Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:12, 22 May 2007

Pings

Image:Flooded New Orleans Neighborhoods.JPG Must stay!

If Betacommand were as smart as you assume it to be, it would recognize that the image was used in the talk page of an article, and the copyright tag used on it is appropriate. It would also recognize that it was uploaded for the purpose of diffusing any political bias, which is in line with the NPOV policies of Misplaced Pages. I attached the "Not Orphan" tag for additional protection, but that doesn't seem to phase this bot. ---- DanTD 14:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we simply do not allow non-free images outside of articles proper. I don't see the justification to use that copyrighted illustration in any case: surely we can obtain the underlying demographic data (census?) they used and produce our own illustration of the pre-disaster racial distribution of New Orleans. --Gmaxwell 14:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DanTD"

The tag I used does point out that the copyright belongs to a newspaper, and I mentioned this fact in my description. Until somebody actully does create a similar map, I'd prefer that it stays. I had a similar problem in the past with a newspaper cutout of an interchange between the Long Island Expressway and Sagtikos State Parkway, and I still haven't seen any sign that anybody has been working on a replacement for it. ---- DanTD 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about whether the MoS should recommend the {{coord}} template instead or in addition to the {{coor }} family of templates for geographical coordinates. I would appreciate your input at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Coordinates section. Thanks Patleahy 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem question

Hi, I saw you around regarding copyright issues and also saw that you are a Commons admin. I hope you can help me with something. There was a listing on WP:PUI see the story here of some pictures from WOWturkey, a photo forum it seems. The uploader, I guess is the webmaster or something from that site, and posted pictures from that site. But didn't asked, or did it's not really clear, permission to some or all of the photographers from that site. He now is banned, used sockpuppets etc. So I started to delete some of the pictures, but boy, there are a whole lot of them. So before I delete several hunderd of those images I'd like some more input on this. :) See also User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#WOWturkey images. Garion96 (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Totally forgot about this. I just realised it when this talk page kept popping up on my watchlist. Will you have any time to look at this? If not, no problem. Garion96 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the WOWturkey stuff in the past, and though it looked like trouble. I guess it's time to fix it. I'll jump in. Thanks.--Gmaxwell 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's enough confirmation for me. :) I will start deleting again soon. Garion96 (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I got them all, could you have a look at Image:Esenboga International Airport.jpg for me. You are a commons admin and I am not that much at home (yet) over there. Garion96 (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Address

Can one use the WikiMediaPlayer with box to include the media address? --Altermike 15:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Flag raising video

hey, what video did you cut the Iwo Jima flag raising video from? Liore 15:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

fair use in portals

there is currently a proposed amendment to include fair use images in the portal space at Misplaced Pages:Fair use/Amendment/Fair use images in portals2. I have decided to contact you because you expressed interest in this topic in the past. Please know that I am contacting all editors who partipated in discussions regarding this at WT:FUC. -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed

It's perfectly valid to give an "update" to where the latest discussion is regarding fair use in LOEs is. Both LOEs have been the subject of edit warring with Ed at the centre, thus I feel it is my duty to give people notification of matters they have personal involvement in. Thanks, Matthew 16:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

FU stuff

I agree that we are not enemies. We do have different ideas for this encyclopedia, which is no big deal. I do believe in our mission of giving information away. I don't believe using non-replaceable FU images detracts from this in any way. We were discussing image in lists of episodes, and when I brought it up, that seemed to end what the anti-FU people had to say, so I'm still unclear on what's bad about non=replaceable FU images. Anyways, I see FU images at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 2007. I guess they found a free cast photo for buffy. Using that image is a travesty to me. Images are for two things: identification, and illustration of text. A thumbnail of a giant cast photo didn't either of those things very well. - Peregrine Fisher 05:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there,

First of all I would like to thank whoever who's resposible for uploading the 16 Waltzes by Strauss.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Sixteen_Waltzes_for_piano%2C_four_hands

I've attempted downloading all of them but I could not for No. 4 and 12.

No. 4 - http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=Brahms-waltz04.ogg&wiki=en No. 12 - http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=Brahms-waltz12.ogg&wiki=en

They can be played perfectly fine on the browser, but when downloaded is only a 0kb file.

I hope you can rectify the problem and inform me when it's done at yaphe_sam@yahoo.com

Thank you so much again!

Sam

p/s: it would be awesome if the music score/sheet/notes were available as well. I've tried finding it over the net to no avail =(

Sam here again. I made a mistake when i said No 12 played on the browser, it doesnt:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=Brahms-waltz12.ogg&wiki=en

Cheers!

If you find scores/sheet on the net, please let me know, so that I can include them in Misplaced Pages. :)

The files were uploaded by User:Raul654 but they ultimately came from http://hebb.mit.edu/FreeMusic/ which currently appears to be down.

Our servers have a bug with large files where they sometimes get stuck as zero bytes. I've kicked these files and they all load right now, but they may get stuck again. We're currently working on getting this issue fixed. The in-browser player has a workaround which makes it less likely to fail. --Gmaxwell 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser

Hi, I'm Kordas, I'm sysop at Spanish Misplaced Pages and Commons, I saw here you're checkuser at Commons, I need to verify if two users named Istarí Imhotep and Radagast keops are the same user because of a possible sockpuppet and images without source. Thanks a lot, Kordas 02:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If they are the same user it is not clear from checkuser. --Gmaxwell 03:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Licence

Good part of my interest is that I am on that picture and would like to add it to my collection. Could you send it to me at piokon at post dot pl ? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Coord

Hi. When you've a minute, please could you respond to my comments of 21:33, 2 April 2007 (it may be better to use Template talk:Coord for specifics). Thank you. I see that Quarl has been busy fixing and improving it! Andy Mabbett 07:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Quarl is done updating {{coord}} and adding additional backwards compatibility. Please see his summary at Template_talk:Coord#Updates and comment there. We'll now need to look at how this works for wikicode parsers. I think he's done a great job. Andy Mabbett 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello!

My name is Jaromir (Riva72). Unfortunately, we cannot have a longer conversation due to irrational actions by the user called Michaelas10. He is not your advocate. The reverts should be done by you if you do not wish my message at your discussion page. Welcome to read the discussion history page. Can we talk at my discussion page, please? Just a few words, a few lines, if you please.. I would apprrciate your response. --Riva72 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To finish what I've started

I asked you four your opinion a few days ago. I have chosen you to express a few words because you talked over my person at: . OK. Silence (or rather the ignoring of a request) is also the opinion. Anyway, I think it is not rude on my part to finish exchanging any ideas with you by placing this invitation:

• Gmaxwell, I invite you to read the message and to voice your opinion at: , if you please.. If you feel like writing a commment, please do it.. I think this may also put the end to our disputes here.. I will not bother you again. Thank you. --Riva72 11:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuously cutting-off paragraphs of Rodolfo Valentin article

Dear Gmaxwell: On february 20-2007 there was two articles related to Rodolfo Valentin. One was his biography and the other one was about his invention call "hair infusion". You put them together (his bio and the hair infusion article) which looks great to me since the two of them related to the same person. This month, Rodolfo Valentin article has been heavily re-edited, and a big paragraph was deleted by "Bikeable" several times (after I reverted to its original), that person did it over and over again with the excuse that the "English" is bad!- I clearly told them that this article has been previously edited by you and it is showing in your file that you are a native speaker of English it cannot be possible!.

Also, if they are so concerned about the grammar, please note that they have reversed the way YOU described "His work includes the Hair Infusion". and then you continued, the hairstyles created by Valentin includes hair coloring, healthy hair and a tailored haircut... INSTEAD they described: The hairstyles used by Valentin include hair coloring, healthy hair and a tailored haircut, and hair infusion. ( it shows "and" twice in the same phrase!

Other point that calls my attention is that this person is always cutting-off the paragraph that shows the names of the very well known people that uses Rodolfo Valentin like: Claudia Cohen, Ellen Barkin, Dayle Haddon, Cathy Moriarty, Carrie Fisher, Helena Frith Powell and also the paragraph that shows that Rodolfo did TV shows for Univision, Banyan Productions and for Warner Bros.Entertainment... all these people are having an article on Misplaced Pages,and if I am referring to them as "jet-set", and do not see it as advertisement, the definition for "jet-set" also has its own article explaining what it is in wikipedia. I also put the internal link to each of them...but HE REMOVED THEM ALL!. It seems like this person has a "conflict of interest", because if the problem is "English grammar", only whatever is related to the grammar should be corrected, but relevant information should not be removed! This person also removed an important picture of Rodolfo with the princess Jasmin Aga Khan and the external link to Rodolfo Valentin website...again, it shows a possible conflict of interest for some reason... Please help me to revert this article as it was before, and to keep that way, and how I can prevent from people with conflict of interest or maliciously reasons from editing this article. Thank you very much Justice all the way

The benefit of hindsight

I've added a caution to the coord documentation, so that, in future, it shouldn't be changed and upset the database parsers. Please will you kindly check the wording, and add a link to a suitable page about that work, where future "change requests" can be discussed? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Nudge ;-) Andy Mabbett 11:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You're a human, think like one...

Hey now, if we were going to have all vandalism patroling done by mindless bots, ... we'd cut out the middle men. :) I'm blathering about this revert. You managed to revert the covering edit but not the initial suspect edit. Watch out for stuff like that.--Gmaxwell 06:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a man! Oh, wait. Sorry! That was amateur hour by me, good eye. :) - Denny 06:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Danny's RFA

Ah, now I understand! There seems to have been some confusion all around. To clarify: I did not make the comment. I restored a comment user:Just H had made which was removed by Jkelly with a dismissive edit summary. When you left a confused message on my talk page (confused as to who wrote the comment), I became confused. If those who have supported Danny's RFA wish to remove the comments of those who have not, there's not much I can do. However, I can certainly ask at the user's talk page that it not be done, or at the very least be done without a dismissive edit summary. I don't believe an edit summary that begins with "Um" and goes on to tell a user s/he's wrong is entirely appropriate in this or any other context. (Feel free to move or refactor this comment as you see fit, as always). Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

unsourced articles

Just doing a tidy-up, can you take Askam and Ireleth from your list of unsourced articles? We've come a long way since then and now have good article status! Kijog 14:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

number of problems with that plugin.

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=Mozart_-_Deh_vieni_alla_finestra_%2528Don_Giovanni%2529_by_Cesare_Siepi.ogg&wiki=en

does not play.

neither does:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=Falsetto%252C_then_head_voice.ogg&wiki=en

Just letting you know.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 00:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The links aren't working for you because it was using URL coded text in the templates. See the fix I made here here. However, this audio was used in two places on Misplaced Pages which were not allowed by our policy (or even US law)... It's acceptable to use an unlicensed recording of a performers work to illustrate the performer, but we can never use unlicensed recordings to illustrate basic concepts like "bass voice" or a piece of public domain music. I've removed the recordings from the those two articles. Hopefully someone will upload some good free illustrations for them soon.

The vocal training recording is even worse, and I expect it will be deleted before you even get this message.--Gmaxwell 00:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ah I see you uploaded the Falsetto recording, so I'll explain a little more: The reason we can't keep that recording is that our use is directly competitive with Brett Manning's Singing Success course. Using that audio in our singing articles would be like copying Microsoft Encarta into Misplaced Pages whenever we didn't have an article. It's not just a bad idea and against our mission, it's clearly illegal. We'll need to create our own illustrations for those articles, ashame Misplaced Pages doesn't have more male vocalists. --Gmaxwell 00:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me the specific part of US copyright law that says fair use samples can't be used for educational purposes? Could you also tell me why something I uploaded was immediately deleted after you posted by an admin you seem to have contact with? I deal day in, day out with trolls and kids who think they know best and now I have you deleting obviously fair use clips. How does a 27 second sample on from a 12 disc package on HOW TO SING, compete with an article on WHAT HEAD VOICE IS? One instructs, the other informs and has minimal scope in comparison.

I'll also never be posting any part of my vocal range on this site ever, and I know nobody else in their right mind will either. I've seen the disrespect with which uploaders are treated. Requests from uploaders to provide better versions of their work denied and reverted with no respect for the uploader and the insinuation that they can't do anything because they don't own it anymore - with no kind of ethical sense of decency (don't talk to me about what the GPL says, I don't give a shit. Ethics always means more). I turned that head voice article from a mire of unsourced info, to an article with umpteen inline citations FROM NONE, check the history. I've had enough. I'll let the kids, the wannabe Opera singers and riff raff ruin the singing articles, I don't care anymore. Ignore my 2000 odd edits and the time I edited over 60 biography articles in one day to remove guesses at vocal ranges so little African kids could read a decent encyclopedia.

I give it one month before the list of contemporary pop singers in the alto article is 30 odd people long again with no attribution and all decided by User:Jaiwills, a guy with 20 odd sockpuppets (take a look at his user page!) who all like to post in articles about bondage, and fictional portrayals of psychopaths. I give it a month before the article on sopranos (which is already hysterically wrong according to no less than 11 books on vocal pedagogy I own) mentions fucking Beyoncé. I cease editing from this point on. If your lurking admin friend would be so kind as to put this thread on my talk page and user page and lock them both that would be great as I'm logging out now, and I'm not logging back in. I'm already working on my own singing tutorial website (and have been for months), and with its 17 zillion in-line citations and hundreds of clips to illustrate from some of the best voices of the century, it'll shit over what will shortly become a vandalized piece of shit without me. Because other people definitely won't add their favorite singer to the list of altos, rather than delete the original research. Have faith, I couldn't possibly have been doing much around here.

I'm sure you're very satisfied now that we can go back to having shit, often vandalised articles on singing. After all, who needs to remove original research. We all know Beyoncé is a dramatic mezzo-soprano really. Some 14 year old kid says so! We all know a bass can't sing above D4, according to some wannabe Opera singer who edited vocal range, even though I am a basso cantante and hit a fairly high Ab4 after 5 months of training. Ignore the article with Cesare Siepi, a bass who hits G4 about a zillion times in his sample that I uploaded as well (if it hasn't been deleted by your friend by the time you read this!!!111). I think we both know as long as you get your commons admin badge covered in red tape and your ridiculously, outrageously camp picture of you looking like a complete twat on a boat viewed by the masses, you'll be happy.

Go get me banned too. Just remember - you'll still be ginger motherfucker. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 12:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"I'll also never be posting any part of my vocal range on this site ever, and I know nobody else in their right mind will either." I would be willing to release a recording of my own bass/baritone voice. I am not a professional, but do hold a spot in the Penn State Glee Club.

Perhaps more to the point: I for one appreciate your contributions here. Gmaxwell's only point is that there is a narrow legal limit to how much we can borrow from others ("fair use") before we either have to secure permission or create our own original work. Your uploaded recordings are perhaps a copyright infringement, and Misplaced Pages does have to comply with US law. I would be happy to explain fair use in detail, although IMNAL.

Also, civility is appreciated. Deep breaths.

Hope this helps, GChriss <always listening><c> 23:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Query request

Hi Greg!

Would it be possible to query all page starts by Orbicle which contain '’'? I've noticed that copy-pastes tend to contain these, while people typing in the edit window rarely make them. Ghost hard returns (such as appear here) are also a giveaway (can you query those?) Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If we can do this, I'm not sure it makes sense to limit it to only articles started by Orbicle, as opposed to those with significant additions. Jkelly 03:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Coord, again

Hi. I'd be grateful if you could spare a minute to have another look at {{coord}} and let us know if you're happy with how it now stands, and what needs to be done to get the Google Earth (and any other) parses to recognise it. Please also see #The benefit of hindsight, above. Thank you. In the interim, would you be happy with the bot-substitution of coor templates outside infoboxes and excluding coor title *? So far as I can see, that would only effect instances not used by such parsers. Andy Mabbett 16:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll hop in soon, I've been a bit distracted. Sorry! Thank you for contacting me. --Gmaxwell 05:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

*nudge* Andy Mabbett 12:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is holding us up. Perhaps you could suggest someone else who might be able to assist? Andy Mabbett 11:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Boat

Nice boat! --TeckWiz Contribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 18:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

About Template:Filmimage

About your edit in the above template: I have posted a comment with a problem it creates to our project's needs. I am not aware of the exact reason it has changed, but it is now asking for the wrong thing. Please help us solve this problem. Hoverfish Talk 20:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Opps. I was trying to update the count, but I'd been looking at an old revision and I screwed up. Thanks. --Gmaxwell 01:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I've done worse. Haukur 01:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ral315/Danny

I've never seen such a style in myself, but I suppose that I'm a bad judge of myself. Any response will certainly be calm and rational in this case, however; I am aware of the issues involved in this. Ral315 » 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Was Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship supposed to be where User Ral315 is? --TeckWiz Contribs_@(Lets go Yankees!) 02:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the signpost article will go there. Prodego 02:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser?

Hi, I've been trying to find out what it takes to request a checkuser on the commons but have no response. So I went through the commons checkuser list and chose one semi randomly which turned out to be you. I have some concerns that Commons:User:Ricky212 may be the same as Commons:User:Thugchildz (who is obviously the same as User:Thugchildz) and want to know if a checkuser on the two would be possible to hopefully provide some insight. There are several reasons for my belief which I will elaborate briefly. Ricky212 appears to be have flickr account Rick212 where they have dubiously claimed photos which look like professional photos belong to them. Prior to the apparence of these photos in December 2006, Rick212 made comments on flickr were they asked users to change the copyright conditions for wikipedia because wikipedians don't accept good faith. This suggests Rick212 has previous experience in wikipedia but there is no such user on wikipedia (User:Rick212 and User:Ricky212 don't exist). On the commons thugchildz has similarly brought up good faith in copyright circumstances. One of the dubious photos in particular is similar to an earlier photo uploaded by Thugchildz on wikipedia (see User talk:Nil Einne#Re: Would it be possible) which was deleted prior to the apperance of the Rick212 photo. Also, this photo is proported to be a replica of the trophy by Rick212 which thugchildz has claimed means it doesn't have the copyright concerns of the original trophy (although this is a misunderstanding of copyright law, it does make one wonder why rick212 claims it's a replica which it probably isn't). The times of edits (including ThugChildz on wikipedia) and particularly the way ThugChildz on commons was created () not long after Ricky212 stopped contribution also seems suspicious to me. It is a bit difficult to say since Thugchildz appears to edit for quite a long stretch in many days but in most cases Thugchildz was active when Ricky212 was (cf and ). If further evidence or clarification is needed, please contact me as I let this languish for a few weeks so may have forgotten some stuff. P.S. Just to be clear, I'm not asking for wikipedia Thugchildz to be involved in this checkuser, I'm aware this has it's own requirements. I'm just providing the wikipedia user to illustrate my concerns. Nil Einne 09:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Earwax on Swab

I just thought i'd let you know that i've re-submitted your picture at WP:FPC. I read some of the reasons that people objected to the image last time, to me they seem a bit unjust. Hopefully it will go through this time --Childzy 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

heh I'm flattered. Thought not a good idea I guess. If I wanted more enwiki featured pictures I could just take some pretty flower pictures.. preferably of some cultivar which we have 100 pictures of already. ;) Oh well. Thank you for your support. --Gmaxwell 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration requested - you are named

User:Mangoe has filed for arbitration about Misplaced Pages:Attack sites at this address. We are named parties. - Denny 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The WP:BADSITES RfA

I didn't drag you into it-- indeed, I don't understand why DennyColt added you either. Mangoe 22:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hello - I recently noticed that you (justifiably) struck out an Oppose vote from user Rackabello, as this user has been invalidly voting Oppose on all self-nominated candidates. I wanted to mention that this user has also done this on other candidates' current RfA's (for example, Hemlock Martinis' RfA is here), Lankybugger's RfA is here), and probably several that I have forgotten). Is there any way that you can strike these votes out as well? They are exact mirrors of the one from your first action. Thank you. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 08:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I only felt comfortable doing so there because the user had voted the same way I did. Perhaps you should encourage oppose voters on the other RFAs to do the same. We all have the responsibility to clear up obvious non-sense wherever we see it. Obviously we should be tolerant of differing views, but 'votes' from brand new accounts as especially unhelpful when coupled with clearly invalid reasoning. --Gmaxwell 20:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I had thought that only certain users could do that, for some reason. I'll try and discuss it with the other voters. Thanks for the help! *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 01:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiMediaPlayer translation

Can I translate the page of WikiMediaPlayer? We want that pages like this will be written at Hebrew... Troll Refaim 18:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What we really need to do is get the player integrated in the mediawiki image pages. If you know any PHP hackers which would like to work on this project, I'd be glad to help out... but I don't have the time or patience to do the heavy lifting myself. --Gmaxwell 03:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure a Java applet will be integrated into MediaWiki, or an extension that uses it will be used in Wikimedia sites. It seems to be technically simple, though: adding the applet to the code (or the extension) and displaying it in place of the pictures in ogg files. – rotemliss – Talk 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Gmaxwell/query fairusemediaintemplates

Gmaxwell, would be willing to update User:Gmaxwell/query fairusemediaintemplates? I'll get to work on it. --Iamunknown 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can... It took me a huge amount of work to identify all the fair use categories/template which were actively in use back then and I haven't kept up. I commented about the machine readability issues here. I'm not sure that I want to go through another identification exercise unless the end goal is to improve machine readability. There didn't seem to be any real objection to the changes I proposed in that discussion, so perhaps I should just move forward with the rename? This would make updating the report much easier. --Gmaxwell 03:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you pointed me to that thread. I previously thought about that specific point in the Wikimedia licensing resolution, but did not realize that you had brought it up. I agree that something should be done. Perhaps in the meantime, that is before renaming all of the templates, we could add a null template (say, Template:Non-free) to every non-free image copyright tag, which would generate a list of all non-free images. --Iamunknown 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, thanks for adding the template to the rest of the non-free image copyright tags. When I realized it was far past midnight, I decided it might be a good time to go to bed. :-P --Iamunknown 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are still ones left I think. I got tired after a while.. and because I was also swapping out the links to Misplaced Pages:Fair use, I didn't want to have a bot do it. --Gmaxwell 18:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get a list of the templates that currently transclude {{Non-free media}}? I'll work later tonight and add it to the ones that are missing from the list. --Iamunknown 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Gmaxwell, I have a manually-collected list of all the templates I could find that had been tagged with {{tl|Non-free media}} at ] (minus a couple I tagged later). I also have a list of all templates in ] at ]. Would you be able to do some type of array intersection and find the ones that are in the category but are not tagged with the template? I tried but, to be honest, I'm not that great of a programmer. If you could do that, I'd gladly go about tagging the rest of them. Thanks a bunch. --Iamunknown 03:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, and after went through added the template manually, it won't be necessary. --Iamunknown 04:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

in browser video player problem with video file

Hello,

First, thanks for writing the in browser video player - it's great. :-) I noticed that it was cropping a video file that I created though.

Here are the relevant screen shots: in browser and in VLC. I thought you would like to know. Thanks again for creating the player, it's a fantastic idea that was a long time in coming. Triddle 18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

{{allowedin}}

I tried to promote peoples' interest in {{allowedin}} for a while, to no avail. I'm ecstatic to see you working on and improving it; especially having seen the work you've put in on non-free media across WP. I implemented the template a few times, but stopped because there really was nothing to back it up. Are you working on such a device? — pd_THOR | 11:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Linux

Our own article is titled simply "Linux". Most distributions say they are "Linux distributions" not "GNU/Linux distributions". Why should the category be at "GNU/Linux"? AlistairMcMillan 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Linux is just a kernel, which is what our Linux article is about. You can't contribute using just a kernel. Your mac userbox doesn't claim that you contribute using Mach or darwin (er whatever apple is calling OSX's underlying kernel these days). For most of the userboxes GNU/Linux is what they were started as. Your agressive campaign at renaming a category for an OS you don't even use is pretty offensive. --Gmaxwell 01:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The userboxes on my page say I "contribute" with Windows and OS X, they don't say anything about what other operating systems I use. Secondly the original categories were separately "Linux users" and "GNU/Linux users" before another user "aggressively" merged them all to "Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux". Thirdly the article "Linux kernel" is about the kernel, the article "Linux" is about the operating system. AlistairMcMillan 01:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But most of the templates you changed said GNU/Linux from day one. In any case, I hadn't realized our linux article was titled incorrectly. Nexenta, for example, is from a usage perspective pretty much indistinguishable from Ubuntu, but there is no Linux at all inside it (it's a GNU desktop based on Ubuntu but with the Solaris kernel). The same is pretty much true with Debian GNU/kfreebsd. For a regular desktop user, you could swap out their kernel and they probably wouldn't notice. --Gmaxwell 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The category was renamed in September 2006, and a lot of the templates weren't around then, so yes they would have been created to point to the "GNU/Linux" category since that was the only one around by the time they were created. Please note that I didn't change the Debian template, because they do make a point of referring to themselves as a "GNU/Linux" distribution. I don't really understand the Nexenta and Debian/FreeBSD references, since they don't call themselves Linux distributions.

And, while not wanting to start a flamewar, our Linux article is not titled incorrectly. If you create a project you get to name it. The GPL says nothing about "if you use our tools and become successful you must stick GNU in the name of your project". AlistairMcMillan 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you should leave the subject to people who actually have experience in the subject area, ... you're not giving me the impression that you do... Nexenta is an important reference point because as a user it is indistinguishable from Ubuntu. Yet there is no Linux in it, it uses the OpenSolaris kernel instead. When you load an intel device driver into your Mac, you don't call "Intel ipw3495 OS" ... You don't because the intel driver has no impact on your user experience, and you don't because it is an insignificant fraction of the running code on your system. The same can be said for typical Linux distributions. I usually say "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux" myself for simplicity sake, but it's hard to argue that GNU/Linux isn't a more accurate name. --01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Right... so why is the article about the operating system at "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" is just a redirect? And why do have an article called "GNU/Linux naming controversy"?

BTW Do you want to start moving "NexentaOS" to "GNU/NexentaOS" or should I? Or that should be "GNU/Solaris/NexentaOS"? Or is that "GNU/Solaris/Ubuntu/NexentaOS"? All too confusing for me.  :) AlistairMcMillan 02:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's too confusing for you, stay out of it. You muddling your way through bad renamings isn't helping anything. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But if "Linux" needs to be called "GNU/Linux" because it includes the GNU software, then surely "Nexenta" needs to be called "GNU/Nexenta" since it includes the GNU software? AlistairMcMillan 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that, because Nexenta is actually in the process of changing their name to GNU/OpenSolaris (see here). So your question that was intended to be "silly" was actually strangely prophetic. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ogg browser playback

There is a lot of stuttering when I attempt to play a .ogg file in my broswer like this. Anything we can do? - Peregrine Fisher 03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it all audio files? What browser and what java version do you have installed? --Gmaxwell 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's working today. It was all browsers (Opera, IE, FF) with Java 1.5.06. I guess that wasn't the problem. Maybe WP's servers were slow yesterday and when I tried it about a week ago. - Peregrine Fisher 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Userpage edit

Please do not touch my userpage except for simple vandalism removal again. I find your edit summary highly insulting. Silas Snider (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not *your* userpage except in the weakest sense.. that it's around to help you communicate, you don't own it.. it belongs to the project. When you put obnoxious hacks on your page you are causing a disruption. --Gmaxwell 22:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Heheh... this was clever, it took me a minute to figure out what was going on. I left it for a bit but I've removed it now (per a strict reading of WP:POINT) and removed the joke message again too, leaving an explanation on the user's talk page. Hope you don't mind. --YFB ¿ 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

:) I don't mind at all. I'm also glad to see someone *correctly* complain about a WP:POINT violation. ;) Thank you!--Gmaxwell 23:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No probs. Thanks for the chuckle :-) --YFB ¿ 23:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to WP:OWN my userpage, just using the word my to differentiate it from all the others. The reason I requested that you not touch it is due to your violation of WP:NPA, and my worry was later confirmed by your violation of WP:POINT. Please desist. Silas Snider (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice footage

Your video of Jimbo Wales is awesome. I've included it on my userpage :-) ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 23:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

your NFC edits

I suppose we'll have to put up with your disinclination to debate the new wording on the talk page before making changes. I note that you made no attempt to respond to my call for feedback over the past two days, or to my direct queries to your note in the previous discussion.

I don't mind most of your modifications; however, can you justify your reversion to "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original in the marketplace." Please see my comments on the talk page about this wording. Does it really do justice to the intentions of WP to be cast so narrowly? How could a copyright owner ever argue the point? Tony 00:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)c

One more issue: "To minimize the impact on the original work, as little non-free content as possible is used in an article." This is not well expressed. Impacting on the original work sounds as though the surface of an original painting might be tarnished by its use on WP. I think this needs to be reworded. Tony 00:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'd written a nice long reply on the talk page... and while heading back to the primary to confirm what it previously said, I saw that you'd already swapped it out with your revised version. My initial thought was to just revert you until the discussion was complete, but I thought it would be better to instead revise your changes. I see that omegatron has taken the opportunity to use your changes to the prior longstanding wording and try to get them locked in. We obviously don't have consensus and I've reverted to the prior long standing version until we can obtain one. --Gmaxwell 00:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied "unfragmented discussion" box

Hi Gmaxwell, I've just done something I've been meaning to do for a while: I put up an "unfragmented discussion" box of my own at my talk page, but I've been a bit lazy so instead of trying to come up with my own text I've just copied yours verbatim. I hope that's OK with you; if you'd rather have me rephrase it a bit or change the colour or something, let me know. Anyway, please take this as a compliment for a good practice that deserves to be copied :-) Oliphaunt 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a problem at all.. I poked around looking for someone elses to copy for a while before writing that one. I would have much rather copied it and I'm glad to see someone else gets to be lazy where I could not. ;) I wish our talk practices were different, but I can only change so much. --Gmaxwell 22:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts

I hope you don't mind me pointing out this thread, in case you weren't aware of it. It came about after I'd been following the discussion at the bot noticeboard. I don't have an account at the WMF wiki, so I'd be grateful if you or someone could pass on the message to someone who can edit that wiki. Thanks. Carcharoth 10:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy-edited revision of NFC criteria

Hi Gmaxwell—I presume that you approve of the draft, since you've made no further comments during the 10-day period, which is coming to an end. My reminder to everyone was posted the other day here. Tony 23:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your draft, as far as I could tell was just your prior version with no corrections made to the points I'd already raised, so I saw no futher reason to comment. I do like your work overall, I think we're at an impass over the issues I raised.--Gmaxwell 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wilcosix.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wilcosix.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't upload it orignally, I just shrank the file. --Gmaxwell 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That's why when I shrink files I always add the file history from the original uploader, so that when the large version gets deleted the original uploader can still be found. I was a little surprised that you of all people would be uploading a replaceable non-free image! ;-) —Angr 09:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Fair use size reduction request

Hey, what happened to Category:Fair use size reduction request? —Angr 09:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now at Category:Non-free image size reduction request. --Iamunknown 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! —Angr 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

Could you please not remove the images yet? I am adding better descriptions to each image and making them smaller so that they will better fit Fair Use. The Placebo Effect 19:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, the issue is that if you did enough work to actually justify the images it would be an article about all the episodes and not a list of episodes. :( --Gmaxwell 19:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Their is no consensus yet on what to do. Please allow me to add the images back at a smaller size with a better description. The Placebo Effect 19:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There was never any consensus to allow them in the first place. Go look at the discussion on the admin noticeboard... It seems clear that resizing the images isn't going to resolve it for anyone. :( --Gmaxwell 19:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Even if a thousand people on Misplaced Pages agreed to have images used in this way, it would not override this resolution from the Wikimedia Foundation. --Durin 19:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• To be fair, the board doesn't micromanage our license policy. Though I agree that including hundreds of unlicensed images on an article just isn't going to fly. --Gmaxwell 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

Excuse me, but where does it say that there has to be a discussion about the inclusion of DVD covers into an article that is already keeping with the "limited non-free images" guideline of Misplaced Pages?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Non-free content points 2,8 for example. --Gmaxwell 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Smithsonian

Template:Smithsonian has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Abu badali 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

User:79Bottles (formerly known as User:FictionH)

I'd like you to know that 79Bottles made a claim about working on South Park. This might be related to User:98E. Both users seem to have similar interests. Squirepants101 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

T-man and episode lists

Maybe there's something I'm missing. But how does the policy on non-free content prevent episode list from having images. Several episode list (including featured ones) have used images per episode for a long time.

...Is there a new guideline? --T-man, the wise 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not new, although there is perhaps some renewed vigor in enforcing what was there before. Basically the use on lists is someplace between decorative and navigational use. But we don't permit non-free images in either of those contexts and never have so long as we've had a complete policy for these things. I think it's also useful to consider that the non-TV related featured lists don't have one image per item, even for things like species lists which are a very visual subject, we already have an image for almost every one, and there are no licensing issues with those. Also all of the commercial sites I can find that list episodes fail to use one image per episode even where they appear to have license agreements which would allow it. So we're perhaps using a somewhat useful navigational tool, but it doesn't put us worse off than anyone else. At the end of the day it's important because Wikikipedia is intended to be made from Free content, and we should only break from that path when we have little choice. --Gmaxwell 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing that doesn't finish to fit in is the fact that there have been featured lists with images per episode. Why were they be accepted as so if they went against non-free policyes? My deduction is that this comes from a recent concesus that probably redefined several guidelines.

However I feel that the issue should be discussed at WP:LOE. I'm sure the images serve a purpode by helping identifying the episodes, since most people won't recall an episode from the title. Another reason for taking the issue to WP:LOE is that the guidelines there still make it sound like episode list can use images per episode (for example: if the page doesn't want to feature images per episode) --T-man, the wise 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)--T-man, the wise 05:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy you're looking fore is on WP:LOE and it clearly puts images per episode as a possibility. From the tone, the guideline asumes most episode list will feature images per episode.

• "For lists that don't '*WISH* to use screenshots or an images column, editors simply need to remove the |Image= parameter. even the template asumes images will be used.

• Of course, in your favor: See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content for more information. Per episode images in lists with many episodes are usually not permitted. Then again, I found that not as a guideline but as a task, which implies somebody might have added that just recently.

Without a guideline I can go nuts. The key question is wherther or not navigational purposes are enough justification for images per episode in episode list?--T-man, the wise 06:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well the one you just found was recently added by me, trying to skirt around some of the confusion, so don't feel bad for missing that. This whole subject just hit the fan over the last two days, I expect the rules will be fleshed out to make thing more clear over time. I do understand that this is quite annoying.

Regarding the prior existence of featured lists with such pictures, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ... Although there aren't any more featured lists with images per episode anymore.

Misplaced Pages is pretty disorganized at times. Anyone can go carve out a little corner and write their own rules... but they can only get away with this until the rest of the project notices. In this case it looks like the featured list process was grabbed by a few folks who were really interested in increasing the number of non-free images... they went and opposed TV articles that didn't have lots of screenshots, so we ended up with lots of articles with lots of screenshots. Stuff like that happens here from time to time.

As far as the LOE instructions, ... they should be adjusted to sound less confusing. I'm sure that will happen soon. At the end of the day what counts is our global policy for non-free images. Even if the folks at WP:LOE voted to have the images they couldn't override the global policy.

As far as the usefulness images go, thats still a pretty navigational use.. but more than that.. a 30 minute episode will have 50,000 frames. Is one really consistently enough to really be much help? As I indicated above, I think we can use the commercial sites as a guide since they don't have licensing issues or care about free content... and they still don't use one per episode. --Gmaxwell 06:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

the one you just found was recently added by me, trying to skirt around some of the confusion... did you reach concensus before adding that. I don't know how familiar are you with wikipedia, but mayor changes like that require concensus (which, as you probbably know, isn't voting at all but a objetive disccusion to find out how to approach the guidelines better). I'm gonna retire that guideline, if you can reach concesnsus and you can put it bach with my whole support...

...from my time and experience in wikipedia, I'm 95% sure there isn't a guideline against images per episode. How do I know? Easy:

• The only project that determines what an episode list can or cannot feature is WP:LOE, and not only it doesn't forbid images per episode, but its guidelines and templates imply the use of them.

1. There is no specific guideline *anywhere in Misplaced Pages* against images per episode.
2. There are WP:FL of episodes using the images as you are forbidding.
3. Images and their copyright info are a way to source written information.
4. And the key point: Article per episode=Image per episode. Every episode article has at least one image. So wherther or not the image is used in the episode list is moot... the image already exists in wikipedia. If we already have or need the image because of the episode article, using it again for recognition and navegational purposes in the episode list article, as the current guidelines in WP:LOE is only natural.

Overall the big problem with wikipedia is the lack of leadership and character, as a result there are no clear guidelines. We can both go read the free content policies a thousand times and would still think wikipedia back our points of view. Misplaced Pages is like a candidate for president afraid to lose voters, its policies are neither here not there. In a year from now, I'm sure soeme of the LOEs with images per episodes won't have any and the ones currently whitout images will be full.

I propose to stop adding or taking off images and solve at lest this issue once for all. I propose we both take the matter to a WT:LOE and make a big consensus (not voting) to find out if LOEs can include or not images, propose the guidelines and write then down. --T-man, the wise 04:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your message! I have posted a reply.Konekoniku 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Thanks again for the link! I've posted another reply, but if you don't respond that's alright. I appreciate your help in all of this! Konekoniku 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

{{Template:CopyrightedFreeUse}}

It seems at some point (early January?) people decided that it was a bad tag, and instead of doing the obvious thing like maybe deleting the images they changed the tag to {{NoRightsReserved}} or {{PD-release}}. I fail to see how this was at all prudent as it only exacerbates the problem. Could you make a list of every image that has ever used this tag? Kotepho 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My view on Commons and Fair Use

Hi, from your entries on my RfA it seems to me you misunderstand my view on how Commons should be used. I hope you won't mind if I try to explain through a summary of all the comments on both the bottom of my RfA and its talk page.

I think that in order to have an encyclopedia, you need articles on Pablo Picasso, Piet Mondrian etc, and you need to explain how their painting style develops during their career. As such, you need pictures of their paintings to illustrate as words alone cannot explain this by themselves. These pictures are not free, but could be used under Fair Use on the articles of the artist, the painting and perhaps the movement the painter belongs to. Any other use is of course not allowed.

I criticized removing the images while most projects didn't have EDP in place, as that interferes directly with the goal of building an ancyclopedia. Now that there is a new licensing policy, EDP becomes available for many projects, and I see a future for Commons or another project as a framework through which EDP can be strictly enforced, if some legal concerns are taken care of.

I will never endorse using non-free pictures on articles where no exemption rationale can be made. Fair use is necessary for educational purposes, to clarify text by illustrating, but should never be used for the purpose of making the article look better. So using Picasso's portrait of Gertrude Stein for the purpose of showing what she looked like, is not acceptable under fair use. Perhaps this edit () shows more clearly how I try to deal with Fair Use.

Sorry for taking up your time. Errabee 11:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No project was previously "deprived" of the ability to use non-free images. Each project which rejects these images have done so through community consensus. If commons we ever to actually permit such images these projects would block access to commons. Everything you've said suggest to me that you think that it would be wise to engage in coercive behavior towards our many communities who take a more restrictive view of copyrighted works than you, I, and enwiki does. I don't think that's acceptable. I don't agree, but moreover I can not support your tactics. --Gmaxwell 19:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your tactics are to block me on Commons 5 months after the incident happened for a disagreement over policy, then I'm glad that you can not support my tactics. I certainly wouldn't want to have your tactics, which imho qualify as gross admin abuse. Errabee 16:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets be clear, I blocked you for intentionally lying about the copyright status of your uploads. Anyone else would be blocked for the same reason. Any disagreement over policy is immaterial to the reason for your blocking. --Gmaxwell 16:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your position on Creative Commons

Hey can you please clarify why you feel that creative commons is wrong? Why do you think it will not allow you to "publish stuff written by you (and derivatives)"? I read the wikipedia article and couldn't understand it well enough. Sorry for taking up your time. (Btw, this ip NATs over a few thousand machines, so please dont see the history for this ip and blame me for it. :) 203.200.84.194

Email

You should set an email address. :) --Gmaxwell 05:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have now done this. --I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 18:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

SRoyal

marche pas... mais tu es mignon ;) tu me donne une sacré envie de faire de toi mon roeuk personnel, privé et indivisible comme ce qu'il y as de plus beau dans l'amour entre deux garcons. 90.28.203.238 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Question from anon

how do i embed media plyaer? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.137.145 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 May 2007.

Message moved here from your user page. ElinorD (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Episode list

Template_talk:Episode_list#Temporary_hack. ed g2s • talk 01:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Greg,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:FoxBassoon.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 5, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-06-05. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Key

May I suggest that you link your key using {{User PGP}} as opposed to what you have now? According to the keyserver on NIC.AD.JP, there are at least six new signatures not captured on the static copy that you have posted now. See http://pgp.nic.ad.jp/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xB0413BFA -- Avi 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of those sigs are dead keys/joke sigs made to revoked UIDs. The only valid one not included is Ben's .. and he signed after I posted it. Linking by keyid isn't good... because it's not that long and there exist apps to bruteforce find custom key-ids. --Gmaxwell 20:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Tempting offer

Your offer to create a new image of the same map seems tempting. My next question though is, why are you implying that this isn't a reliable source? ---- DanTD 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, however, I've had this promise made to me before. It would also be difficult to make a new one, if you don't have the old one as a frame of reference. ---- DanTD 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Change to Station Infobox

Hey Gmaxwell, Your change to Template:Infobox Station caused "?" to appear under the accessibility section of the infobox. I went ahead and reverted your changes, no hard feelings are ment by this, and if another is pending to change this, accept my sincere apologies. I would certainly like to see that wheelchair replaced by a new symbol and I appreciate your efforts in the matter.

RickyCourtney 06:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the "play in browser" option open in another tab or window?

I requested this information back in March but apparently it was deleted because I see no history of it anymore so I'll ask again.

You helped me a great deal in my article Gioacchino La Lomia with regard to the audio link that would not play and I was inquiring if the "play in browser" feature of the music sample can open in another window or tab allowing the user to read the lyrics I have added to the article while he/she listens to the music sample at the same time? Or is there an easier way to accomplish this?

Again I appreciate all of your help and from what I can read here, I see that your work must be overwhelming at times. Thanking you in advance for your help and keep up the good work...--Calogero C. Villareale 07:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been working on something kind of like that. Visit any video on commons, like Commons:Image:Cat_claws.ogg, and you should see a little film+speaker icon to the LEFT of the words "play in browser". If you don't see them, hit shift+reload. Clicking on that will pop up an inline player. I could probably adapt that to pop up another window, but the problem with that is that popup blocking software often kills new windows.--Gmaxwell 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now, with User:Cyde's help, brought the new player functionality to enwiki. You may need to shift reload to see it. --Gmaxwell 03:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Surprising comment

I'm surprised by your comment about Baby Gender Mentor seeming like a paid product placement. The article details several controversies around the product. This information is also mentioned in the lead-in to the article and in the blurb selected for the Main Page. Do you have any specific suggestions for how to improve the neutrality of this article? Johntex\ 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That was just the impression I got from the main page blurb. I don't think it's an actual problem, beyond the fact that the impression our main page gives is important. I hope no one was hurt or offended by my comment. I certantly know that it's not a paid blurb or anything of the sort. --Gmaxwell 20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. I am the primary author of the article so I am very interested in seeing it continue to improve.

One needs to have soemthing of a thick-skin when editting Misplaced Pages, so I try not to take anything too persoanlly. I am sure that no article I have ever written is anywhere near perfection, but I would have never expected anyone to criticize this article as being a commercial. I worked really hard to make it fair and balanced so of course I would be disappointed if I did not succeed.

It seems like you have a general dislike for articles on commercial products. I would strongly oppose any move to limit the exposure of commercial products. They are a part of our world, and an important part. Most people don't grow their own food or make the own clothes or spend their evenings just watching the fireflies. People buy commercial products. They need unbiased articles on the products they are buying. Therefore, we should have articles on iPod and Ford Pinto and Wii and Star Wars.

When we write articles that meet FA criteria, they deserve to be FA and to be featured on the Main Page. We should not discriminate against a topic just because it relates to a commercial activitiy. Even the Mona Lisa was a product made for commercial purposes. Johntex\ 20:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a any dislike of articles about commercial products, and it's taking me some effort not to be offended by the allegation that I feel otherwise... I do, however, think our featuring should be more focused on general classes of products and on technologies rather than products themselves, since general classes tend to be the the fundamental basis of education rather than the detailed frosting. We don't have a featured article on pregnancy testing, for example, and I think thats shows a serious imbalance in our coverage. But I don't think that this makes your article bad or invalid. There is just something about the blurb that struck me, and others apparently, as an advertisement. It might not be a fair or a just impression but it was what some people experienced. As I said, I don't think we actually did something wrong, but I do think that for some people we may have created the wrong impression... and we should avoid doing that. How? I don't know.. thats why I started the discussion.--Gmaxwell 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you are having trouble not being offended by my remark. I meant no offense and I apologize for inadvertantly offending you.

You stated "Switching to serious mode, in the future lets make an effort to feature classes of products or underlying mechanisms instead of specific products. Both are more encyclopedic, more guaranteed to be of long term interest, and lack the obvious impression of payoff. Perhaps we should write down a rule against putting stuff like this on the main page? ..er .. or at least making sure we get paid darn well for it? ;) oh wait, I'm supposted to be serious here."

That led me to believe you have a dislike for articles on commercial products. Perhaps I was mistaken in reading your statement. Perhaps I should have said you have "a dislike for articles on commercial products being on the main page". That latter inference certainly seems to be supported by your statement.

If you do in fact have a problem with commercial articles making the Main Page, then the rest of my statement still stands. I would be against any such move. Commercial products are a part of our life. Articles on them deserve to be in Misplaced Pages. If they meet FA quality, then they deserve to be on the main page.

While we are on the topic of comments that cause offense, I am offended by your statement that I am the "WP:OWNer of the article". As you know, it is policy that no own owns an article and you are effectively accusing me (with no evidence) of violating this policy. Therefore, I consider your statement to be a personal attack against me. Johntex\ 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may join in here, I am one of those in the Main Page talk thread that agreed that this kind of article gives overtones of commercial product placement. My main problem is that the Main Page blurb prominently features the name of the product Baby Gender Mentor and the company marketing it, Acu-Gen Biolab. The fact that the article then told a story of the launch and subsequent controversy, didn't improve things in my view. It struck me more as a news/current affairs story, than an encyclopedia article. Don't get me wrong, it is very difficult to get the balance right when writing an article on a topic like this, and other, similar, articles suffer from the same problem, in my opinion (which makes this a more general point than just one about this article, but that doesn't mean the concerns shouldn't be voiced). An even more crucial point might be the sources being used. An article like the one on the Wii often uses ephemeral sources (such as reviews in gaming console magazines) and a quick look at the sources for Baby Gender Mentor reveals the same sort of thing - topical preganancy websites mixed up with business and news websites. This all culminates in conclusions veering towards recentism, in that it is simply too early to judge this sort of thing.

"Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention. Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens..."

We can write articles on James I of England from a historical perspective of over 300 years, but articles on modern products face the problem that in 5 or 10 years time, possibly no-one will remember Baby Gender Mentor (possibly the Wii will be remembered for a few years longer). Also, it is probable that the articles on the Wii and Baby Gender Mentor will have changed drastically in 10 years time. In that sense, they are not stable in the medium-term, though they are stable enough in the short-term to pass FAC at the moment. I hope some of these points will be accepted in the spirit in which they are written - constructive criticism that is not meant to offend or provoke a fierce defence, but only to point out why some people were surprised to see such an article on the Main Page (though we should all check the TFA queue in advance if we really want to avoid this sort of thing). Carcharoth 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think "recentivism" is not a big problem. I am happy to see articles on James I of England. I am happy for us to improve that article and have it featured on the Main Page. I am happy for us to seek perspective in our writing and to make sure an article is stable before it gets featured. However, I bet more people come to Misplaced Pages for info on Wii than come here to look for info on James I of England. Probably by 1,000 times.

The Baby Gender Mentor article is sufficiently stable to be FA and sufficiently well written to be FA and to make the front page. It will be useful, interesting reading to some readers, and completely useless to others - just like our article on James I of England.

Fifty years from now, most of the other information about Baby Gender Mentor will have been lost to time. I hope our article still exists so that anyone wanting to research the state of pregnancy-testing in the early 21st century will have this article to study. Johntex\ 21:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, I forgot to reply to your constructive criticism:

I appreciate that some people felt the Main Page blurb read like an advertisement, I did not write the blurb, but I thought that Raul did a good job with it. The final 2 sentences said "Customers and scientists question the accuracy of the test; and legal action is being pursued against Acu-Gen as well as a major supplier of the test. Concerns have also been raised by bioethicists that use of the test could lead to practices such as gender selection and Acu-Gen has allegedly used the test to illegally offer medical diagnoses."

Therefore, I am still surprised anyone thought it read like an advertisement but it obviously did read that way to some people. I don't mean to find fault with anyone's impression. If it read like an advertisement to you then it read like an advertisement to you. I suspect if Raul had led with the controversy someone would have complained that we gave undue weight to the controversy.

At any rate, I do appreciate the candid remarks about the Main Page blurb. Johntex\ 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, as well. Just one response from me, conerning your comments about people in the future using this article to "research the state of pregnancy-testing in the early 21st century" - it is tempting to think of Misplaced Pages being used that way, but I certainly hope it won't be used to 'save' information that ends up lost to posterity. Just as Misplaced Pages should not be used as a primary reference now, it shouldn't be used that way in the future. If the sources are lost in 10 years time, then no-one will be able to verify the article in 10 years time, if you get my meaning? Misplaced Pages should not be used to preserve information. Information should be preserved elsewhere, and Misplaced Pages can then continue to reference that information. Carcharoth 22:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:04 Richard III.ogg

Hello, Gmaxwell. An automated process has found and removed an image tagged as a nonfree image, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:04 Richard III.ogg) was found at the following location: User:Gmaxwell/audio pop. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do note that I have ceased the bot's operations until I figure this out, the bot probably should not be hitting image files, as they are only a link. —— Eagle101 21:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Player

I'd be glad to mention it next week. Grab me on IRC sometime during the week, or say what you want to about it here (new features that are coming, particularly). Ral315 » 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:007.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:007.svg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Misplaced Pages articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

coord - your urgent attention requested, please

It's over a month since I wrote the above and longer since this request. Can you comment ASAP, please? Thank you. Andy Mabbett 11:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Playing .ogg files in browser (beta)

The browser player for .ogg files seems to be working fine but it is cutting off the last few seconds of each track.--Ianmacm 07:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)