User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2007/February

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (Interjection - I hope you mean "mediation" not "arbitration" - ). Rich Farmbrough, 10:26 16 February 2007 (GMT).
 * oops! Indeed, I meant WP:MEDIATION. -- Mikeblas 19:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

what is this "fix" for?
Hi, Rich! Why does need to be converted to , as in Micrometer (device)? -- Mikeblas 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)

Recovering deleted Sara Jay material
— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Quarl 20:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)