User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2007/August

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)
 * Just for future reference, permissions-en@wikimedia.org is the correct point of contact. 216.9.250.106 08:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Template:Databases/Comparisons
A template you created, Template:Databases/Comparisons, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the   tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

weasel-inline
Yes, that was the right course.My bad for not removing the template >_&lt; Circeus 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)

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)