Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:54, 7 November 2006

Note: I am reposting all the relevent discussion to THIS page as it is pertinent. I ask that an Admin decide what if any content should be moved to the talk page. One must question why the nominator feels the need to move discussion which may be helpful to readers OFF the main page. - F.A.A.F.A.

I feel it is necessary because the two editors engaged in a war on this AfD were banned from participating in previous AfD's because of disruption. Rather than having you banned, I would prefer you take it to the talk page. Banning would eliminate your comments entirely whereas moving them to talk allows the editors to persuse and engage them as necessary.--Tbeatty 23:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't WP:OWN this page. You expunged relevent comments with your careless edits. Others on Wiki have remarked on just how badly you want to be an Admin, but please refrain from 'playing one' until that does, or does not happen. I respectfully suggest you 'Play Admin' in the Sandbox, or in your own userspace, where you can delete and move content at will, NOT here. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Being as I was part of the conversation, I dont think they are relevant either and are again turning nasty, I am happy they are moved. Thank you TBeatty, even though you refer to me in a less then savory manner. --NuclearZer0 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to Nuclear The documentary was posted on YouTube by the producers who are the copyright holders. Please stop with your wild unfounded Conspiracy Theories. Producers/owners of the film = Public Interest Pictures - F.A.A.F.A. 20:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

They cannot post HBO logo's its not their property, nor can I believe HBO told them they can while the film is still showing on HBO, nor do I believe HBO would ever give anyone permission to display HBO logo's. So please stop your stories. Further where on their website does it even state they put it on YouTube? Do you really think because the uploader says they are PIP, that they actually are, that its factual proof? --NuclearZer0 21:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The most dispicable part is if you actually believe this stuff then you should be supporting the makers of the film, not attempting to hurt them. Issues like this being on HBO is not too common and for HBO to see noone is watching the documentary, apparently cause they are watching it on YouTube, will only lead them to believe there is less and less of an audience for it. So while it may be cool and convenient to think that a YouTube uploader saying they are PIP is perfect justification for watching it there instead of HBO, its only hurting the cause you preach for in the end. --NuclearZer0 21:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing the article on the grounds that the article is a dumping ground for distribution of copyrighted works is a very silly idea, it would serve the better interest of wikipeida readers to apply some protection to the article rather than an outright deletion. There are many wikipedia articles about copyrighted works, should they all be deleted becuase some bad apples are linking to a download of questionable legality? The clear answer is no.

While I normally would agree with you, I am not going to air any more issues about the user in question to admins and semi protect would not solve the issue, full protect would stop editing all together, hence the reason. So what level of protection would you reccomend? The sad part is you mistakenly think I am arguing that all articles with questionable links should be removed, however I am only discussing this article, if you check the history I was very much in favor of keeping, however I cannot vote to keep an article that is highly vandalized with pirated material making this article a legal worry for Misplaced Pages. --NuclearZer0 21:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep removing the link, so for you to argue that you you support deletion because the link is present is specious. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"I was very much in favor of keeping, however I cannot vote to keep an article that is highly vandalized ..." Thank you. --NuclearZer0 21:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Note::As an experienced editor you know that content disputes are NOT vandalization. I contended that the video posted to Youtube by the content owner was 100% inclusionable. You replied with some foil-hat-worthy Conspiracy Theory about it being posted on the www to keep people from watching it on HBO. No vandalization, and you know it. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Got proof? no, stop wasting my time then. --NuclearZer0 00:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That your claim of vandalization was 100% bogus as WP states 'content disputes are NOT vandalization'? Yeah, it's in WP. Do you REALLY not know where to find it? - F.A.A.F.A. 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Its vandalism because you made up your reason, you are adding copyright material off a reasoning you made up off the top of your head, that they allow it, even though there is nothing anywhere saying they did. I asked you for proof and you readded it, effectively making it vandalism. Again, proof? no, leave me alone then. --NuclearZer0 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The worst part is, you are arguing with me though we effectively agree on the larger topic, and you dont even attempt to prove your point, im just going to end this conversation now. --NuclearZer0 01:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright in the film is owned by Teale Edwards LLC and Simon Ardizzone, Robert Cohen and Russell Michaels, not by HBO. Thus it is not an infringement of HBO's copyright for the producers (i.e. the copyright holders) to put this film on google video or youtube. It MIGHT be an infringement of an exclusive contract between the producers and HBO, but that's no concern of ours. There's a tiny tiny tiny outside chance of HBO wanting to sue for trademark infringement over its logo (but why would they? It's good advertising) but I don't think Misplaced Pages could be sued for contributory infringement in that case. This argument smacks of strawclutching--Aim Here 01:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

O lord, do you see what is being displayed on the link? its HBO's showing, it has HBO's logo, only HBO can approve of anyone showing that. Further there is no proof they put it on YouTube, do you have some? This conversation is taking place on the talk page, these comments are being moved there. --NuclearZer0 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As I told the person above you, show me proof any of these people "Teale Edwards LLC and Simon Ardizzone, Robert Cohen and Russell Michaels" put it there within their own rights, or your wasting my time. --NuclearZer0 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're the one wasting everybody else's time, Nuclear. Public Interest Pictures is the name of the account on YouTube and Google. Public Interest Pictures also has info about and from the documentary, with HBO info on their website, and states THIS. "Hacking Democracy," presented by Public Interest Pictures, will air on HBO on November 2nd at 9 pm" Public Interest Pictures - You and your Conspiracy Theories! Always coming up with a new, even more conspiratorial one! Ran out of foil, did you?! - F.A.A.F.A. 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you post on AN/I if you got a real complaint. --NuclearZer0 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice dodge of the issue at hand. You're good at that. You get lots of practice. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Got proof? waiting. --NuclearZer0 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You're currently on probation for the exact sort of behavior you're exhibiting here, and did on the Votergate talk page, as well. You might consider changing that behavior before you get banned. - F.A.A.F.A. 02:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note As an act of Good Faith, I will not re-insert the link until I can confirm that the documentary was posted to Youtube with the permission of the content owners. - F.A.A.F.A. 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's on google video as well. You may want to check if either are legally posted. Nothing on HBO's website states they're offering it for online viewing in full. Spark* 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Executive Producer Earl Katz and Public Interest Pictures are proud to announce that HACKING DEMOCRACY, a documentary that exposes gaping holes in the security of America's electronic voting system, will debut on HBO THURSDAY, NOV. 2 (9:00-10:30 p.m. ET/PT) – less than a week before the midterm elections." Public Interest Pictures' Hacking Democracy

• Comment: The article was created only a few days ago, , and is still a stub. Deletionist editors could have waited before nominating, but apparently that's too much to ask. - F.A.A.F.A. 01:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Deletionist? I see that you, NBGPWS, have changed your name but not your stripes. Please don't throw around epiteths against those you disagree with. Besides cutting out the incivility, please fill the article with reasons to keep. Even Office_Space, a comedy - has more content to assert its nobility. Dman727 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• So much for this. Jinxmchue 03:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WOW That's a real stretch even for you! What part of the phrase 'Candidate running for office' escaped you? - F.A.A.F.A. 03:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not be courteous and civil to everyone...ESPECIALLY fellow editors? Dman727 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a nice little "escape clause" for you, isn't it? As long as it's not regarding a candidate running for office, it's okay for you to spread "muck and mire." Jinxmchue 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

'Muck and Mire'? If you watched the documentary or even read a little, you would have discovered that in districts where Dems are in control and use evoting, the Repubs are actually fighting against it, arguing that its unreliable and prone to hacking and fraud! - F.A.A.F.A. 07:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The term 'deletionist' is no more pejorative than the Wiki term 'inclusionist'. Not much time until Wednesday. Cheers - F.A.A.F.A. 03:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Except, of course, that your use of the term 'deletionist' doesn't match what's on Meta-Wiki. You use it in the sense of some vast conspiracy of editors against you and liberal ideology. You put up ridiculously non-notable articles and act all shocked and outraged when they get nominated for deletion. And then you make even more ridiculous arguments in support of the articles or against the reasons editors give for their choice of deleting said articles. (That Tooth Fairy/Easter Bunny/Santa Claus bit really took the cake!) And when all this fails, you use it as proof of a "deletionist" conspiracy. Jinxmchue 05:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Back to the 'Conspiracy Theories'! What's with you guys? Thank g_d you have your own club! - F.A.A.F.A. 07:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)