User talk:Max rspct/archive6

Yes, I'm a moron. If I'm allowed to evaluate my own performance, I should be expected to be subjective. Anything else I should know about? Dahn 22:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of fair use images in user space

I removed Image:Cowbell2.gif from your userpage because the image is tagged as a fair use image. According to Wikipedia policy, you may not use such images outside of the main article namespace. Thus, your use of it in userspace is against policy. For the relevant policy, please see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9. Please revert your re-insertion of the image. I will not revert your revert because I have no desire to get into an edit war about this. I would much rather you understood why this is necessary and have you take the appropriate action. Ignoring this is not an option; we all must abide by copyright law and Wikipedia policy. Thank you, --Durin 17:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmm, who decides these things and who implements them? - max

In the case of the use of fair use images outside of the main article namespace, the Wikipedia Board of Trustees has made that decision. I.e., its fairly inviolable. In the case of implementing, it's the entire community working to follow policy. --Durin 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that you've been told by me and Durin about different images, you've just reverted the changes... why is this? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that I told you to GO AWAY, you continue stalking/harassing me. You are just want to be an admin. Sad -

I'm saddened that you feel that requesting users to adhere to copyright law and Wikipedia policy constitutes stalking and/or harrassment. I have no desire to anger you. Regardless of how you feel about having fair use images on your userpage, the policy and law must be adhered to. I have placed a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for other administrators to chime in with their view and/or take action on this matter. As I noted, I'm not going to get into a revert war with you on this. I really do not mean any hostility towards you. I just don't want to see fair use images improperly used, as it constitutes a significant risk to Wikipedia's existence. There are oodles of lawyers who make copyright and trademark law their entire careers, and would be all too happy to prosecute a lawsuit against Wikipedia for violating their client's copyrights. Surely you wouldn't want to come to Wikipedia one day and find it all gone because people refused to observe copyright law here? That would waste all of the effort you've made here. All the best, --Durin 18:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not bug me that much. What does bug me is having bored users editing and deleting stuff on my userpage without prior notice or request. Perhaps admins could give notice (eg. 3 day ultimatum). It would be understandable if it were a racist image or personal attack but no.. delete those harmless images which can often be considered IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN not just FAIR USE So then I feel some of these editors are over-zealous and have the hidden agenda of wanting to be an admin... so they go round 'dusting' like this. The running of wikipedia is a major issue.. the board, bureaucrats and administrators all need to be vetted and controlled by a supreme democratic body composed of all registered users. Otherwise it really is just going to turn into an online dictatorship. -- max rspct leave a message 19:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well refusing to follow this policy just because you don't like how Wikipedia is run isn't gonna get you anywhere not to mention being unhelpful and unproductive. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the images are tagged as fair use, they are not in the public domain. The terms are legally mutually exclusive. Image usage violating copyright law is not a harmless issue. Your userpage is not strictly yours. You may wish to review Wikipedia:User page. I don't have a hidden agenda of wanting to be an admin, I am one already. My only agenda in removing fair use images from userspace is protecting Wikipedia against copyright violations and helping to enforce Wikipedia policy. I should think your agenda would also be helping to ensure Wikipedia outlives us all. Abiding by copyright law helps achieve that goal. --Durin 21:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will blank my userpage when I want. I do not like stalking-lite. - max

You may blank your userpage whenever you wish. Nobody is contesting that. Nobody is stalking you either. We're just trying to get you to stop using fair use images in userspace, nothing more. We have no hostility towards you. We're just upholding Wikipedia policy. None of this is any comment on your value as a Wikipedian nor the value of all of your other contributions. All the best, --Durin 21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you have made a lot of contributions, making you a valuable Wikipedian. Let us end this discussion and put it behind us- the images are gone and there is little need to go on debating and going around in circles. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your striking of my comment on WP:AN/I

I clarified that I was talking about the other user edit-warring over their refusal to follow policy, not you. Sorry about the confusion. While I'm here though, I should mention that your charge above that Wikipedia will "turn into an online dictatorship" because we don't want to host copyright infringements in userspace seems to be missing the point that we are trying to create a free, reusable encyclopedia here. Please don't decorate your userspace with media that is licensed under an unfree copyright. Thanks. Jkelly 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the way people are going about things. Deleters (deletionists?) delete all kinds of images inc. public domain, e.g Claus von Stauffenburg image. Jimbo Wales - "Voting is evil." -- max rspct leave a message 21:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Stewart and associated articles

Your reverting my edits to "Martha Stewart (Imclone)"

I added some perfectly factual info to this article. To my knowledge, nothing I added was other than plain facts. Wikipedia principles state that if there are different points of view, both should be covered in an article. But you reverted what I wrote, wiping out everything I had added. Wikipedia recommends that the first step is to talk with the other party when there is a disagreement, so that's what I'm doing. I haven't even reverted your revert - yet. I'm just asking - what gives? A lot of people feel Stewart received an unfair trial, and its easy to adduce facts that support such a view. Do you feel that the only non-POV article is one that agrees with the court's finding on Stewart? And more especially I'm asking, why do you want certain facts not to be included in the article which is devoted specifically to Stewart's court case and involvement with ImClone? Thanks for listening. -- palmleaf (my new username, I just registered)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please familiarise yourself with it (Wikipedia:Tutorial, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines) . What you have been writing is a plain, straight-forward appeal on behalf of celebrity criminal Martha Stewart. It is not my job to guide newbies in assimilating POV and this sort of stuff into articles...If you really want to give her version of events - present one side of the case and then source it from source. Don't speculate or do original research. This is not a place to dispute the courts findings unless they are seriously questioned by notable professionals, law people and academics - go onto a message board for that. Don't present it as fact unless it is. Whether its from supporters of M.Stewart, memorial builders, conspiracy theorists, gurning fans of Natalia Vodianova or anything else - unsourced POV appeals and waffle get deleted - policy and practice. Good luck -- max rspct leave a message 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning

You are close to breaking 3rr on the September 11, 2001 attacks article. If you reverted one more time, you may get blocked. Please see WP:3RR. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Which clutter are you referring to? If you want your signature to return to default then indeed just remove your code from nickname in My preferences. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get it, yeah what infinity said, just use Wiki-markup. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Hey, is your real name really Max? Just wondered for a while. -- infinity0 13:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of -- max

As for the "clutterless sig", here is a version that uses CSS instead of HTML:

max rspct leave a message

Royboy has bold type because he uses ''' instead of <b>. -- infinity0 13:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May swap it ..thanks very much -- max rspct leave a message 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia protesters picture

I will take better pictures sometime around the weekend. But this one will have to do for now. Unless somebody else take one. Wuffyz 10:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Hehehe, it was a sock of the permabanned User:Bonaparte, he thinks that you're User:Node ue because you voted to include the infobox at Moldovans. I guess we can't please everyone. ;) —Khoikhoi 05:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Rage (Australia)

Yes, I was a mover and shaker in the Love and Rage for a while. In fact, Fifelfoo and I wrote most of the article ;) My booze-break is because I'm in recess between my uni sessions. So, I've gotta get as drunk as I can, as fast as I can, while there's still time. Thanks for yer comments on my blog, I love it! AnAn 09:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What.. were you the two surviving members? Glad yer ok.. had visions of a booze-fuelled court room. I once had a lawyer with a nose made out of whisky (try Ecosse for those!). -- max rspct leave a message 12:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we gave it up when it ground to a halt (others kinda clung a bit longer - I guess they liked to have faith). AnAn 11:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

Hi Max,

I thought you might be interested in this. Regards, —Khoikhoi 19:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I was hoping you could do it as I'm trying to avoid edit wars. If someone reverts you, then I'll step in and make a comment on talk. —Khoikhoi 00:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I goes on. I have talked at length..on 9/11 page ., same folk? What can you do when people can't see the obvious biasness. Legal? -- max rspct leave a message 00:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure man. :( However this page hasn't said terrorist for quite some time, so I think it's different. —Khoikhoi 00:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did to it correctly! Thanks. I was talking about the difference between this page and the 9/11 page. —Khoikhoi 01:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. —Khoikhoi 01:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't really know. I think it's funny how some people treat Jimbo like a God-King and everything, but I don't think he's doing anything wrong. I actually kinda admire him. Sorry.

Ooowwwggh Phooey!!!

3RR warning

I'm not entirely opposed myself to including mention somewhere of the WTC as a symbol of global capitalism. I'm thinking though that the first sentence isn't the ideal place and maybe in the motives section or somewhere ese. Regardless, I noticed you have readded this three times after it's been removed. Be careful not to readd it a fourth time, and inadvertently violate WP:3RR. With more discussion on the talk page, I think we can reach consensus on including it somewhere. Thanks. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

1
2
3

Please keep discussing on the talk page. I think we can work this out. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is NOT 3 REVERTS! - max

You're right. Here's the 4th. I don't like blocking people, but if you revert again, then we have no choice. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your personal attacks

Do not personally attack other editors, especially me. [1] RJII 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are u special? You are part of a disruptive 1yr project (u have stated) on here and all you do is troll wikipedia. You insert Weasel words get into edit wars. conduct personal attacks - see all your disputes.. You don't source you stuff properly on Anarchism and all the other articles. You xonstantly misquote and take excerpts back to front and out of context. -- max rspct leave a message 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another personal attack

Again, stop your personal attacks. Do not call other editors "trolls." [2] RJII 16:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You exhibit trolling behaviour. - max

Ward Churchill misconduct allegations blanking

I see you've restored some vandalism on the main Ward Churchill article recently. I wonder if I could lean on you to watchlist the child article too. There's an anonymous editor who keeps removing all the material in defense of Churchill (though the removals do seem to narrow somewhat on repetition). I've reverted the blanking a bunch of times, but don't want to get past 3RR on doing so, even though it probably does qualify as vandalism. LotLE×talk 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill comments

I understand your willingness to remove what I had written regarding the professor[3]. Those were reports of the committee that was elected or selected to examine his acadmeic records and were their quotations. You might have thought that those were meant by me to give the readers the understanding that something might be amiss....but quite the contrary. The very putting those acocunts between quotes will give the reader the impression that it might not be true also. I stand by your removal of them, but disagree as to their negative impression that you might have feared. Put in quotes, they are neutral enough.

Jehoshua Ben-Pandira

The article was a quote from a single author on a single topic, and the merge request had been up for over a month. I merged and re-directed, as common sense would dictate. If anything was un-warranted, it was your reflexive revert. Oh, and regarding the necessity of "notifying" you, please see WP:OWN. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]