User talk:Android79/TalkArchive006

Canderson7's RFA
Thanks for supporting my RFA, I really appreciate it! --Canderson7 16:56, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

VfD for Brent Walters
The reply is at my talk page. Thanks, Redwolf24 17:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for your vote of support on my recent RfA. I was quite surprised by the amount of support I received, and wish to extend my thanks to you for taking the time to support my nomination for adminship. -- Longhair | Talk 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

More thanks...
...for your support in my adminship. I really appreciate it and your comment was hilarious! Best, Lucky 6.9 02:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism??
How is it vandalism? I'm halfway through writing a complaint about the article and sending it to the Wiki powers that be. It's already been listed. What else do you need? --anonymous user from Bush page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.150.36.30 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are no such thing as "Wiki powers that be" when it comes to deciding article content. That's decided by consensus of those editing the page, and is generally discussed on the article's talk page. If you really feel that the article is in bad shape, you need to make a case for it on the talk page. Since you appear to have no interest in such a discussion, and have been applying seemingly random tags to the article, this looks like vandalism to me. Prove me wrong and engage in constructive dialog at the talk page. android  79  23:26, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter
Man, I hated how she killed Frodo too. Redwolf24 01:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Baseball pictures, specifically Johan Santana
Hello Android79. My name is Googie Man and one of my passions in life is baseball. Another passion is taking pictures of baseball players and putting them on Wikipedia. This is an issue I've done much research about, and the conclusion that I've reached is that the most effective way for Wikpedia to have pictures of baseball players that are 100% guaranteed not to have copyright issues is for us to upload picturs taken by *fans*. It's purely speculation that the image you used of Johan Santana is "fair use". I've spoken personally with various representatives of Major League Baseball, and they were not exactly receptive to Wikpedia using their images. So as I've said, the safest route is for us to use images taken by *fans*. I am an avid baseball fan. I spent a lot of time, effort and personal resources to take these pictures to contribute to Wikpedia. So, when you take down the images I've personally taken and uploaded, you're undoing a lot of time and effort for what is in the best interest of this encyclopedia. Therefore, I am reverting your the Jonah Santana page to what it was before your edits, and will continue to do so in the best interests of Wikpedia. Googie Man

Cleanup Taskforce reminder
Greetings. You are receiving this boilerplate notice because you have a task on your Cleanup Taskforce desk that has not been updated for over 30 days. If you do not wish to complete this task please assign it to another Cleanup Taskforce member who has space on their desk. If you do not wish to receive cleanup requests on your desk any more, you may remove yourself from the membership list. If you or someone else has completed the task, you can close it by adding to the article's talk page and removing it from Cleanup Taskforce. If you have a status update (e.g. you intend to work on it in the future) or need help, you can update the collaboration page (which is linked from your desk). Also feel free to reply to the person who left you this message. -- Beland 04:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA. I will do my best to serve the Wikipedia community as an administrator. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy
As a fan of the book and D.Adams in general I would recommend seeing the film. Visually, its a feast for the eyes, of course it compresses the time frame somewhat. Pretty well acted too. Incidentally I met Adams a few years before he left us for the restaurant at the end of the universe, a very gracious man. He signed my copy of "So Long and Thanks For All the Fish". For free. Too bad hes gone, I miss him. See you 'round the wiki! Hamster Sandwich 05:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe I will go rent it... It would have been cool to meet him. He died the day after my birthday, I was very sad. :-( android  79  04:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Make sure you let me know what you think of it. My roommate watched it with me, and since he never read any of the books, he thought the whole thing was absurd.Personally, I hope they make the whole series with the cast they used in this one. See ya! Hamster Sandwich 03:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

socks and stuff
why spread lies? this diff is a lie http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Gabrielsimon&curid=2279777&diff=20614985&oldid=20497678 read my tlak page. i am this users sole active account, thereafore not a sock puppet, please remove the added data sited in the diff.Gavin the Chosen 12:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did read your talk page. That's where you all but admit you are Gabrielsimon. Please stop this charade. android  79  12:36, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

there is no charade, this user is not a sock puppet, the other account got abandoneed. erwemove the information cited in the diff above, please.Gavin the Chosen 12:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You are the same person, so yes, it is a charade to pretend otherwise. It makes no difference if you abandoned the other account, as you – by whatever name you choose for yourself – are currently undergoing an ArbCom. The evidence I added is quite relevant to that proceeding. It should not be removed. If you want to clean your slate, admit your wrongdoing and correct your behavior. You can't simply wish up a new identity for yourself and continue with the same kinds of things that got you in trouble in the first place – though I am heartened by the fact that you're not removing stuff from the evidence page yourself anymore. android  79  12:47, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

you could be either a little more supportive orat least a little nicer.Gavin the Chosen 12:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You exhausted my patience long ago. I will be as nice and supportive as your behavior warrants. android  79  12:50, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * you may have to eat those words ( soupposed to sound funny, not threatening) becaue im not getting in trouble EVER again, if i can help it.Gavin the Chosen 12:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope for your sake that this is true. android  79  12:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Promo photos
Like any other purported fair use of copyrighted materials, this must be weighed according to the traditional (now statutory) fair use factors: In this case, I assert that 3 of the 4 factors swing heavily in the direction of this being a fair use: The only factor that would swing against you is the third one, but I would not take that too seriously. First, it is impossible to use substantially less than the entire picture to show what the players look like. Are the pictures cropped, or displayed in a smaller size than you would find them on the website from which they have been copied?
 * 1) the purpose and character of use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
 * 2) the nature of the copyrighted work
 * 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
 * 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
 * 1) Wikipedia is a nonprofit, educational website
 * 2) there can be little effect on the "market" for the copyrighted work (digital images of baseball players) where anyone can get virtually identical images for free at any time.
 * 3) these are not abstract creative works (like a Salvador Dali painting), which would receive strong protection based on the skill that went into their creation; rather they are photographs which simply show what actual people look like in their actual uniforms, in the most utilitarian arrangement for achieving this purpose.

Finally, on a more pratical note, no one is likely to go to the time and expense to sue you (or anyone else) over this use of these photos. It is to the MLB's benefit to have consistent representations of its players on the internet, which ultimately serves to promote their business. Furthermore, you're just a screen-name on the internet, and it would be a pain in the ass for them to track you down to bother with a lawsuit in which they would stand to reap only nominal damages (since you have a good faith fair use defense, they could not revcover anything but their actual demonstrable losses incurred due to the infringement). -- BD2412 talk 03:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cheers!
 * For the record, I am using the photos as-is, no cropping, no alteration. They're pretty tiny. And these are the photos of players you see everywhere – I don't know if you're a baseball fan, but you'd see these headshots on TV and on the big screen at the stadium whenever a player comes up to bat. They're almost like yearbook photos. That said, though, all this talk of "suing" makes me a little nervous. Thank you so much for the advice. I'm not sure what I'm going to do yet. android  79  03:19, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem - see if you can find out whether the MLB has a policy on the use of those photos, tho. Maybe they have something on their website. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 03:22, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Haunter
Are you going to finish expaning the haunter that you were given by the PAC on June 1? If not, please say so on the PAC page and it will be re-assigned. Thank you. --Celestianpower talk 21:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry! Forgot about that. I've noted on the project page that I've done all I can (which wasn't much). android  79  21:11, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

All things Baseball
Hello Android79, Googie Man, here again. Thanks so much for your very thought provoking response. You raise a number of interesting issues, all of which I'd like to address in some form or another. First off, about the info. box, and the Santana picture. What you propose sounds great to me, and is a perfect example of what's great about Wikipedia. Through discussions like this, we put our minds and resources together to ultimately make it a better site. Frankly, I liked your info. box better in terms of presentation. However, I do feel like it lacked some vital information that is of interest to most baseball fans. With the info. box you've used, could you put in some additional information, such as how the player was originally selected, their age, and the usual things you can find on various baseball sites?

The issue with Major League Baseball is rather involved, but I'll try to keep it brief. I spoke with the press departments of 3 teams to be named later, asking if I could get a press pass to their Spring Training games so I could take pictures for Wikipedia. Not only were they uniformly dismissive of this idea, they were also not particularly enthusiastic about Wikipedia having articles about baseball in the first place. One in particular said something to the effect that we should read very carefully the rules of using images of Major League players, especially copyrighted images. The tone of the conversations were not particularly positive, needless to say. I don't think that Major League Baseball is going to sue the Foundation, however you never know about what a freelance photographer may or may not do. Furthermore, I think there is another issue at hand here as well. Using fan images is a great way to encourage Wikipedians to contribute their work in a way that's much more rewarding than using someone else's work entirely. It's a way for fans to express their love for the game in a creative way, and Wikipedia offers a unique forum for this expression of creativity. My ultimate hope is that baseball fans across the country will be going to games, taking photos, then uploading them on Wikipedia. And the best part is that fan pictures for non-commercial use is completely legal. Again, I'd really like to hear what your opinions are about this as well.

As for the baseball players project, you can count me in on this! I completely understand about how baseball (and sports in general) are a greatly neglected topic on Wikipedia, and I've been trying to find, without much success, other Wikipedians who share my enthusiasm for baseball. I think we should make a concerted effort to communicate with each other about ideas, ways to standardize the various baseball pages, etcetera, so we can eventually make baseball as detailed and encyclopedic as other subjects are on Wikipedia. My email address is terry@wikia.com. Googie Man 23:07 UTC

Movies 333
Hi, I've undone your merge at Movies 333 - now at True Movies, as it is entirely unconnected to the article you merged it with beyond having an entry on their EPG. If it was being merged, Chart Show TV would be the suitable target, but the channel is about as notable as the other 1000+ articles for small TV channels on the Wikipedia. --Kiand 03:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, my bad. That article's been sitting on my cleanup list for awhile now, and I guess I picked the wrong merge target. Thanks. android  79  03:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh, the main reason I mentioned it was that I don't think it should be redirected - theres far less important TV related articles, and True Movies has received quite a bit of media interest due to its extremely high ratings for a freebie channel - its completely free to air, and outranks a number of "premium" movie channels in ratings and what ad revenues they can charge... Thats why I mainly un-redirected it. --Kiand 03:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops again. I went ahead and redirected it to Chart Show TV, since I misread your first message – I thought you meant it wasn't notable. If you plan on expanding it, go ahead and undo the redirect again. I guess I shouldn't be meddling with articles on TV stations in other countries. :-) android  79  03:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)
''Good editor with a level head. (Figuratively, of course....''. Hehe, I'm just glad my head is in the right place, literally. :) Thank you for supporting my RfA. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e, ) 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Source of Labour
I saw the list of things you wanted to do on your user page. Thought since I had a few minutes I would do some checking for you. I googled, and came up with a few web pages that would show this Seattle hip hop crew as meeting at least two articles of WP:Music. You can look here at an nicely illustrated adobe doc. They toured, opened for notable acts and released an album (that wasn't a CDR)etc etc. I thought the WP article was pretty good, if a little short. I don't know anything about hip-hop. I'll leave that in your good hands. See you! Hamster Sandwich 05:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for reminding me about this. This is only on my list because it was connected to a series of band vanity articles centered on Jason Frost, which I now see have all been recreated, and need to be deleted. Source of Labor itself seems notable enough for an article – someone just decided to hang a little bit of claimed notability on their connection with them. android  79  11:10, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Just a quick note to say thanks for supporting my adminship nomination. In answer to your query, well I am slack in getting any sort of task completed, on- or off-wiki, it just seems that there's always something to distract me with around here. I also liked the juxtaposition of the Latin with something a little less pretentious :). But anyway, thanks for your vote of confidence, and I'll be sure to try to live up to it.  Cheers, Slac  speak up!  22:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Religion and sexuality
Just incase you missed it this article needs to have it's VFD closed and a redirect placed up as well. Gateman1997 22:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, android, I just noticed in a different debate you pointed that guy to the same instruction page I did. Thank you.  Incidentally, since you pointed out an error of my own once during a VfD debate, regarding the Google test, I'll just ask, does Google automatically sort out unique hits?  Also, how many hits, in your opinion, is sufficient?  I have opinions of my own on that, but I'd like to know what you think. CanadianCaesar 23:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding Google – generally, you have to go to "the end of the line" in the search results for Google to tell you about duplicate hits. This can be done by clicking continuously on the next sets of search results or by manipulating the query string directly. As for how useful the Google Test is: unless a search term is going to have a wide Web presence (such as a webcomic or a computer program) then I generally use it as only a secondary indicator of notability. Assigning arbitrary numbers to how many hits is "good enough" is probably not a good idea, and it would depend on the subject matter. One number I do use occasionally is for vanity articles: if a modern-day person manages to garner fewer hits than my own name (about forty) then that person is surely not notable, as I'm nobody special. :-) android  79  01:29, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Baseball Continued
Hi Android - thanks for your response. I'd say that the new info. box *looks* great, but is somewhat lacking in information. Have a look at some of these links and the info. box I've used. It looks like we've had parallel info. box projects going on - Albert Pujols, Rafael Palmeiro, Johnny Damon. How about you expand your version of the info. to include things like draft information, salary, etc? Also, I know you're a Twins fan, but could you put my Jacque Jones picture back? Take care Adroid. Googie Man, 00:26, August 12, 2005 UTC

Infobox standardization
See this diff where a user took out the claim from ed that his new proposal already has the consensus of many editors. Just one example of what I mean re ed trying to force the standardization through the tenuous claims of consensus without true support. 152.163.100.10 04:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's still no reason to delete it. Put a proposed tag on it and make sure it stays there. android  79  04:55, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * You could be right - looks like it is not going to be deleted - but you should review these edits particularly any that have the word "infobox" in the title - I reviewed the first 5 again to see if Ed had changed his ways and in 3 they were to move from white bacgrounds in some cells or all cells - to all cells having grey background. The problem is that you can't get too mad at ed because he really knows how to edit html tables and fixes many problems users get themselves into. 152.163.100.10 05:06, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox standardization support
You have voted for the suggestive title Infobox standardisation on Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation even though your comment indicates that you are actually against standardization creep or at least do not support it unconditionally. VfD for these cases offers the option to vote move to NPOV title. Comment on Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation if you want the page to be moved, for instance to Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?. --Fenice 08:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Spider-Man
You deleted the info i added about Spider-Man eXXXposed and called it vandalism? I'm sorry if you have not heard of this important film regarding the hardships of peter parker, but it is fairly well known in underground film circles. i feel the added info about it would help fellow spider-man fans to learn more about him. Butt 20:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I called it nonsense, given that Google knows nothing about it. Your contribution history doesn't help matters. android  79  21:07, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, it is not listed on google, Stan Lee has tried many times to get that film banned as he does not feel it fits the Spider-Man mythos he had created. He gave the rights for Jake Billion to make that film 10 years ago and didn't like how it came out. Stan Lee has never spoken of it again. And why do you feel the need to ruin my Vega edit when it was perfectly TRUE information. Obviously you aren't into Street Fighter and thus have no point of reference when regarding what its wide fan base thinks. Yet, somehow the info at the bottom of Zangief's page has credibility and is allowed to stay? it clearly states him as gay. Wikipedia: "we edit on personal preference" Butt 21:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jake Billion? If you're going to make names up, please be more creative. Provide some reliable sources for that or for the Vega thing and I won't object to it. As for Zangief, that's neither here nor there, but his sexuality apparently is in doubt, as described on that article's talk page. Unless you can back up your edits, stop wasting my time. android  79  21:36, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The guys alias is 'Jake Billion', definetly not his real name, but thats what he goes by. The reliable info you describe on the Zangief page consists of "I don't like pretty girls" which is something Zangief would say after he brutally beat down Chun-Li in SF2, which was known to have bad translation. This isn't exactly grounds to call someone 'confirmed gay' as it states in the article. Everyone who plays Street Fighter thinks of Vega as a possible gay, so I put that there. My input had as much credibility as the Zangief article. I'm done with this. Keep on editing though buddy! Butt 23:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)