| Revision as of 08:28, 1 October 2009 editCkatz (talk | contribs)Administrators82,937 edits →List: warning re: 3RR issues← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:02, 1 October 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to User talk:Powergate92/Archive.Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| {{User:Powergate92/Toolbar|Powergate92's Talk Page}} | {{User:Powergate92/Toolbar|Powergate92's Talk Page}} | ||
| {{Archive box|]}} | {{Archive box|]}} | ||
| == A kind warning == | |||
| As of the past couple of days you have been getting overly involved in actions I have been taking on Misplaced Pages. You did not need to involve yourself in the image copyright issue and your comment on BillTunell's user talk was not helpful or related in any way. Do not begin investigating my reverts and my edits as you clearly have been. This is exactly how my dispute with Mythdon began. He began commenting on my use of rollback and then he was on every single page that I editted and began getting too involved with process and rules rather than encyclopedia building. If you keep treating me this way, you will also find yourself banned from commenting directly about me. | |||
| In short, stay out of my way and I'll stay out of yours.—] (]) 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes I did need to be in the "BillTunell and userboxes" discussion as the discussion is about public domain logos that you think are copyrighted, as you can see in my contributions I am one of the users that adds the PD-textlogo tag to logos that are public domain as they are not original enough. My comment on BillTunell's talk page is helpful and related as it is to inform BillTunell that there is a discussion about the logos at AN/I. ]<small>]</small> 03:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Whatever. Also, if I start a thread here, I expect it to continue here. I have this page watchlisted anyway.—] (]) 04:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I, for one, find Powergate's talk page update to be quite helpful. You instigated the adminsitrative complaint against me, without even so much as notifying me. I find that objectionable, and would have raised the userbox-deletion issue on the administrative board had Powergate not done so. I also find it ironic that you complain about another user undoing all your previous work, given your ill-informed, wholesale reversions of so much of my userbox work. ] (]) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Copyright == | |||
| Because it's the arrangement of multiple numerous geometric shapes that crosses the threshold of originality. Otherwise, every copyrighted logo would have to include some type of shape that wasn't simply geometric, which is ludicrous. <b>]</b> 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Wrong. Simple geometric shapes ''usually'' cannot be copyrighted; arrangements of multiple simple geometric shapes almost always can be. Example: ]. In fact, according to 18 U.S.C. 706, 917, even simple geometric shapes with text can ''still'' be copyrighted - believe it or not, the simple red cross with the text "American Red Cross" is copyrighted (at Misplaced Pages we get round this by not including the text). (Edit:) the actual text reads "Staple or commonplace designs, such as a standard geometric figure, a familiar symbol, an emblem, or a motif, or another shape, pattern, or configuration that has become standard, common, prevalent or ordinary cannot be copyrighted". The important word here is '''"a"''' - one geometric shape, in other words. As soon as you hve multiple shapes, or shapes with text, you enter the grey area of threshold of originality. When you get to an arramgement like Paramount, you're well past the grey area. <b>]</b> 18:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ** Because it's simple text on a simple background. ABC could try to copyright it, but you also have the issue that sometimes companies don't want to copyright their logo, ironically, so that it ''can'' be reproduced (for advertising purposes). <b>]</b> 22:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *** And you would take the word of something written on Commons over that of the US Court (as posted above)? Not the course that I'd take, but ... <b>]</b> 22:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **** Goes to prove my point. "''The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations''". The operative word there being "Simple". Which doesn't apply to an arrangement of no less than fourteen separate symbols in a particular manner. <b>]</b> 06:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == NewYorkCity101 == | == NewYorkCity101 == | ||
| Line 47: | Line 29: | ||
| == List == | == List == | ||
| Most seasons are released in seperate volumes, and than later released in one complete box set.. The article sais that a Complete Box Set will be released later, while i'm gessing that ''Stargate Universe'' won't be one of the few shows in the world without a Complete season box set releases. --] (]) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | Most seasons are released in seperate volumes, and than later released in one complete box set.. The article sais that a Complete Box Set will be released later, while i'm gessing that ''Stargate Universe'' won't be one of the few shows in the world without a Complete season box set releases. --] (]) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :And i'll do the same two you (WP:3RR). Powergate92, the writer of the article clearly stated this is not 100% sure. (Comment section) + that the information came from an interview, so they think it will might happen. And the article opens up with a "may", which means they aren't sure!!! --] (]) 05:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | :And i'll do the same two you (WP:3RR). Powergate92, the writer of the article clearly stated this is not 100% sure. (Comment section) + that the information came from an interview, so they think it will might happen. And the article opens up with a "may", which means they aren't sure!!! --] (]) 05:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:02, 1 October 2009
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
NewYorkCity101
There is no harassment going on. The user admitted they were the same user as blocked IP 68.37.66.81 and the majority of their edits have been incorrect, against article or project consensus, bizzare attempts to blame his bad edits on a long-dead sockpuppet or taking action against accounts which have had no activity for a year, or just plain wrong and I have been warning accordingly to no avail. Since the AIV process has been pretty much rendered useless against basic tenuous editors it's harder to keep these kinds of editors to realize that this isn't a game. Also his questions on talk pages have been either incredibly inane requests any reasonable editor would dismiss or just odd (i.e. completely unneeded article splits). Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-free logos
I think I may have found the solution to our problems regarding non-free images. For example, if you take a look at File:Mctvbbs.svg you'll see that it it will never qualify for public domain until the copyrights expire. Since everybody who's been removing the images has been asking to sourced commentary, this is as likely as sourced as it will ever get. The link I provided was to a Canadian government trademark database listing when the logos were first used and how the logos are described by the copyright owner and by legal terms per the Canadian government. I'm hoping that something like this would work and I would like your opinion on this. If it does work, I encourage you to find an American counterpart to this service. єmarsee • Speak up! 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- All right. Is there something like this for the United States? єmarsee • Speak up! 00:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
ONTv logo
If the original is copyrighted, then you can't just draw your own version and claim it to be the original logo. For one thing, it isn't the original logo - it's just your version of it - and secondly, if it's a replication of the original, it is still non-free because it's a derivative work of the original. Black Kite 17:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's been sent to PUI for discussion. Black Kite 18:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
AutoEd
Please stop using AutoEd to clean up the articles. It doesn't do anything to the pages and is only putting in spaces where they were not before. The pages do not need the cleanup you are performing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Stargate Universe
Seriously, STOP reverting the numbers back in. You're obviously well-intentioned, and I have no doubt you're only doing what you feel is right. However, this is becoming disruptive. I've no problem discussing this or with pointing you to the relevant recent discussions (there are lots) but if you insist on edit warring over it then that becomes a problem above and beyond the content issue. Editors have been blocked for insisting on doing what you're doing. Again, this is not a threat, but a plea for you to stop your actions before it becomes necessary. --Ckatzspy 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
List
Most seasons are released in seperate volumes, and than later released in one complete box set.. The article sais that a Complete Box Set will be released later, while i'm gessing that Stargate Universe won't be one of the few shows in the world without a Complete season box set releases. --TIAYN (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- And i'll do the same two you (WP:3RR). Powergate92, the writer of the article clearly stated this is not 100% sure. (Comment section) + that the information came from an interview, so they think it will might happen. And the article opens up with a "may", which means they aren't sure!!! --TIAYN (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm blocking you :D --TIAYN (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have reverted me three times, and the source your using aren't even sure about the two volumes.... --TIAYN (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- You have reverted me three times? See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Stargate_Universe_episodes&action=history. And as i have said to you, your source is not even sure if the show is going to be released in two volumes. Your source opens up with a "may". And the writer, David Read sais:
Folks, please remember that this is yet to be confirmed. I placed a question mark in the title because it has yet to be verified — not because I wrote it in disbelief. Just keep it in mind, it is still early and there is no guarantee until a formal announcement is made.
Admin note Both of you, drop it and keep this on the article talk page. Honestly, I could easily block both of you right now for this behaviour. TIAYN, you should really know better given that you just had a block for the same revert issues a few weeks ago. As for Powergate92, you were edit warring earlier today at Stargate Universe and you are breaching the spirit of the 3RR rules at the list. Note that you do not have the right to revert three times; that is only a benchmark for the guideline, and it is not a target you should be aiming for. 3RR blocks come for violations of the spirit of the rules as much as they do for the technical details. --Ckatzspy 08:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)