User talk:Mosquitopsu/Archive 1

Image screenshot of Antiword
Hey, I see you uploaded a screenshot of a free software. You licensed it as a free image AND a non-free image. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If it's a freely distributed software, then the screenshots are free. If it's not, then the screenshot would not be free and a fair-use claim should be made. According to the article, the software is listed under the GNU General Public License, so I'm going to remove the "This is a screenshot of copyrighted computer software" fair-use tag. I'm removing the non-free image tag and leaving the free image tag up. Just wanna let you know that the next time you upload a free image, you don't have to tag it with a non-free tag. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.++ aviper2k7 ++ 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correcting that! I blame Wikipedia:Upload. That thing is a huge mess. It was a screenshot so I selected screenshot when uploading. All screenshots are automatically marked as non-free for some reason. There is no free screenshot option (except maybe selecting "no license"?). Also, what the heck is "Linux software screenshot" and why does it have a dash next to it? People taking screenshots of the kernel source code? That was probably meant to be something like "Free software screenshot" or something along those lines.
 * Anyway, thanks for fixing that. I did not notice the non-free tag. --Mosquitopsu 00:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AA
Why did you add the old SE article back to the external links? It is already used as a reference in the article. And why did you remove the free software portal, Ad-Aware is free.--The Negotiator 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the rootkit.com article as a reference after restoring the link to the bottom of the page. I did this because this was the second time someone has removed the link from the article and I wanted to make it more clear why the link was there. Unless they did some major changes to the software in the last year, that article should still be accurate. You called it "old" so I am assuming that you may think it is inaccurate. If you feel like getting your hands dirty, you can verify the article by compiling the provided code (easily done with Dev-C++ if you don't have a compiler installed) and having a look at it yourself. Try changing/removing an entry in the definitions file and running Ad-aware again.
 * As for the free software portal, we are talking about libre software where free refers to liberty, not price. Take a look at the portal itself or the free software article for the definition. For software to be free software, it must satisfy the four freedoms,


 * Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.
 * Freedom 1: The freedom to study and modify the program.
 * Freedom 2: The freedom to copy the program so you can help your neighbor.
 * Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
 * Ad-Aware provides none of these freedoms, thus it is not free software. --Mosquitopsu 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you can get a reference that the article still applies for ad-aware 2007 then your word is as good as mine.--The Negotiator 21:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was able to run some tests this evening and I found that the rootkit.com article no longer applies. Definitions are handled differently now. --Mosquitopsu 02:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So I can remove it from the external links? There is a paragraph about the criticisms of AA SE which uses it as a reference.--The Negotiator 18:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. --Mosquitopsu 22:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have.  Here are a few suggestions you might find useful:
 * First, check out the tutorial and learn how to write a great article
 * Find out more about what Wikipedia is and how it works
 * Check out the manual of style and maybe the picture tutorial if you're interested in adding images to your articles
 * Write from a neutral point of view, use wikiquette, and last but not least, be bold!
 * Check out the community portal if you're looking for something to do.
 * Finally, feel free to contact me at my talk page if you have any questions! Remember to sign your name by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  12:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome! I see that you are a Penn State student. I am as well, as indicated by my username name (I just finished my 1st semester of Junior year). Is this why you left the welcome message? Anyway, a neat thing about my last semester: I lived in McKee (E-House), which meant that the Lion Shrine was the first thing I saw every morning when I woke up. --Mosquitopsu 02:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw that you edited a Penn State article, and noticed that you hadn't been welcomed yet, so I thought I would. And actually, it's funny&mdash;if you lived in E-House, I lived right next to you (in Hamilton hall). Anyway, let me know if you need anything, and maybe I'll run into you in the fall! --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have englightened me mosquitopsu...Jeb8828 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I am glad someone noticed. :-) --Mosquitopsu 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AVG
My apologies re: free antivirus software category. I didn't realise that Wikipedia uses the term free software to denote open source software. Raskolnikov 07:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's not just Wikipedia. In fact the name "free software" is the original name that started with the GNU project in 1983 (actually "software" was the original name as all software used to be free). The name "open source" was created 15 years later in 1998 to water down the original name so that businesses, who weren't interested in user freedom, would be more accepting. So really, people (unfortunately) use "open source" to denote free software, not the other way around. For some more info: . --Mosquitopsu 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My Editor Review
Good suggestion! :-) Happy editing! --Boricua  e ddie  20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that guy is an egotistical dick. (I hope he doesn't read this :-P) --Mosquitopsu 17:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not respecting contributors enough
Next time you decide to put article up for deletion please have the decency to contact the creator of the article to try to improve it first. Ja? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦     "Talk"? 10:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Without careful examnation, it doesn't appear that you were the original author. The page was already deleted before but no deletion notice was placed when you started it again. The person who does appear to be the original author is Grandapollon, who actually looks like it may be Alexis Skye herself. Besides, it is the Alexis Skye article -- some non-notable tall blonde woman in high heels. We aren't talking about the Printing press article here. Is it really something to be offended about? --Mosquitopsu 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No license issues in cdrtools
Please note that there are _definitely_ no license issues in cdrtools.

There is only a deffamation campaign from Debian against cdrtools. 87.158.105.65 (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether Jörg Schilling is right or wrong about the licenses, the fact that the major distributions (including Debian + derivatives, Red Hat, and SUSE) and the FSF, whose lawyers have looked it over, won't touch the CDDL versions is intrinsically a licensing issue. From your comment it seems that you may be involved personally with cdrtools, which, if true, you should have a look at WP:COI and refrain from directly editing cdrtools and cdrkit in the future. If not, disregard that. Also, there is no cabal. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not try to become part of the campaign by adding your own inventions to this cabal. FSF laywers believe that there is no problem with the license combination. This information should be sufficient for you to know that is a mistake to support the claims published by Debian. 87.158.99.190 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GHDL
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article GHDL, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

File:TTT o.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:TTT o.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

File:TTT x.png listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:TTT x.png, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The strange thing is, I am pretty sure I never uploaded these images to Wikipedia. This is an old version of a file I uploaded to Uncyclopedia under an account with the same name. Did it drift over through the Wikimedia Commons? What if my account names were different? So many questions with no answers. Anyway, shoot them down. They have no purpose here. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. If you ever need any help, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Techman224  Talk  18:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Antiword
From Wikipedia:Categorization: ''Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject.'' "Related" does not mean identical in structure and function. If you wanted to find software such as Antiword what category would you look for? Thanks, 69.106.246.15 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My objection was due to the category description "This article is about word processors that are free software." which seemed to indicate that everything in the category was a word processor. However, you make a good point, so I put it back. Thanks for pointing that out. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Appreciate it, thanks. 69.106.246.15 (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion request
User talk pages, and their archives, are not normally deleted, see WP:DELTALK. With a few exceptions, none of which apply here, you may blank anything you like from your talk pages, but the history is retained for the record. If you want more than that, and you are leaving Wikipedia permanently, see JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)