User talk:Spartaz/Archive2

Passports
I think that it is rather pointless to go on lengthy discussions about the copyright status of passport covers. David.Monniaux 06:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's fine but if the tag is wrong the image will end up being deleted. Its down to you really. --Spartaz 15:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The image won't be deleted, especially because it's on commons, not en:. :-)
 * The situation with works of the French government is very complex. Basically, the general rule is that works are copyrighted, but certain works of the government are not eligible for copyright; these includes, for instance, the texts of laws, decrees and other decisions opposable to citizens. I believe that the coat of arms is in this category.
 * The question whether coat of arms are copyrighted or not is however largely pointless, because such designs tend to be protected by laws other than copyright (for instance, works of the US federal government cannot be copyrighted, but the government can prosecute people misusing certain official government symbols).
 * David.Monniaux 07:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a specific tag to reflect this like there is for US government materials that are used here? --Spartaz 19:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There was one, but I think we removed them because it was misused. Only a minority of items from the French government may be safely considered non-copyrightable (the text of laws, for instance), but people were sticking that onto other items, including photographs taken by private professional photographers and used on government sites, or other works of the government that should be considered copyrighted. David.Monniaux 06:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I see you are doing the process correctly. That does not mean everyone will like it! You might leave a note on their talk page and tell them what you are doing and why and link them to WP:PUI. If some User continually reverts you, let me know and I can warn them to stop. If they continue, they can be blocked from editing. -Good job! Nv8200p talk 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * thank you for your help. I have a lot to learn but I want to make sure I'm doing it right. I will follow your advice. Spartaz 11:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be advised you may be blocked for reverting as well. The images are tagged and listed. The issue will be solved in 5 days. No reason to litter encyclopedic articles with angry tags. `'mikka (t) 15:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You now have 3 reverts and I have 2. I'm going to revert you again because the policy page says that the tags must be added to any imaged that has been listed. You are being dsruptive to prove a point and you should now step carefully. Spartaz 16:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for supporting my RfA, and thanks in particular for understanding my points about WP:IAR and WP:SNOW and my desire for consensus. I had hoped that my comment about following the "one blue link" dab style-guide even though I don't like it would illustrate to the opposition that I know when to ignore the rules and when not to, but apparently not :-( . Clearly you and many others do get it, though -- thanks again!

Atlant 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome - good luck with your RFA Spartaz 20:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Passport-tl.jpg
Well, I'm glad I'm not alone in being subjected to this. I am happy to put a more fitting description to the picture I uploaded, if you would care to tell me what this is. While I think that the Government of East Timor has far more important things to worry about at the moment than people taking photographs of its passports and putting them online, I could get in touch with the Embassy in Portugal to get the "all clear". Given that its Foreign Ministry's website hasn't been updated for two years, I doubt seriously that it will care. Quiensabe 22:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Subjected to what? Being asked to accurately tag your image? You need to be able to show that the image you have uploaded is free from restrictions on its use or meets the fair use rules for Wikipedia. If the government has released the image to be freely copied you can update the tag to reflect this but will need to show the source for the statement. If it's fair use, you need to update the tag to include the reasons why using the image is fair use. --Spartaz 06:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put it as fair use - it is unlikely that there will be anything on the Government website about this, but I think it would meet those criteria. Quiensabe 07:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on October 14 2006 to Passport
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 09:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

brazen infringement of copyright can be found on Indian passport. 70.52.72.201 18:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean the dispute tag was removed from the image of passport cover. The image was rm by Muzi and I added it back but I didn't add on the topic of Indian passport.  Surely I know Muzi will rm this later.  70.52.72.201 18:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

My RfA (reprise)
Well, it's been a week now that I've been an administrator and I'd like to take this moment to once again thank everyone who supported my RfA, and to let you all know that I don't think I've screwed anything up yet so I hope I'm living up to everyone's expectations for me. But if I ever fall short of those expectations, I'd certainly welcome folks telling me about it!

Atlant 14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser
The problem is that, and rightfully so, a self-requested CheckUser won't convince anyone. IP evidence is forgeable. A self-request may just mean that the person has covered up after himself. Most people think that a self-requested CheckUser doesn't clear up anything. But, if you're here and well,   you're here and well. Wikipedia is a wiki, mistakes are okay, and we're a forgiving bunch. WP:AGF. There isn't really a need for a concept of "clearing one's name". My advice is to go about things like normal, keep up good behavior, civility and lack of edit warring, and let time pass. You'll be fine. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, CheckUser doesn't confirm any sockpuppetry. That IP is not one you have used, and there's not IP evidence that leads to any connection. I'm not trying to be obtuse; there it is. If it satisfies anyone or no one, then so be it. My point is that nothing will be changed, because you aren't convicted. There is no essential difference between a technical 3RR violation and three reverts when both are edit warring, especially whe concerning an RFA. But there is absolutely no restriction on your productive editing. Just forget about, learn from any mistakes, and move on. There is no reason to have to consider your participation. Dmcdevit·t 23:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

East Germany passport and the Passport article
I commented on the East Germany passport (Image:DDR_Reisepass.jpg) and essentially it seems to me that just as how the USSR is now non-existent and its passport image is no longer subject to copyright then the DDR passport should no longer be subject to copyright since the government and state which may have held the copyright no longer exist and the current German government can only be the successor to the DDR inasmuch as the Russian government is the successor to the the Soviet government - and unlike the case of the DDR, there are still people in the former Soviet Union that hold Soviet passports (not sure if any of the post-Soviet states still consider such a passport valid however).

Also I opened a new topic of discussion on the Passport discussion page. It's good to see that the gallery was removed, although it would be good to have a link to all the articles on individual country's passports from the Passport page. Maybe you could create a template of the world's passports organized by continents (the template would have to have the "Hide" and "Show" feature of course so it wouldn't fill up too much of the page)? And since you are re-writing (its a good re-write by the way), perhaps you could move the info about Visa-free travel to the Visa (document) article and retain the information that only pertains to passport-free travel. When I first saw both articles it kind of struck as strange that I would have to move from the Visa article to the Passport article to find out information about Visa-free travel schemes. Of course there should be links between both articles since Visa-free travel and Passport-free travel are usually very interconnected, but they still not the same thing, don't you agree?72.27.6.86 18:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube
Massive removal of YouTube. I'd be ok with that. Just not sure how it would go over with the "general public". ---J.S (t|c) 17:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You may have a point there... Hmmm as Guy said, it's a "festering sore."  Well, I think I'd need to do some more formal research to make my point about YouTube, but I think it'd have public support in the issue. How would someone go about finding consensus on an issue this large? Should I create a proposal? (Nuke YouTube)---J.S (t|c) 17:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In some cases, Spartaz, your "massive removal of YouTube" would be inappropriate. One such case is your stripping out the links to music videos from the page for Video Concert Hall. Being that Video Concert Hall was a historically significant predecessor to MTV, many of its featured videos have faded into obscurity, as has many of the artists and songs it featured. Documenting such an entity as Video Concert Hall is greatly enhanced with examples of its programming. We are fortunate to have the benefit of YouTube and the availability of some of those videos there.

Being a professional in the world of web publishing for eleven years, I can vouch that linking to a site whatever its content creates no IP violations, if that is your concern. That said, we are well within the realm of fair use in this case. I highly recommend that you restore those links you stripped out of the Video Concert Hall page - whatever your motivation. To put it simply your action can easily be deemed vandalism.

Thank you.
 * You can sign your posts with 4 tildes { ~ )

As for the rest of it. Fairuse will not apply to a whole video. Especially as youtube doesn't own the copyright and the video in question therefore has the status of a bootleg. Sorry, but if you want to link to a load of illegal stuff may I suggest Myspace rather than using wikipedia for this purpose? Its not vandalism to clear up illegal links. Check out the policy at WP:EL Cheers --Spartaz 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Glass Pages
Thank you for fixing the images on my recent glass pages. That's how I wanted them to look, but I didn't have the time to figure out how to do it!

About this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveled_glass - are any of the external links appropriate?RogerJ 14:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for removing the links, I wasn't certain it was the correct action. Now I know it would have been! RogerJ 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Welcome :) --Spartaz 18:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Copenhagen International School
Hi there. Rather than put a fact tag on that entry please consider simply removing it. I don't think the school actualy beats pupils and the IP of the vandalism was the school itself. No doubt some student prank but not worth asking them to substantiate such nonsense. Cheers --Spartaz 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Spartaz... so I did delete it the first time, and then the vandalizer came along and re-added it. I was just about to turn off my computer to go to bed, so I just marked it with  so that I'd remember to come back today and delete it (once the vandalizer lost interest).  Maybe I should have just left it as-is so some anti-vandalism bots would catch and revert. Jonemerson 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom "Tongue in Cheek" Question" for Paul August
Hi Spartaz. I've answered your Tongue in Cheek Question ;-). Thanks for asking. Paul August &#9742; 20:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

AWB and YouTube...
Well, it took me a while to figure it out as well. I'll get back to you about it when I get home and I can look at the program. :) ---J.S (t|c) 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally forgot... (WP:AWB instructions)
Hay, I totally forgot about those instructions. Been quite busy all week with Thanksgiving and a broken car...

Anyway, here it goes.

When you open AWB you should see 3 main frames. The top one is where the page will load, the lower right is where the "edit box" will load and the bottom left is where you play with all the settings.

Ok, in that lower left box there is two halves. The first half is labeled as "(1) Make list" The first option is "Make from" with a drop-down box. Select that box and select "Links on page". In the next box ("Links on") type in the address of the page you wish to harvest links from. (In this case: "User:J.smith/YouTube Linklist") Then click "Make List"

Now, most of the first part of that list has been covered already. So go ahead and select from the numbers to the Js and delete all of it. That way your not going to waste 30 min loading pages you don't need to edit, or that were skipped over on purpose.

The next step is to set the options, conveniently placed under the "(2) Set options" tab to the right of the "Make List" area. Check "Apply General fixes" and uncheck auto tag/Unicodify. In the Find & replace area check "Enabled" and "Skip articles...". Click on "Normal" and you should get a pop-up. Fill in all the "Find" cells with the following:

\* (\) \* (\) \* \{\{YouTube.*?\}\} \*(\) ]+))?[\s\/]*>(\]*?\]) \*(\) ]+))?[\s\/]*>(\]*?\]) \*\{\{YouTube.*?\}\} \{\{YouTube.*?\}\} ]+))?[\s\/]*>\{\{YouTube[^\]]*?\}\} (\)


 * (Remove any extra spaces)

Make sure the "Regex" check-box is checked for each line and that the "Replace with" cell is empty.

Now that that's all done, select the "(3) Start" tab. Under that is a field called "Summary." Put something descriptive in there. I use  "Rm links to "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL" .

Now your ready. Click "Start the process". If AWB is skipping a bunch of pages, hit stop and make sure the pages haven't already been worked on by someone. Also, be careful not to remove the few legitimate links you might find out there. If you need any further help, or If I've totally mangled something here beyond comprehension, let me know. ---J.S (t|c) 19:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, right... Right-Click on the list and select "Convert from talk pages" ---J.S (t|c) 20:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting youtube links
I took the freedom to revert your tool-assisted mass removal of youtube links. The edit summary was Rm links to "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL using AWB. This statement is obviously wrong, there is no such guideline on the WP:EL page and the discussion on wikipedia_talk:external links is clearly against removing the links. Therefore I consider your action vandalism and I will report this incident of AWP misuse so that your AWB permission will be removed. If you continue these deletions I will be happy to block you. Cacycle 01:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I reviewed 10 random pages you reverted, and it seems that you are not always making distinctions between obvious blatent copyright violations (reproductions of over-the-air broadcasts, or music videos), and original works (that are properly licensed for use and can be linked). I would suggest that you use discretion as I support the removal of copyright violations per WP:EL. -- Trödel 02:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Asked for diffs. --Spartaz 07:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

After rereading WP:EL and calming down a bit I now think it was a legit use of AWB. I have undone all my reverts. Sorry, Cacycle 05:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay - I will try to find the ones I looked at and provide diffs -- Trödel 22:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussion on Wikipedia talk:External links, in particular that mass-deletion of youtube links at least for the reasons you're stating is not wanted. Deleting them for copyvio or WP:V reasons, etc is fine, but the a) you're giving a reason of Rm links to "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL, which from the discussion linked above is NOT policy or a correct interpretation of WP:EL and b) you're deleting the links at a rate which at least implies you're not checking the link (you may be, but the rate of deletions (up to 5 a minute or more) and the duplicate summaries makes it appear otherwise, along with the comment which implies no per-clip judgement). If you are reviewing them before deletion, please change the summaries to give a reason such as WP:C or WP:V, etc. jesup 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please check your talk page. Spartaz 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The link you removed from the Katana page (with the same summary as per above) does not appear to be a blatant copyvio; it was uploaded by the author. If they added the link to Katana, there may be a self-promotion issue, but it's not a blatant copyvio.  More importantly, if you are deleting links of music videos for copyvio reasons, they should be summarized as copyvio, not as the text you use.  There is no statement on WP:EL that says "Sites which fail to provide licensing information"; in fact the word 'licensing' doesn't even appear there (nor "sites which fail").  Your edits imply that mass-deletion without review has been made policy, which it is not.  (See Wikipedia talk:External links).  That's the real point - mass-deletion isn't authorized, and deletion for cause (WP:C, etc) should be correctly summarized.  Thanks. jesup 16:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I responded on your talk. I did review the vid and I do believe it to be a copyvio. --Spartaz 16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The user's comments strongly imply but do not directly state that he's the author. The video does not appear to come from that site, which I've reviewed; it appears to be an amateur video that the uploader did from his comments.  The person being videoed is the owner of the site mentioned, but it does not appear to be a video he did (he has videos, but without that lead-in and with much higher quality, and not of cutting).  The uploader appears to be a student of the dojo/person in question.  It's not clearly copyvio; I'll agree it's not clearly non-copyvio (though I believe it's not copyvio).  Which brings me to the main point - your AWB summaries imply a policy not in place, and quote WP:EL with a phrase that does not appear there.  If you're removing it for WP:C, summarize it as so, and preferably mention if you actually reviewed the link.  Your actions imply to the observer that you are not reviewing before deletion.  (Did you review this one before deletion, or after I mentioned it?)  Thanks.  jesup 16:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In other words you agree that its not clearly not a copy vio. In which case my deletion is justified and the rest of your objections are simply placing process above content. And I reviewed the video before I deleted the link and it wasn't clearly properly licensed so I deleted it. Simple? I'm going to delete the link again unless you can show its not a copy vio. Spartaz 17:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "not clearly not a copyvio" != "copyvio". In this particular case I see no obvious indication that it is a copyvio, there is circumstantial evidence it is not, and my best guess is that it is not.  This is a case where a more appropriate response would have been to contact the uploader.  In cases where there is no clear (or even semi-clear) indication that it's a copyvio I do not think it makes sense to remove it without warning or discussion.  If the standard is "remove all links to content not proven to be non-copyvio", then that's a standard most of the external links in Wikipedia would fail, since for most links all you have is the page author's (usually implicit) assertion that it's not a copyvio from some other page.  I agree, most of the youtube links on WP do fall into the "obvious copyvio" case, and do warrant being removed without prior discussion.  This is not one of them, and more to the point it highlights the bigger issue, which you have not addressed:
 * Your edit summaries are misleading and assert a WP:EL requirement that does not exist. I have NO problem with you removing a music video link with a summary of "Removing link to copyright violation".  Then other editors will know WHY it was removed, and if there's anything to do about it.  The reason I jumped into the WT:EL discussion was because your edit to Katana said to me that there was a "no youtube" policy I didn't remember being there, and your contribs page seemed to show the same thing. Thanks   jesup 19:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded to your comment on my talk page (User talk:Jesup. jesup 05:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me add a comment here, and I will visit back for any reply - I have added my thoughts on the External links page, and I cannot argue strongly enough for you to express whatever potential concerns you have about copyright issues on video to be done through the artists in question to use DMCA, as they are the actual copyright holder, rather than assuming something is a copyright violation based on your interpretation of what little content is provided on YouTube concerning any particular video. Removing the contributions of others is destructive, especially when there is usually no way you can be certain of the copyright status in question, rather only assume such, which is a premise for mistakes galore, especially when YouTube has a direct legal mechanism for addressing said issue.  Tvccs 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I indicated prior at the EL discussion, the video on the Derek Sherinian page was removed per the application of a WP:EL violation tag on the edit even though it was specifically shot for YouTube and announced as such. You instead attempted to find another rationale for the supposed worthiness of the video while ignoring the fact it should never have been removed under WP:EL in the first place, which was, and remains, the actual issue in question. The reality is, as has now been confirmed on the EL discussion page, is that YouTube videos are being removed in a wholesale fashion regardless of their actual copyright status.  Tvccs 19:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you bowed out of the WT:EL discussion, but since you asked, I thought I'd point out a better example of an incorrect deletion (by J.smith, not you): WT:EL. jesup 21:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(Duplicate of my response on my talk page): Agreed, and no hard feelings. I also just want to make this work; not knowing you/jsmith/dcmartin from j.random.editor I had no idea where this project came from, what the justification was, etc - all I knew is that it seemed to be a mass-deletion, and that's something I'm quite leary of. I also felt there was something odd going on in that the summaries looked like an attempt to ramrod something without actual justification. I know now more about what you were doing and why, and I don't think anyone was trying to bypass or game the system - but as you say, anyone can make mistakes, and decisions made in (semi)-private sometimes don't go over with others as well when they're implemented. And using auto-editing tools and high-rate changes that others can't keep up with tends to make people panic. Rest and we'll see you tomorrow, and thanks. jesup 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Licorice McKechnie
Your edit to remove a video from Licorice McKechnie left crud... jesup 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you gotta be carefull of that Spartaz. ---J.S (t|c) 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Sorry. :-( --Spartaz 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated edit summary

 * Rm links to suspected copy-vio or otherwise inappropriate links per WP:EL & WP:C

That's what I'm using now. It's should solve most of the concerns raised here and it covers the other links I'm occasionally running across (Lyric sites, videos.google.com, etc). ---J.S (t|c) 21:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll go for that next time I have a run at this. --Spartaz 05:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. Yeah, the politics on the EL page is getting a bit tiresome. So many people are arguing against a project that doesnt exist.  ---J.S (t|c) 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No trouble, I don't mind people stalking my edits to find mistakes (in this project at least). ---J.S (t|c) 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Liquid dancing Video clips
I'm not able to review the links directly on this computer... but they -look- ok. If you watch the videos and they look home made, leave them. If they aren't being used as a source all it's doing is showing someone dancing... then reliability isn't as big of a deal. ---J.S (t|c) 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * this just shows you how little you ppl that have been deleting youtube links understand the material u're deleting without background information. video is vital to the understanding of dance if you have no other access to it. underground dance styles aren't shown on tv, aren't performed in music halls on any regular basis, aren't visible to the wider public, and for the most part, u couldn't find a teacher to learn this from if u tried. there is no substitute for web video if u don't live in a large city w/ street dancers. there aren't video rentals u can point them to.


 * the arbitraryness of ur decision making is very apparent. this particular discussion mentions any music on youtube is automatically assumed copyrighted:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion


 * ok, if thats so, the particular videos u're allowing have music that in violation of policy. not only that, even if the video "looks" homemade, u really have no clue if it was. if u had never seen "the blair witch project," u might assume a clip from that was also homemade. the dancer in those videos is liquidpop eric. him and his crew have in the past sold vhs tapes and dvds of their dancing. the linked videos don't contain any of that footage, but the real question is "how would u know?" the answer is that u wouldn't. u don't have any knowledge of the background or history of that group while the ppl contributing to that page do. thats why your policy of automatic deletes is so insidious. u purport to be doing this for the greater good of wikipedia, but really u're killing the spread of knowledge.


 * your question of reliability of the video is a joke. one of the linked videos is in fact the reason many dancers including myself decided to learn liquid in the first place. and it wasn't me that linked the video. it's simply recognized in the liquid community as one of the seminal examples of liquid. i can't source that statement b/c a website that contained lengthy independent discussions of it (www.shaddupanddance.com forums) is defunct. of course, forum posts wouldn't be reliable sources to u either. but guess what? you're not going to find much of anything written about this artform b/c it's so underground. knowledge of this dance is passed on by discussion forums and videos (aside of course from actively going out to clubs and watching ppl, but again that's not an option in smaller cities). the same thing goes for glowsticking and to a slightly lesser degree popping, which is really why i'm even writing here. the youtube dance trailer previously linked on the glowsticking article was not a seminal defining video, but it did showcase the diverse range of glowsticking styles. it's really unfortunate you've decided to go on this deletion campaign w/o input from the wider community. instead of wholesale link removal, u should instead justify each and every removal w/ proof of infrigement. using a bot to remove links that the community took time to aggregate is pretty sick in my humble opinion. Wongba 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ms.
I'm now working on articles that start with Ms. When your done with Ls and start working on Ns, let me know. We'll be done in no-time. :) ---J.S (t|c) 05:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. I had hopped to wrap up Ms tonight, but I have a company Xmas party to attend. :( Oh well, free drinks. ---J.S (t|c) 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess they hold the xmas party this early so people who have vacation plans won't need to miss it.
 * Ok, cool. ---J.S  (T/C) 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to work on Os. I haven't finished Ms yet. ---J.S  (T/C) 07:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'll be spending an hour or two tonight on it. ---J.S (T/C) 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the support. Just start up wherever you left off. I was busy working on other projects last night, so I didn't get a chance to remove any more. ---J.S  (T/C) 19:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move on. I've been busy playing with my new mop to do much YouTube work. I'll get back on it tonight, I promise! :) ---J.S  (T/C) 22:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Network neutrality
The TBL excerpt is on youtube video, which appears to be cut from the savetheinternet video. They wouldn't care at all.

I claim this is fair use, and we are simply linking to a report on what TBL has said.

I would imagine we would also have immense protection from Google itself- it's in their business interests to ensure that that video stay up on the web.

It's so ridiculously unlikely that the wikipedia could get into any trouble over this link.WolfKeeper 20:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but please see WP:C that states that we must not link copyvios. I thought long and hard about this deletion but there is no fair use for videos. --Spartaz 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. It's probably licensed for us to be able to use it anyway, or we could soon get a license for our own copy. The producers *want* people to view it.WolfKeeper 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The operative words there are probably and perhaps we can get a license. Look I'm not going to fight you but C is pretty clear and its policy that we are expected to follow.


 * This is marginal and I won't revert you back if you choose to restore the link. I'm sure you understand the subject area better than me. All I ask is that if you do revert you review C first and post a note on the talk page explaining why you feel the link is valid. That's not for me but in case another editor contributing disagrees with the decision.


 * ?OK --Spartaz 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Be careful deleting references
One of the YouTube links you removed from the New Coke article also contained a reference to a book in which the commercial in question is discussed. Yet you removed the entire footnote.

I understand we should make sure we follow our own rules about not linking to copyvio material. But we should also be mindful in doing so we don't throw out our baby with the bathwater. Daniel Case 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Whoops - I'll be more careful in future. Thanks --Spartaz 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Spartaz - I happened to check a single edit of yours (I noticed Daniel's comment about New Coke and wondered what the error by AWB had been - your page is still on my watchlist). Nicolae Dică is the one I checked from your contribution list (most recent youtube removal), and your AWB messed up the {{Template: ...} link following the youtube links.  I'm not stalking you; I just decided to look at a single edit. Perhaps you and j.smith, etc should either fix your AWB script or start doing these by hand.  AWB and the pattern you're using is screwing up (some) pages, and I'm sure some of them aren't well-monitored...  New Coke got fixed, and I happened to notice and fix that one, but how many more are messed up?   If I click on one edit, and find it's messed up, the percentage messed up must be significant (perhaps not large, but significant.)  I fixed the Nicolae Dică page.  Thanks!   jesup 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I think the problem is references - I find the markup confusing. I'm going to do references manually in future and check before and after. Hopefully I won't make any other mistakes with them. The vast majority of the deletions were straighht links so you just have amazing luck finding the odd screwup NB its not stalking. You aren't harrassing you are acting as a back stop as I already suggested so keep it up. --Spartaz 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm just Assuming Good Faith; makes things a lot less contentious.  :-)   We may be closing on agreement (as much as we'll ever get) on a new entry paragraph for WP:EL over in WT:EL.  I hope...  jesup 11:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He's back...
Desg is back, trying to remove his competitor's links, this time, using his IP address. You can see that it maps to the same town where is studio is. The change is a silly one, in the discussion page, but I think it exposes what his motives were, quite clearly. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALead_came_and_copper_foil_glasswork&diff=86700451&oldid=84522296 RogerJ 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pandas
I've reverted your edit here since given the description of the video I see no reason to suspect it is copyvio. Please look at what you are removing before removing the links. JoshuaZ 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I would have thought that any academic giving a talk or lecture holds copyright on his words and unless they have been released into PD they will be a copyvio if on youtube but I'm not going to fight you so do as you will. --Spartaz 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/J.smith
I have nominated him as I think he'd be a good Admin Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok on the external links. I'd seen a different style on the US Green Card page, that splits the government from other links, and liked it. Thinking about putting a footnotes section up, since there is a lot to the details of the HSMP regulations. Readers can see the main outline, and then branch out from there, if they so choose. Plus, there's not much in the way of citations on the article now...-- Cattivik

Live Audio Wrestling
Recently, you removed a YouTube video link from the Live Audio Wrestling article. The video posted was made and posted on YouTube by one of the guys who work on the show, Jason Agnew, so I put it back up because it. No copyright violation there! --Raderick 12:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from user page

 * your proposed New Mobility Agenda rewrite ('too gushing'). I have a feel for what you are saying here and will be pleased to lend a hand if you think that might be useful to provide a more neutral version. Within the limits of our available time of course. ericbritton 11:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The original shortcut has not been changed
I've replied to your message on my talk page. The Transhumanist (AWB) 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize
I've been here a little over a month, and wikified it for my own sake because I simply didn't know what you were talking about. It seemed faster than trying to look for the shortcuts, because I don't know the names of the pages in question. This is how I learn, from the actions and discussions of others. You're right, that was very rude of me. I appreciate you pointing this out. Thank you.NinaEliza 18:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you and de nada (loosely translated: it's nothing):)NinaEliza 18:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Videos on YouTube of Rainbow Gatherings
In this edit you removed, using a bot, links to several videos which nicely illustrate the article. I see no basis for their removal. Fred Bauder 01:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the producer of the 3 videos with an inquiry. I guess our policy is to avoid linking to copyright violations, although it is said in at WP:EL that avoiding copyright violations is a reason to use an external link. In our arbitration cases we have come to that decision with respect to copyrighted newspaper articles; not to link to them as a substitute for the unavailable article. Fred Bauder 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Never got a response. Fred Bauder 12:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop work?
Nah. You and me are already doing exactly what Argyriou is asking for. Just remain dignified and practice a "check it really really close if your reverted" method.

Frankly, all this mess is over a single link in a single article that I would have nominated for AFD a long time ago if it wasn't for the current controversy. (I mean, common, it's an article about a dorm!) ---J.S (T/C) 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to J.Smith's above post, I recommend strongly that you cease work on this 'project'. It's disruptive to Wikipedia, and a rejection of consensus editing. --Barberio 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue was that this was action by Cabal, not a consensus driven editing process. If you think there should be a project to review Youtube links, then you should start one by creating a normal project page in the Wikipedia namespace of what you propose to do, advertise it on the pump and other relevent areas (such as Wikipedia_talk:External_links), and see if people will support you. This would ensure you were acting in accordance with consensus. You should always use caution when deleting from articles, and excise extreme caution when embarking on a project that involves a large amount of such deletes that might cause disruption and upset. --Barberio 20:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ahem* My point is, that you should have made your case this way on Wikipedia_talk:External_links first. And I'm now asking you to cease activity on this project until you have made your case and gained consensus support for continuing. --Barberio 20:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A little leg-work
Hi, can you do a little leg work for me? I'd like to get some examples of YouTube links we've removed.... can you search though your recent removals and find half a dozen that are a good example of "obvious copyvio" and a few removed that were being used as a source in violation of WP:RS/WP:V? And maybe a few that are a violation of WP:NOT (either irrelevant to article, redundant to existing content or so many as to be spammy.)

I'm planning on writing an essay in Wikipedia namespace about this issue that should help to clearup any misunderstandings in the future. Thanks for all your help with YouTube, ---J.S (T/C) 19:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Working notes to be found at User:Spartaz/youtube_sandbox


 * The immediate objectionable edit would be the removal for Princess Bay. External links do not have to be encyclopaedic. Considering you chose this as an example of a good edit, it highlights the problem this 'project' has. --Barberio 21:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * *sigh* You're demonstrating how poorly you've investigated each link. This video is on the Youtube directors program, so it's copyright has been verified. The creator of this video has clearly identified the work as being a portrayal of the sinking of the F69 in Princess Bay, and inter-cut it with his child viewing the event. It is *not* a 'home movie of some guys kid' as you have dismissed it. --Barberio 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

AWB access removed
As some of the edits you've been doing with AutoWikiBrowser have been using faulty regular expressions, and are controversial, I've disabled your AWB access for the time being. Tito xd (?!?) 08:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The relevant thread on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser, and the threads above, where other users have asked you to not use a semi-automatic tool to perform controversial edits. Tito xd (?!?) 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, it shouldn't be a problem giving you back the status, but we need to figure out what's going on and why the regexes are wrong. Similar to the bot policy, once the issue is fixed, I'll regrant the access. Tito xd (?!?) 09:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock blocking
Are you referring to the post I made on ANI? I didn't mean anything other than to note that suspicions of using sock accounts had come up before, and that Cindery had fiercely denied it at the time, referring to it as a "personal attack." -Severa (!!!) 13:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * She's been hard at work preparing RfC cases against a number of users, so, in a sense, she's "defending herself" (as far as I know blocked editors are able to edit their own Talk pages). But, you're right, we'll have to wait to see if the same pattern of behavior in Main space repeats, but until then we shouldn't reserve judgment. -Severa (!!!) 13:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Lefern
Thanks - had I known this guy would wreak vengeance on someone who dared touch his article, I would have prodded it or AfD'd it to begin with. Hindsight... Denni  talk 00:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Nixon
Ok, the issue is resolved. The clip was taken from http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us and they have permission from Nixon's people. I changed the links to the more appropriate url. ---J.S (T/C) 08:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I just started on Ss. It's gonna take a while. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

spartaz question..thought the rheingold link was appropriate. The commercials that are on You tube are ancient history for the beer company, and have nothing to do with any new ad or promotion. I would like to put it back in, but wanted to know your thoughts why. Thanks, and best, BrandlandUSA 22:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Spartaz! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. ⁪froth T C  20:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Fleshtones
Hi. Why was the YouTube link removed from the Fleshtones page? Thanks.
 * Because it appeared to be a copyroght violation. If you know better please feel free to put the link back but I'd appreciate it if you could also put a note on the talk page to clarify why that is. It would be useful for future editors. The relevent policy is WP:C and the guideline is WP:EL. If you check the talk page you will see there has been a lot of arguing about YT links but most people accept that music videos are copyrighted. Spartaz 21:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal Wedding
The YT guy asserts the film is PD and I don't know why. Can you work it out? Thanks --Spartaz 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like it is really under the public domain. Apparently MGM simply forgot or simply chose not to renew the licence sometime in the 60s. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 05:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed last night... but YouTube was down so I couldn't check on it. I'll let you know tonight when I get home. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry... I totally forgot about that video. It -looks- like it was uploaded by someone connected to the film.  "Director" status on an account doesnt mean it's free of copyvio, but it sure means it's less likely.  Director accounts are free, but the person registering it takes a much higher level of responsibility for the content they upload.  I'd be inclined to leave it. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ANI comments
Thanks for restoring my comments. I don't really think there's an issue with what I wrote since Cindery herself has said multiple times that she has been in touch with the authors of the sources she has tried to use, and even discussed the WP article. Diffs are up on ANI if you're interested in seeing her comments. Thanks again. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure she was talking about ANI, not Barrington Hall (I've asked her for clarification, but she just deletes the request with no answer) ... but even though you were right, that didn't stop her from accepting your apology.  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

About the CIS information.
"Reliable sources mean that you have to quote someone making the statement not find two sites and do the comparison yourself. That is called Original Research and is not permitted. Why are you so desparate to insert this information? If you have an agenda, you need to leave that to one side when you edit. --Spartaz 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"

Can I quote myself? If not, why not? What makes me so inferior? Who can I quote? I am not the only person that wrote something like this. Can I quote the person before me that wrote something as I did? I am not so "desperate" to insert this information. Why are YOU so desperate to remove this information? If parents want to send their children to a school, why not give them all the information they need to decide what school they should send their children to? I do not, in anyway have an agenda. I'm just stating facts. After all, the main role of Wikipedia is to INFORM, isn't it?

CIS 2
"Would you decide which school to send your child to by reading an encyclopedia?"

It would help me a lot more, if it contained a comparison chart, thus resulting in my child being in a better school.

"I wouldn't, and I didn't so your reasons for inserting the information are not really valid or helpful to writing the article. --Spartaz 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"

So, is the world revolved around you now? So if you didn't decide what school you should send your children to, by reading an encyclopedia, then the rest of the world should not have the option to? Talk about Hitler...

I DID, infact read the link you gave me on Original Research. "If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

Ekstrabladet good enough for you?

--Emilmm 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Emilmm

Trodel RFC
I did not have a way to inform Trodel of the RFC, as he forbid me from contacting him by email or his talk page. I just didn't want you to think I was trying to sneak it by him or something. I do not need false information like that spreading to the community. TheGreenFaerae 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for letting me know. For future, there would never be a prohibition on you dropping an editor a link to an RFC concerning them. --Spartaz 23:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that is not against WP policy, but I doubt Trodel would agree, and being blocked by him could cripple the RfC as it would prevent me from responding to the situation.TheGreenFaerae 06:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow...
... your powers of prophecy are impressive. Keep up the good work. До свидания. MastCell 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

RFCU
Just letting you know, I've merged the content from Requests for checkuser/Case/Cindery2 onto Requests for checkuser/Case/Cindery, and tagged the old page for speedy deletion. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk

RfA response
Hi. I read your comment on my RfA and I felt like I needed to give my own perspective on this issue. The events that led to EK3 were a long string of what I felt were abuses of admin powers by other admins; typical issues were new users being blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets because they used the same kind of wording as a banned editor, had similar political views, had vaguely similar user names, made one unfortunate comment that they never got a chance to take back, edited a few of the same pages as an established editor and was accused of stalking, etc. In addition, the blocks against these users were often accompanied by bluntly cruel remarks and were generally done without any deliberation with others beforehand (afterwards, a notice of what was done would typically be posted on one of the AN pages, I would object to the action taken, and the debate would go from there). The climate today is quite a bit better (although still much in need of improvement) and this level of admin abuse is not seen very often, so I think some people tend to misunderstand what was going on at the time I got those sanctions and think I was being recklessly aggressive by challenging various admin actions. My own behavior was, however, far from perfect with regard to these exchanges, and that is something I have long since conceded; that is why I object to you saying that I pin all the blame on others and take no responsibility. You might be interested to know that when it became apparent that much dissatisfaction among other admins was brewing, I voluntarily stayed away from the AN pages for several months before the ArbCom case&mdash;the ArbCom simply did not care about that gesture, or regarded it as insincere. Everyking 05:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be very difficult to dig up. But if nothing else, I'm telling you right now that I accept a fair share of the responsibility for the controversies that flared up back them. Everyking 07:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)