. I find the whole thing ironic anyway, as Jengod uploaded the image in question AND was the original author of the template you are citing. Have you attempted to contact her to fill in the gaps? --JohnDBuell 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any establishment of fair use in the article or the template. I also don't see any release of rights for use of the image on Wikipedia for non-Fair Use applications in the TOS and legalese on the TIME site, including in the cover archive linked by the template. Do you? -- Mikeblas 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first point wording says "to illustrate an article, or part of an article, which specifically describes the issue in question or its cover". Unfortunately that's vague. We can agree that we're not discussing the issue of TIME in question (as opposed to, say, a social issue illustrated by the cover, which is done in the Soap Opera article). So what of the cover itself? It's an illustration of the then major characters of Doonesbury, drawn for the magazine by G.B. Trudeau. Thus I don't see how the cover can NOT belong in either the article about Doonesbury or Trudeau. If it would help, one could discuss the various covers that Trudeau has illustrated instead of just TIME, such as Newsweek and Rolling Stone (recent examples of the latter include covers of a wounded B.D. in Gulf War II - prior examples are duplicated on the Doonesbury Flashbacks CD-ROM). Thus you'd get around the claim of using the cover as an illustration of the characters. --JohnDBuell 12:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't belong in the article because it's a copyright violation. Using the article to discuss the illustration or the article is Fair Use. Using the article simply to decorate the artilce--which doesn't discuss the illustration or the magazine, or its content--is not Fair Use. Discussing other artwork doesn't help. Again, I think WP:FU makes this perfectly clear; without an explict release from TIME, the cover can't be republished in applications where Fair Use doesn't apply. -- Mikeblas 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Do you know anything about Valve? SMF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.51.166 (talk • contribs)

YouTube

See http://blog.jimmywales.com/index.php/archives/category/legal/. There are tons of talk pages on Wikipedia which state Wikipedia Policy is that the DMCA is the correct means of enforcing copyright issues with YouTube video, not the arbitrary judgement of Wikipedia editors. This has recently been reconfirmed, if you have a question, post it at the Pump or other appropriate page - I do not keep an archive of links on thje subject as it has been resolved, excpet for the few that choose to ignore the issue. Do the research before deleting links, which is wholly inappropriate. Tvccs 10:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are irrelevant. Policy isn't placed on talk pages -- it's on the policy pages. I can't imagine WP:EL being any clearer when it says "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." The links that I deleted are to material that makes no claim of being properly licensed. -- Mikeblas 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:EL as you mentioned - right up top
Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites:
There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.
I think that's clear that says YouTube is fine unless you, somehow, KNOW that the links violate copyright. I contend you have no such knowledge. I have posted numerous videos to Wikipedia and YouTube with the direct permission of the artists in question who use YouTube for that very purpose, which persons such as you have removed improperly from Wikipedia. I should not have to detail, nor is it required by YouTube, detailed copyright permission information on every YouTube listing. That permission is part of the YouTube posting agreement. Furthermore, Wikipedia's rules, rightly or wrongly, state that Jimmy Wales' viewpoint supercedes that of any other stated policy online, as has recently been evidenced and enforced as policy on several occasions. Tvccs 00:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I follow your YouTube links, I don't see any documentation that demonstrate the website has licensed the work, as WP:EL requires. Can you tell me where to find that? -- Mikeblas 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not, nor do most posters, include specific language in the video description, as it's unnecessary and covered by the YT posting agreement. You have ignored what I pointed to above, which states Wikipedia policy is that YT links are okay unless you KNOW the material is copyrighted and not permitted for use on YT or elsewhere. The burden is on the person wishing to remove the post/link, not the person who posted/linked it. Any description of a claimed license in the video description is no more and in fact less valid than anything else. WP:EL specifically permits YT links in a bold heading and does not require what you are claiming at all. Tvccs 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've read what you written and have not ignored it. In fact, I've responded directly: WP:EL says that we must know that the site hosting the work has licened the work. Your response is that the YouTube posting agreement "covers that", but it turns out that thousands of videos have been removed from YouTube because the posters don't have the rights to enter into an agreement concerning the material as they don't own it. That is, the people entering this agreement you're referencing are asserting ownership over something they, in fact, don't own. WP:EL does indeed contain the text I quote; you have to read past the conditional allowance of links to YouTube. If you still don't understand my position on this matter, it's probably best if we seek a third party opinion or take the issue to arbitration. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed. -- Mikeblas 03:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Interjection - I hope you mean "mediation" not "arbitration" - <grin>). Rich Farmbrough, 10:26 16 February 2007 (GMT).
oops! Indeed, I meant WP:MEDIATION. -- Mikeblas 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recovering deleted Sara Jay material

  • Moved to User talk:Quarl

Adminship

Hi Mikeblas, I think you would make a good administrator on the English Wikipedia. Any interest? —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-14 05:30Z

what is this "fix" for?

Hi, Rich! Why does {{unreferenced|Date=February 2007}} need to be converted to {{Unreferenced|date=February 2007}}, as in Micrometer (device)? -- Mikeblas 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, strange isn't it? But the parameter is "date", "Date" will not work. (The capital for "Unreferenced" is merely stylistic.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:08 15 February 2007 (GMT).

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kikkoman logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kikkoman logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 03:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Triangle

The images you removed were fair use for the following reasons: 1) the reader need to know exactly where the history of the Triangle began, and the image of Argosy Magazine qualified. The article within the Feb. 1964 issue was by Vincent Gaddis, and he was the first author to use the name "Bermuda Triangle" in any written work. 2) the image of the New York Times was put there because there has been an effort by the various Triangle writers to distort the facts of the story to make it sound dramatic, or to push their own version of the facts; in this particular example, a vessel is shown in the act of sinking, along with a newspaper story of the incident, completely refuting what the Triangle writers have been saying about it. As such, both examples, I feel, qualify for inclusion under line 7 of the Wikipedia fair use counterexamples.

But, in avoidance of conflict of the subject, I ask that you contact several administrators and present your reasons and mine. I will not change the article as written. Carajou 14:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANTM8

Good work on referencing up the article for the contestants! It appears that some contestants' names were incorrect, and I still cannot gauge if the ones listed are "reliable". In order to avoid overlinking, I have replaced the external links with one overall link to the same lead article. Ohconfucius 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Right now, it seems like there's only two online sources. I'll try to buy a teeny-bopper magazine and confirm what I can, but I've added additional references where I've been able to find them. I think that what I've got is a start, but if we can find multi-sourced names then they should prevail. (As usual, right?) -- Mikeblas 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm discouraged by editorial and journalistic quality of today, and I feel that there is a tendency to rely on the one principal source, which is usually the show's PR department, or it may sometimes be the persons themselves, backed up by the same marketing machinery. I find it frustrating. Most of the time, for the subjects we deal with here, we just have to make do with what we got. Ohconfucius 02:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't rent Idiocracy. It'll bum you right out! Seriously, I don't think we'll change the world by fixing up the ANTM8 article, but getting the references right will be something that will set it apart from other articles in the show series. -- Mikeblas 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: vandalism inaction

Hi there. Checking the contributions of the ip, Special:Contributions/71.60.13.66, delivers a single edit on March 13, this one. While a silly vandalism, he was not warned because of it, and hasn't edited since then. You warned the user because of his edits to Gateway School District, however, the last edit to that article was this one, around 36 hours ago. Blocking is not a punishment for what the user has done, but instead to prevent immediate damage by the user. As you can see, the IP is not active right now, thus it does not merit a block. Personally, I remove reports if an hour has passed without vandalism by the reported user. Others give or take 30 minutes, but basically, unless the user is on vandalism spree, we don't usually block. If you don't agree with my reasoning, feel free to report it back to the board for a second opinion, or its talk page for comments, I won't get offended at all! Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 03:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet map

Hi Mike! I just left an answer for you over at Image talk:Internet map 1024.jpg#OR.3F. κаллэмакс 17:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated! WP:RFA/Mikeblas

Hi Mikeblas, per your agreeing through email to try out RFA, I've now nominated you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mikeblas. You can accept whenever you're ready, or if you want you can participate in other people's RFAs to get the hang of it first. The starting point for finding out about adminship and the nomination process is at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. When you're ready, to officially accept the nomination, say so on the page (and write a statement if you wish), answer the questions, edit the closing time to reflect when you accepted, and add your entry to the top of WP:RFA. The main advice I usually give to nominees is to remain calm in the face of opposition and avoid responding confrontationally, but I think you don't need this advice. Good luck! —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-02 11:01Z

Thanks again, Quarl! -- Mikeblas 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smokey Yunick

Mikeblas, hope you don't mind that I deleted your Unref tag in the Smokey Yunick, Legacy section. After reviewing the recent edits, the most questionable stuff in Legacy was part of an anonymous editor's rambling comments about the IRS (or something — they used the prose style of someone on a few beers in a chat room). Anyway, the Legacy section in now reverted to the previous level of hearsay and the whole page has a Unref tag so I hope that will do? --With regards, Charles Gaudette 07:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I wanted to mark the IRS claim as unreferenced because it is a rather serious claim. But I hadn't noticed the whole article had been tagged {{unreferenced}}. -- Mikeblas 15:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA

I am pleased to let you know that, consensus reached, you are now an Administrator. You should find the following forums useful:

Congratulations on your promotion and the best of luck with your new charge! Redux 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

—KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Mikeblas! Hopefully you will use the tools justly and fairly. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, congrats :) —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-12 07:23Z

Thanks, ya'll! -- Mikeblas 12:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardee's

The material about the franchise stuff I researched from the lobby displays of vintage franchise material displayed by the management of the Chipley, Florida store, and I have cited that in the references. The grill-cleaning is personal experience as an employee and the ads were material I was exposed to working in the Fort Walton Beach, Florida franchise owned by William Bowles. The menu of 1964 was copied off of a photo of the original store which dated to the early 1960s, posted in the modernized Chipley restaurant dining room. Mark Sublette 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response! I've reverted the grill-cleaning edit as OR and POV. The article has plenty of problems with very and non-existent references. I think it's best to resolve those issues before adding any more unreferenced or original material. -- Mikeblas 19:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fans of X-Rated Entertainment

I've expanded the article in question with an awards section citing a number of secondary sources. Care to look again? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have explained the notability of the organization and provided references. The article looks much better now! -- Mikeblas 19:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caps

It is an agreed convention on Wikipedia that all bird species names are fully capped. jimfbleak 15:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I ended up finding Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles, which is where the guideline is documented. It seems rather awkward, but I guess it's not worth changing at this point. Thanks for writing about it! -- Mikeblas 15:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demasked

Yeah, probably. No sources was the biggest thing, but being unreleased and the site having no Alexa rank added onto it. Plus, it seems like a random third party device. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not where you go to get something merged and/or redirected. And I'm told to be bold, not discuss every redirect I do. Demasked shows no notability, Heaven Smile is an enemy in a game which is considered a flop worldwide, and S.S. Anne is an element of a game which lacks any significant importance to the series and as such should not be merged to anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making uncontroversial redirects is somehow unacceptable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is JUST that. It specifically states that I don't have to ask permission to do things, if there isn't any controversy over them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me how AfD = AfR&M (Redirect and merging). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfD and AfD are two completely different processes. I'm not sure I ever said they weren't. Problem is, you're not merging anything -- you're just erasing content because you happen to not like it and, worse yet, aren't interested in considering the input of others in the matter. -- Mikeblas 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says, at the VERY BEGINNING OF THE AFD WIKIPEDIA PAGE, that IT'S NOT FOR TURNING ARTICLES INTO REDIRECTS. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you're deleting content when there's no consensus that the content should be deleted. In fact, there are people who have objected to the deletion, reverted your change, and your response has been to delete again instead of talk the issue over with them. -- Mikeblas 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You objected to the redirect even when the only opposition that existed was you, who gave absolutely no reasoning besides "you should assume that everyone opposes everything you do, and ask permission". - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're misquoting me. I was not the only opposition; I was the only opposition you knew about. Rather than attack problems you think you see in my behaviour, I was hoping that you would have been willing to discuss the article itself. Since you don't appear willing to discuss this issues rationally, I'm going to revert your change. If you object, I trust you'll pursue the proper channels to resolve the edit conflict. -- Mikeblas 03:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling singles in Japan

Hi, I am having a discussion on the talk page of this article concerning the copyright violation. Since you tagged the articles as a copyvio perhaps you can give your input as well. I am still not a 100 percent sure if the whole article actually should be deleted or not, but at least that one section does look like a copyvio to me. Garion96 (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use question

Image talk:Tsvangirai-beaten.jpg You claim that using a photo of a living person in not fair use if no freely available photo is out there. why not? How does it violate fair use? Could you point me to a legal opinion of a US court that says that this is copyright violation please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Custodiet ipsos custodes (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC).Custodiet ipsos custodes 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USC Title 17, Chapter 1, section 102, explains that copyright protection subsists over original pictoral works. Section 107 of the same chapter allows fair use for some situations, but none of those situations here have been established. Certainly, "no other usable copy exists" is not one of the established criteria The closest is, perhaps, "news reporting". But Wikipedia doesn't report news -- it records history. Meanwhile, say you're right: say that it is fair use if no other photograph is available. What have you done to prove and document that no other photograph is available, or has become available since you last looked? Certainly, you don't believe that you're allowed to steal intellectual property until you can manage to find a suitable replacement for the item you've stolen, do you? -- Mikeblas 00:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ifd for xxl

Hey! Yeah, I listed it for deletion, but didn't follow up. I did post a reason in the article's talk page, but haven't bothered following up on the matter at all. I'm not really focusing on that area atm. If I get the time, I will, but I've been focusing on Australian music lately,like Powderfinger, Thirsty Merc, Missy Higgins etc. --lincalinca 01:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on computer program

The Computer program article is in need of repair. Would you comment on any improvement suggestions? I joined the talk starting with the thread talk:computer program#Definition of a computer program. Timhowardriley 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monroeville's establishment date

The reference for the establishment date of Monroeville can be found here. [1] Dincher 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, the article still makes no reference of it and doesn't, itself, cite that reference. As such, it's premature to add the article to the category. It would be great if you could add information about the establishment to the article, reference it, and then add the category. -- Mikeblas 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Hmm, I'm not sure if there's a guideline on it; however, the common practice I've seen is to use alphabetical order since it's the most universally applicable. ShadowHalo 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of LA Temptation

I deleted the notability tag on Los Angeles Temptation intentionally, since the referenced articles seemed to me to establish notability. I think, if there is an issue with the notability of the Lingerie Bowl and/or Lingerie Football League, those should be tagged for notability. Or the individual team articles could be proposed for merger with the Bowl or League articles. I'm not sure what other notability you may have in mind. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 17:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, something that demonstrates the "team" and the "league" aren't just tools of a marketing stunt or soft-porn gigs for struggling models and C-list actresses. -- Mikeblas 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... unless it's a notable stunt or gig. Not everything that calls itself a team has to be a competitive sports team to be notable, right? -- JHunterJ 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So what shows it's a notable stunt or gig? Should we have articles for every marketing scheme? -- Mikeblas 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references included already show that it's a notable something IMO; that's why I removed the tag. Not every marketing scheme will get coverage in the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Observer, etc. -- JHunterJ 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property

Hello Mike,

I noticed in a recent posting on Wikipedia, you brought up a very valid point. I have copy and pasted the comment you made below:

"I have the same questions about clevver.com. [2] [3] While videos are promotional, they're still intellectual property that's owned by someone who probably wishes to exercise their right over the redistribution of the property. That is, have all the record companies given all their rights for those videos over to YouTube and Clevver? If not, I don't think Wikipedia should be linking to them. -- Mikeblas 16:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)"

I am in charge of content acquisition for Clevver.com and I wanted to address this question for you and the rest of the Wiki community. We have specific agreements with ALL content providers for our sites, whether that is music videos or movie content. Our agreements with these content providers, like music labels, specifically give Clevver the rights and permission to use their content in the way we are using it. Unlike YouTube, we do NOT allow users to upload music videos that they do not own the rights to and we prevent this by having humans approve each video. We respect the rights of all content owners. In conclusion, linking to Clevver.com is legal and encouraged by our content partners. We have specifically designed Clevver to have an easy and unobtrusive design and user interface, so users are not required to login or click on a pop-up player, etc. to watch videos. I think that links to Clevver.com music videos and other video pages are positive additions to Wiki pages if done correctly per Wiki rules. Thanks for your time and your ear. Please contact me with questions.

Best,

Michael Palmer

mike@clevver.com

Hi, Michael! Sorry it's taken me so long to post something back. I know there's a way for copyright holders to indicate to Wikipedia that they do allow their content to be included or linked from the content. Thing is, I can't find it. Once I do, I'd ask you to execute that procedure -- IIRC, it involves writing a letter on your letterhead indicating what's allowed, and then sending it to Wikipedia so it can be kept on file and referenced as needed. You might try asking someone else, if you haven't done so already, who's more familiar with this process, because I don't seem to have much luck finding it myself. -- Mikeblas 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for future reference, permissions-en@wikimedia.org is the correct point of contact. 216.9.250.106 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previously Deleted Articles

I noticed you re-tagged Alanna Shelast after I had removed a tag for speedy deletion. I'll stand corrected here. My question is: is there a way to check the deletion logs on an existing article to see if it had been previously deleted? Currently I can only keep track of deleted pages I was aware prior to their current re-creation. --健次(derumi)talk 22:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Derumi! Administrators can see deleted page history; that's how I look. If you're not an administrator, I think you have to "manually" try to hunt down the AfD page. One trick for doing that easily would be to go to the page in question. You'll get the "no such article exists" message, but you can still click "What links here". That should include the previous AfD discussion among the links. I hope that helps!
Meanwhile, I'm not sure you should stand corrected. The article as previously tagged db-bio, and that's for biographical notability. I tagged it for recreated content, since it was previously AfD'ed. I'm actually not sure about using db-repost myself; sometimes, when I read it, I think it's actually referring to completely reposting an exact copy of the previous content. I'm not sure if taking another run at the deleted article is allowed -- it seems not, because the AfD discussed the topic, not the way the article for the topic was written. But the notes for db-repost don't really read that way... -- Mikeblas 16:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the info. I've been here since 2004, but have only recently taken a serious interest in WP outside of mere casual reading and a few nervous edits. So anything I can learn to help make this project better is a plus. :) --健次(derumi)talk 05:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! Don't hesitate to let me know if you have other questions. -- Mikeblas 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! An article which you have edited, Tropical cyclones in popular culture, has been nominated for deletion. You may wish to voice your opinion in the deletion debate. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your article

Just read the article on your user page and I think your views are exactly right. Wiki is full of doubtful and unreferenced views about different subjects. The most scary thing is that other supposedly expert sites just copy text off this site and use it as their own without checking anything. So if you try to Google to check a 'fact' you just get the same mistake back (with identical wording) from a number of sources. Given that people use Wiki for school and college projects and so on we are in danger of creating a sea of self-perpetuating disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apepch7 (talk • contribs)

What can we do about it? I'm placing {{fact}} and {{unreferenced}} tags at an alarming rate. But it doesn't improve anything. Even when people cite references, they're almost always only on the web. Checking references not on the web is something that not many of the few fact checkers here have the inclination to do. What will make Wikipedia focus on quality instead of quantity? -- Mikeblas 14:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning?

Also for reference the IP in use by myself is used by about 100,000 others. It's a proxy for blackberry users from all world wide carriers. I have an account myself, but I will not be logging in via blackberry, it is far too insecure. 216.9.250.106 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:FilZip screenshot.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:FilZip screenshot.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Databases/Comparisons

Template:Deprecation notice --MZMcBride 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weasel-inline

Yes, that was the right course.My bad for not removing the template >_< Circeus 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SQL image

I see you really, really don't like SQL-related images. Instead of deleting images and leaving cryptic messages like "Deleted irrelevant image", how about proposing a "relevant image" for a change? SqlPac 02:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anything is cryptic about my comment. The image provided has nothing to do with SQL. SQL doesn't have a logo, and giving it one in the article is a forced fit. -- Mikeblas 02:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed the Infoplease.com article from your page, so could you please remove the CopyVio section from your page? Thank you.

I already removed the Infoplease.com article from the 2001-02 United States network television schedule page, so could you please remove the CopyVio section from the page? Thank you. AdamDeanHall 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons

Hi! If you are really Mikeblas in commons as well, please give a short statement to the diskussion here. I am going to translate it for you:
At commons is a bit of hell, see here. Can anyone of you play „Tutor“ ? The problem is in a lot of good images, see Erotics, where something was deleted before.

i am doing controll of new images in commons sometimes and i can see no problem with the images. IMHO this can be removed and we have to talk to the person who did so or block him . Yust my 2 cents,


Best regards, __ ABF __ - - Talk - - 11:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's really me. How should I present such a statement, since I don't speak German? Exactly what is it that I should expect to be tutored in? While good images are nice, legal and properly released images are far more desirable. -- Mikeblas 13:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WinZip

Not sure why you are removing the Free Alternatives section. It's a good point as WinZip became popular due to it being free. With the removal of "free", pointing users to free alternatives provides good educational value. This is a major issue for many WinZip users.

Wikipedia is not about advertising WinZip, but rather about educating people, provding information. Burying this in a long table of "archive comparison" is useless to the average user. That's why we need it in the main article.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duras2000 (talk • contribs) 12:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on the talk page for the article, a "free alternatives" section would be redundant to the "Comparison of file archivers". The information is hardly buried; the "Comparison" article has a column which shows the price and some licensing notes for each version. This list is far more complete than the two or three articles you wanted to promote, and also includes commercial software for a more complete picture. -- Mikeblas 13:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of products

Hi there! I see from your contribs and your user page that you seem to be on a campaign to have various "List of ... products" deleted. By my interpretation of Deletion policy/Brand name products, consensus is that lists of products are acceptable. If you want to change that, I would suggest starting there, giving supporting arguments, and make mention at WP:VPP. I do think you have a point — listing every product (or even product family) ever made by a notable company is going to be rather crufty. However, there are arguments for allowing such lists, too. I think discussion is warranted, not a one-man campaign. Thanks for listening, and happy editing! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How did you ever find that? Looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Brand_name_products, I don't see any incoming links from any of the project pages. That makes me wonder: is it really an active policy, or just an informal discussion? -- Mikeblas 16:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't. :) Someone else linked to it in an AfD. And I think you're right, it smells a lot like an informal discussion. But that doesn't mean it does not reflect real consensus. Either way, I do think it is worth reviving the discussion there. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 16:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions for reviving the conversation? Just edit the page and see who participates? Post an announcement somewhere? -- Mikeblas 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I would do is: Attempt to clean-up the existing page first. Consolidate and refactor the discussion. As you note, it's currently more discussion than conclusion. It should begin with a situation statement (there are lists of products), then give the present conclusion, then give the supporting arguments on both sides. Make sure you strive to avoid bias and maintain the existing meaning. Don't add new arguments, or let your own opinions skew things, or you'll be rightly called on it. This will be a little work, of course, but it will help make the discussion clearer, and demonstrate good faith on your part. • Once the page is cleaned up, move forward. Introduce your own, new arguments, and suggested course of action, on the talk page. Then post a summary, and link to the talk page, at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). • I'll be glad to assist you; just give a yell on my talk page if you need a hand with something. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 17:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not gonna delete the whole 2001-02 United States network television schedule page, are you?

You're not gonna delete the whole 2001-02 United States network television schedule page, are you? Are you gonna leave it as it is when this whole Infoplease crisis comes to an end? Please get back to me on this and let me know what you think. OK? This is very important. Thank you very much. AdamDeanHall 14:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motorola C261

Did you intend to reply to someone else's comment? You seem to be making much the same point that I did, yet your comment appears as though you disagree. I'm slightly puzzled. Best wishes, Jakew 17:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Indentation to mark responses is nearly as awkward as editing the whole thread to insert a single response. -- Mikeblas 23:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No singing!

lol @ the trains don't sing! Phgao 16:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD of Sony Ericsson W660i

I removed the PROD tag you added as the article had already been PRODded once by me and was contested. I am considering taking it to AFD for lack of notability; there is another similar debate occurring for another Sony Ericsson article. Camaron1 | Chris 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC) In fact I will create an AFD for the article later today. Camaron1 | Chris 16:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

74181

Hi. I'm curious why you put the prod template on 74181. If the article needs references and cats, fine, that's a perfectly legitimate critisism of the article. But do you really think it should be deleted? This was one of the most ground-breaking chip designs of its time, and led directly to the design of some of the most commercially important computers of the 1970's. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus, the 7400 series chips aren't notable[citation needed]. If you can reference your essay and reduce the peacock words, it would make a good addition to the 7400 series article. I've prodded it because it's completely unreferenced, and content on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Original research is not welcomed here. -- Mikeblas 20:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the discussion where such consensus was obtained. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'll take a while to find, since Wikipedia has such poor searching. But it took place around the same time as an AFD for one of the CMOS 4000-series chips. Perhaps we'll find it faster if you help in the search. -- Mikeblas 04:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to help search, but I don't know what I'm searching for. Still, my guess is there was consensus along the lines of, Individual chips of the 7400 series are not inherently notable enough to deserve an article about them. If that's the case, then I agree with it. It would be silly to create 7401 and 7402 and so on because most of those simply aren't exciting by themselves. There's only so much one can say about a hex inverter. But, something like the 74181 stands out as noteworthy. Yes, I agree that the article needs references. But, let's not confuse insufficiently referenced article with non-notable topic -- RoySmith (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're searching for the discussion about the notability of individual integrated circuits -- it's what you asked for above, so I'm surprised to hear that you don't know what you're looking for. I don't think there's any confusion about notability and references. -- Mikeblas 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see you've found the right link, but I'm afraid that doesn't really help your case. I read the whole AFD discussion and it seems to me that the biggest concern of most people was copyvio. In fact, the consensus, The 7400 and 4000 series parts were revolutionary, not just notable; the individual chips, though are hard to say anything about, was written by you and I don't see a whole lot in the rest of the discussion to support that. It seems disingenuous to cite your own opinion as a consensus which must be followed in another discussion. But, even if we get past that and look at the consensus as you wrote it, it basicly says, Being a member of the 7400 family does not make you notable. That's not that same as, There are no notable members of the 7400 family. I agree with you that not all 74xx chips are notable in their own right, but some are. And the 74181 is one of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's the right link. I think I wrote above that the consensus conversation was about that same time as that AFD, not that the AFD was the consensus conversation. At the time, the individual chip articles were largely copy-and-paste from some manufacturer data sheets, which are protected by copyright, and that's why copyvio comes up in that AFD. If you think the 74181 is notable, that's great -- let's talk about why you thikn it's notable, so I can come to understand your opinion. Accusing me of being disingenuous is inappropriate, and off-topic. -- Mikeblas 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see the 'right link', or whatever links you're talking about that discuss notability. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. I read your user page and understand that you have concerns about articles about non-notable subjects, and articles that contain no references. I agree with the reference concern, that could have been addressed by adding an appropriate tag to the article. I disagree with your concern regarding non-notability, a) the 74181 is historically significant, more so than some long-standing articles, b) the article already has more edit history than some articles that have been on WP for months, c) Wikipedia is not paper, d) do you understand that the 74181 is not just another quad NAND gate? 74s181 02:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the 74181 is; I've used it in my own designs. The notability of the product is not established, and that other articles exist is not relevant. Indeed, I added a {{unreferenced}} tag to the article, but in my experience this is hardly an effective way of getting material referenced here. -- Mikeblas 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like what you really want is for references to be added, but you don't have faith that {{unreferenced}} will have the desired effect so you've brought it to AFD to force the references to get added? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Even if references are added, I don't think the subject of the article is notable. 74s181 has made no valid argument; a) is an assertion backed by nothing more than otherstuff; b) is about edit count, and edit count doesn't make an article notable; c) is carries no weight as WP:N overrdies WP:PAPER; and d) is an irrelevant personal attack. -- Mikeblas 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now there are references. 74s181 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) The 74181 is at least as notable as the 4004 and 8008, and much more notable than the TMS9900, CDP1802.
d) was not meant as a personal attack. Based on your statement "By consensus, the 7400 series chips aren't notable..." I was questioning whether you had the knowledge to recognize that the 74181 was something substantially different from other 7400-series chips. But since you've "...used it in [your] own designs", it really surprises me that you would think it non-notable. 74s181 06:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is it about this product that makes you think it is notable? I'm also interested to learn what basis you use for comparing notability. Is the 74181 less notable than the 8080? Is the 8086 more notable than the 8080? Is the 68000 more notable than the 74181? How about the 68030? You've made plenty of assertions about your belief that it is notable, but have done absolutely nothing to substantiate those assertions--or even explain them. -- Mikeblas 11:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now there is a reference that states notability. My opinion? Maybe less notable than 8080 and 680x0, but notable because it inspired the 4004 microprocessor, in that sense it is in the ancestral tree of the 8008, 8080, 8086, 80286, 80386, and Pentium, despite its warts the most popular CPU architecture of all time. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it is interesting that the DG NOVA and the DEC PDP-11, the two major 16 bit minicomputers, bitter rivals, both used the same ALU? And that the VAX used the same ALU? 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When I get time, or if someone else has time, a section will be added illustrating how the 74181 directly inspired the microprocessor or CPU on a chip. 74s181 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's interesting, but that's because I'm an electronics hobbyist. What we're trying to determine is if it's notable or not. What reference do you have that states notability? -- Mikeblas 16:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I think it's interesting, but that's because I'm an electronics hobbyist." Are you the only electronic hobbyist that looks at Wikipedia? Don't you think it might be interesting to other electronic hobbyists? Or is electronics history one of the topics that is excluded from Wikipedia? Is there a list of excluded topics somewhere that I haven't seen? And like I said above, I'd like to see a link to the discussion about notability that you referred to. 74s181 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to admit that in your zeal to maintain the purity of Wikipedia you were perhaps a bit hasty in this case? 74s181 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My interest level -- and the interest level of other Wikipedians, in fact -- has no bearing on the part being considered notable in Wikipedia's guidelines. I wasn't hasty at all; listing the article for AfD to get consensus on it for this specific case was precisely the right thing to do. -- Mikeblas 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't provide a reference, I tried to figure out why nominating 74181 for deletion the same day it was created was "...precisely the right thing to do." This is what I found. 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Notability - General notability guideline I can see that the article has some weaknesses. 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also learned that your response was absolutely not "...precisely the right thing to do." From Notability - Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines
If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
  • Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.
  • Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.
  • If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.
Bottom line, we need to find a reliable source that says the 74181 is historically significant, and you need to allow time for us to do this. Otherwise, maybe you are referring to some other policy, if so, please identify the policy under which immediately deleting 74181 is "...precisely the right thing to do." 74s181 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion would make more sense at talk:74181 or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/74181. I'd like to copy it to one of these locations and continue the discussion there. Is that ok? Which would you prefer? 74s181 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to miss the 5 day deadline, so I've copied this discussion to the AfD page. 74s181 04:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On talk page practices and ephemeralities

Hey. I've been thinking a bit about organizing my fast-growing talk page. Like your great big tag says, I too like to keep discussions unfragmented - but do so by copypasting what I'm replying to into that reply, optimally resulting in a copy of the conversation on the talk pages of both party. It's much easier for outsiders to follow than normal fragmented ones, and easier for the other party to see that I've replied. On the other hand, people may carry on the conversation on their talk pages instead of mine (though in practice, this very rarely happens.) The effort involved is trivial. Can I ask if you see any other clear advantages or disadvantages between our methods?

While this isn't why I came to you for - I was on vandalism patrol - I took a look at your AfD/PROD list.
I've been monitoring a series of unfortunate events from the sidelines. (I would've tried to get involved, but suffered what's best termed a temporary health failure and left alone.) There's this new editor who's unfailingly polite and conservative in his language, and also possibly the most keen tagger/AfD'er/delete-voter that I've seen in the past four years. He nominated Angelfire for deletion at one point as vanity spam - that's Angelfire as in the ridiculously large web host, that an editor found nine references for with a NYTimes.com search - and has been applying the same degree of research, discretion and good faith assumption to RPGs. What I'm getting to here is that the RPG wikiproject (which I don't belong to) is stretched to the breaking point, and in no condition to bring their expertise (the one that WP:N recommends consulting, amusingly) to bear in their obscure field, nor to decide how to adapt to larger-scale deletions to best cover their material in the future. Their attempts to form practices for dealing with notability issues were put on hold due to too many demands to deal with notability issues. I ask that you leave role-playing game - related articles be for the time being. It's not an urgent issue, and more pressure at the present time can't help our most valuable resource, the community of volunteers.

Now hit me. I think I'm becoming a politician. --Kizor 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think the "new" editor Kizor is refering to is me, and he is trying to discredit my proposed deletion of RPG articles by using a selective example. Note that Angelfire, an article to which no editor (including Kizor) has contributed a single reference to since my AfD, is still in pretty bad shape. If Kizor has issues with my edits, I would prefer that he bring it forward to the village pump for discussion. --Gavin Collins 12:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your back

Just want to give you a heads-up-some knucklehead on 4chan has decided you hate Dungeons and Dragons and is trying to incite raids against your userpage. I think he's just angry about all your prods and AfD nominations related to D&D articles and isn't smart enough to find a more constructive way to make his complaints known.72.241.182.49 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're making a habit of these things over there. I erected the usual semi-protection, and you may wish to amuse yourself by imagining the sounds of incoming vandals ricocheting off it. Strengthen or dismiss it at your leisure, of course. --Kizor 10:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, and the heads up! -- Mikeblas 13:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Realms characters

Hey, Mikeblas. Just a note; instead of prodding and then AfDing so many Forgotten Realms characters all at once, it may have been more productive (and appeared less antagonistic) to start a discussion somewhere else (for example Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Forgotten Realms or Talk:Forgotten Realms), especially since you've lumped characters who have been major protagonists in multiple novels in with minor supporting characters that have made only single appearances. Powers T 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't lumped the characters together; each one has it's own AfD page. Each discussion can reflect on the merits of each character. -- Mikeblas 04:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikeblas&oldid=168242591"