User talk:Ansett/Archive 6

Starstruck

The IMDB shows two Australian TV shows called Starstruck: one in 2000 and one in 2005. I just made the two links on the Starstruck disambiguation page to reflect that. Do you know which one you wrote about? Could you make sure I didn't mess it up too badly?

I made the Starstruck disambiguation page because I had a hard time finding the movie with Jo Kennedy, which was a very fun film.

Ronstew 16:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Airport

Please do not repeatedly remove the Airport Codes template for Melbourne Airport, as this is a standard IATA/ICAO code for identifying airports and as per WP:AIRPORTS consensus. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 10:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just let it be, it as per consensus in the Airports Wikiproject to have the code listed in the leading paragraph & template. [1] --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ABC DAB page

Curious to know if you have a reason for placing ABC Australia at the top of the DAB page. I lowered it for alphabetising the list but you raised it? Any reason? SauliH 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious isn't it? The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is better than all the rest! Ansett 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You might have a few non-Australians upset if it wasn't a big deal. Cheers. SauliH 06:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am sure someone will soon change it back so its alphabetically in order! It was still worth it! Ansett 06:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY OH WHY?

WHY ON EARTH DID YOU DO THIS?

"There's no need to shout."

Just my point, and please also see MoS (trademarks). -- Hoary 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Ansett 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't click the link? What I'm on about is your renaming of Fujifilm to FUJIFILM. I'm happy to note that you didn't change the links to it; this will make it much easier for me to undo your page move -- unless of course you present some reason for FULL CAPITALS that somehow renders both the MoS and normal stylistic sensitivity of minor concern. -- Hoary 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The correct name is FUJIFILM not Fujifilm. Google it or go to the official websites! Ansett 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at MoS? I quote it in part: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. Further, the "official website" of a company is, essentially, advertising. When advertising, companies can and do perform all sorts of typographic trickery (special colors, typefaces, etc.). Those who are not in their pay can and probably should ignore this. -- Hoary 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at the FUJIFILM logo? Keep with the the most common stylization! Ansett 06:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have had a good long look at the Fujifilm logo. I see that it is all in capitals. This is of no more interest to me than the fact that the top half of the second "i" is red, because I am not in the pay of Fuji Photo Film. I'm also not in the pay of Wikipedia; however, I am intermittently attempting to improve the articles within Wikipedia. To do this, I follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which concurs with normal stylistic practice outside Wikipedia, which is to ignore self-important corporate quirks of self-capitalization. If you disagree with the Manual of Style, say so directly and you may get it changed. ¶ Another point: as you can see, I don't like ping-pong discussions any more than you do. I'm able to follow the discussion here. There's no need to repost it on my page, and indeed I'm getting a little tired of deleting it there. -- Hoary 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you say "which is to ignore self-important corporate quirks of self-capitalization" - Why don't you have a look at PayPal, eBay and all the others (there are loads of them)? Ansett 06:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because occasional mid-word capitalization is not the same as the full capitalization of what's not an abbreviation: mid-word capitalization (gimmicky though I happen to find it) is an way of coining a registerable trademark that remains understandable, whereas FULL CAPS is just shouting. Fiat originally stood for something (F.I.A.T.) and Saab originally stood for Svenska Aeroplan AB; routinely, each company fully capitalizes its own name; each is normally written with just a first capital (I write [truthfully] that I used to drive a Saab, never that I used to drive a SAAB), each is so dealt with within Wikipedia (SAAB properly redirects to Saab, etc.). Have you read the Manual of Style page yet? -- Hoary 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me: Another point: as you can see, I don't like ping-pong discussions any more than you do. I'm able to follow the discussion here. There's no need to repost it on my page, and indeed I'm getting a little tired of deleting it there. That had no effect. (Did you read it?) Should I protect my talk page? That does seem a rather extreme measure. -- Hoary 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, read it all - its great reading! The company is legally and officially registered throughout the world as "FUJIFILM Holdings Corporation" not Fujifilm Holdings Corporation!! Ansett 07:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed the way it chooses to write its name. Maybe it even has some legal recognition for this. So? MoS says: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment. How does this not imply that Fujifilm (or, if you prefer, FUJIFILM) should be written "Fujifilm"? Please persuade me. I am not persuaded by mere repetition or addition of exclamation points. Please persuade me on this page; please do not write on my talk page. If on the other hand you agree that MoS mandates "Fujifilm" but disagree with MoS, please continue this discussion on the relevant talk page. -- Hoary 07:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you understand where I was coming from now, with the move to FUJIFILM? Ansett 07:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that your move from Fujifilm to FUJIFILM was prompted by Fuji's (or Fujifilm's) consistent use of full capitals. I also understand that the aping of corporate use of FULL CAPS flies in the face of (i) what's clearly written in the relevant part of MoS, (ii) what's done for articles such as Saab and Fiat (and Sanyo and many more), and (iii) what's done by other publications that are edited carefully but independently ("Fujifilm" in the Guardian, "Fujifilm" in the IHT, etc.). In view of the latter, I propose to reverse your well-intentioned but unfortunate page move. -- Hoary 07:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at NASDAQ [2] & [3]? Ansett 08:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, and Nasdaq is of little interest to me. Yes, I realize that you will find sources outside Fuji(film) that will write "FUJIFILM". The page has been moved back, per MoS -- not by me, but with my full support. -- Hoary 08:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe there should be a discussion on Talk:FUJIFILM. Ansett 08:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do not pander to trademark holders' style guidelines - we have our own, so we use them. According to English grammar, various independent style manuals (including our own), and to be consistent with other trademarks used throughout Wikipedia, the one, single, lone, and only correct form is Fujifilm. Wikipedia generally does not give a flyer about what a company wants to call itself. Fujifilm is where the article should be, and it should not be moved anywhere else (THIS MEANS YOU). Chris cheese whine 08:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help but agree with Hoary here. The guideline is clear-cut, and I've seen numerous similar moves conducted in my time here. It essentially comes down to this: Japanese corporations commonly use ALLCAPS for their titles, trademarks, etc. when they romanize them. Wikipedia treats these as normal words, as established by the relevant Manual of Style page. As such, I have reverted the majority of your moves except those that cannot be undone except by admins. Thank you for your contributions, and have a great day. --tjstrf talk 08:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringements

The images used in Australian Centre for the Moving Image were copyrighted, thus this is a copyright infringement. Please do not upload any more copyrighted images or you will be blocked from Wikipedia. Ansett 02:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean - were copyrighted? I run the ACMI website, for which the images I uploaded were taken. Thus I am acting on ACMI's behalf in uploading these images and ACMI owns the copyright. So what is the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeek (talk • contribs)

BTW I notice you only left on the page an image that you took at our TV50 exhibition - yet there are no photos allowed in the exhibition space...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeek (talk • contribs)

Do you have permission to release the images under the GFDL? Royalty free? Free for redistribution without citation, etc? Can you document this to the extent required by the established wikipedia guidelines? It's not enough to work for the organisation, it's not enough that the organisation is happy to have the images uploaded to wikipedia - they need to document that they are happy for this to occur. And if the images are on their own website it would be best if on that website they state that permission is given for the images to be reused for all purposes.Ga rr ie 12:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps - even on your own talk page please sign your comment using four ~ characters - there is also a mouse-link below the save/preview/changes buttons. This helps keep it clear who is saying what on a talk page.Ga rr ie 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User online

How do I get one of the "online" or "offline" icons on my user page? Ansett 10:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Well you would have to create it manually and change it manually, basically copy mine mine here and paste it on your userpage. Then when you want it to say online you have to type online where it says swich and the same thing for when you are offline. If you have any more questions feel free to contact me.__Seadog^♪ 14:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fujifilm

Please stop reverting the correctly capitalised form "Fujifilm" to the incorrect all-caps form "FUJIFILM". We do not pander to trademark holders. Wikipedia generally does not give a flyer about what a company wants to call itself. Fujifilm is where the article should be, and how all references in the articles should read. (THIS MEANS YOU). Chris cheese whine 10:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a reminder of why Fujifilm should be so capitalized, see this version of your talk page. (I'm surprised by your rush to remove this discussion of only a few hours ago.) -- Hoary 11:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PayPal.png

This image currently has no provenance. Where was this image obtained? Chris cheese whine 11:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for letting me know! Ansett 11:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's still no good. We need to see precisely where it's come from (right down to the URL where it is used). Fair use is usually restricted to low-resolution images. Chris cheese whine 11:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ansett 11:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha. Funny. Seriously, we need to see precisely where the image has come from. If I whack paypal.com into my browser, the logo I see is not the image you have posted. Chris cheese whine 11:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is because I have edited it! The original is from the PayPal website. Ansett 11:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, it's not actually taken from paypal.com, is it? If you've merely traced the logo in an image editor, then we can't use it as it would be a copyright violation. Chris cheese whine 11:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct, that is not the method I use. Ansett 11:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then there'll be an original source image at that resolution for us to verify. Where is it? Chris cheese whine 12:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have something better to do than harassing me all the time? Ansett 12:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That depends entirely on how willing you are to adhere to the guidelines we have for capitalisation, trademarks and images. Chris cheese whine 12:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]