User talk:Jacoplane/archive4

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. I appreciate the comments you left when you voted, and I will definitely keep them in mind. If you have any other suggestions as to how I could improve as a Wikipedian, so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for personally vouching for me in my RFA, I am very pessimistic about it passing, although one never knows about these things. It meant alot the things that you say since frankly I really dont get any wikipreciation, besides I guess from my own personal enjoyment of doing it and the optimism in collaborations shown by some users (particularly User:Vic_Vipr). But I should have just done more in policy, like you had said. Oh well :/ Thanks anyway --Larsinio 18:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently removed an image from a current article. Please explain in more details why you believe fair use does not apply. I have re-read the fair-use articles and here is what is what i believe qualifies the picture for fair use.

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

It is a valid point to display an image to cite a criticism.

the nature of the copyrighted work;

The only copyright on [the original] page is for the forum sofware at the bottom, so the posts themselves may not even be copyrighted.

the amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

refer to previous, and the screenshot is 2 posts out of 76.

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

in any case, the forum contents cannot be sold/marketed so there is none.

Thankyou Fosnez 18:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I have placed this discussion in the talk page for the article, please discuss there. Fosnez 18:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I hope we somehow manage to turn him around. Hey, crazier things have happened on wiki...Deckiller 03:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider reverting edits that change "focused" to "focussed" (ie. spelling errors) and introduce grammatical mistakes an edit war. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. My rationale was that since he insistently reverted to his favoured version that contained glaring grammatical and spelling mistakes, he is not editing the article to improve it, but trying to disrupt it instead. At the very least, he is just reverting any-how anything that he doesn't like. I have requested for CheckUser but there is a huge backlog on

Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. The vast amount of new accounts with only edit on that page is worrying, and is it really a coincidence that all of them are reverting to his favoured version? Not to mention a string of vandalism that my user and talk page received during that time. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 23:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's beyond reasonable to assume that all the follow-up first-time and near first-time editors, as well as two new accounts which vandalised my user page, and four new accounts that vandalised my talk page are all sockpuppets of User:Robust Physique. If he pulls something like that off again, I'm going to block him. Even his malicious use of sockpuppets alone should get him a day or two. Tell me if you object. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the Future section in the article and put up a detailed rationale for it in the talk page. Please review the edit and please comment on it. Also see the Alizee career over? discussion in the same talk page. In particluar, I want to draw admin attention to the user Frits van Houten, going through the discussions in the talk page of the article Alizée should make it clear why. --Soumyasch 18:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ya, I think the person meant to put it on the AfD page. I've never seen someone get so excited about math though ;-) --
  pm_shef 02:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I have added you as a friend on digg so I can see what you been diggin' lately. :) --Thorpe | talk 13:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you get ScummVM to output such a smooth-looking screenshot? NeoThe1 10:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The screenshot from "The Dig." I already figured out the video filters, though. Thanks anyway! -NeoThe1 01:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Islamophobia definition" link really does give me cause for great concern.... I'm thinking of submitting it for AfD for that reason alone. Thoughts? Netscott 01:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Message received, is there any way to bring more editors to bear on this article to ensure a proper sum total NPOV since this article appears to be in such a precarious state relative to
  WP:NOR? Netscott 02:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

>x<ino 03:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ow. Just ow. I know that may be the new ref style or whatever, but it's horrid. First of all I don't like it because it places all the referencing text in the article space, making it an absolute mess to read in the edit window. Second it took 43 nicely alphabetized references and expanded them out to 63 unalphabetized references, many of them duplicated (as some sources are cited multiple times). I'm sorry to revert you on that, but I really think it was much nicer the way it was, and I'd ask you to not do that again on that article. Thanks. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Its been a long time since the peer review went into inactivity. The article has undergone some changes since the last comment. Please review the article in its current state. Thanks. Have a nice day.

--Soumyasch 08:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, it seems that 66.210.134.5 has wrote nonsense again. This time, he (or she or it) has wrote some rubbish in the section "Trivia" about Bono (from U2) I am only a newbie, can you revert to last good version of the article? is it posible to block the changes of this person? last time he (or she or it) spoils the article was yesterday!!!

Check out doom127's userpage. He just sent me an email saying that the harassment he suffered on Wikipedia has annoyed him to the extent of abandoning his account. I was trying to get you guys to agree on this, and no, there WASN'T a consensus, despite what you and a few others are now doing. He was a good user, with a lot of good edits on Wikipedia. Sigh... I guess what they say is true- Wikipedia IS a foundation of groupthink. The Eye 02:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this is my fault how? The edit he was inserting in the Wikiproject clearly went against the Fair use policy. He was the one not being civil (are you saying I harassed him please show me where I did so) and he started revert warring. It's not at all a matter of group think, I just don't buy that accusation. I was fine with your latest revision. jacoplane 02:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a grey area. When the only subject of the image is the box, as in the image you linked to, it would be considered a derivative work, and therefore covered by the original copyright. Whereas a photo of a large shelf-full of video games would probably be okay, as the framing of the shot would be a significant original input. ed g2s • talk 12:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the name says it all the southerner 13:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know I completely understand why you made that statement... Edits by both Raphael1 and Irishpunktom tend to suffer greatly from logical inconsistencies and in many cases are tantamount to obfuscation to merely tire those out who do try to attain true NPOV in a given article. I'm glad to see that you are back on it but I fear that you too may eventually tire out battling such illogical (and often times heavily POV) edits. Netscott 18:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Yeah well we'll see how long I'll last. I really hope I can keep a cool head and help people reach some sort of consensus. Although this article is tiring, I don't really have much time left to do things on WP I actually enjoy doing.. jacoplane 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a few details about StarCraft 64 to the StarCraft page. Have you played the game? If it has any extra missions, could you make a note of them there? (No need to go into detail, though.) Kimera757 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw on Reader2 you have Of Mice and Men on your new books list. I am currently studying about lonelyness and how Steinbeck reveals to us clues about what is going to happen next. Have an exam in school soon to do on it. Are you studying it or just reading it for pleasure? --Thorpe | talk 10:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just read it again recently, and it is one of my favorite books, so that would be for pleasure :) jacoplane 10:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you protect my userpage? User:Doom127 are vandalizing it. --Rick Browser 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you were revealed as a sockpuppet via your actions and your words. I've watched the entire dispute, and what was put on your page (a sockpuppet notice) is entirely appropriate, Rick. The Eye 22:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have not followed this dispute, and there seemed to be simply a template on his userpage without any evidence presented as I mentioned on the talk page. I think that if people make accusations there needs to be evidence to back up their claims, and simply saying "look at his contributions" is not evidence in my mind. jacoplane 03:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacoplane Thanks very much for the welcome! I'm a longtime Wikipedia user and sometime contributor, but not since the registration requirement was introduced. I replaced the LBA 3 article for two reasons: articles on forthcoming computer games are commonplace, as long as the disclaimer is included (Half-Life 2: Episode One) and also LBA 3 isn't original work - comments from Frédérick Raynal are available (original), as are sketches (original) and reports and commentary (secondary) from fansites, such as http://el-muerte.student.utwente.nl/lba/ . Sure, it ain't Pulitzer material, but I think that LBA 3 has every bit as much of a right as, eg, HL2:Ep1 to a page on the Wikipedia. And after all, it's an encyclopedia - and someone may wish to get information on a possible sequel to LBA 2. Hope I've convinced you! T.

I've written up a detailed summary regarding Brazil4Linux, Rick Browser, his actions and the ESRB dispute in an attempt to ascertain directly whether or not he is a sockpuppet of Brazil4Linux, and put it on the CheckUser Request page [here].

Obviously that evidence stands out, but Rick's edits (which mostly center around Brazil topics), his style of speech, his first interjections into the ESRB topic (which was for him to put a grevious insult against me), the fact that he's been watching my user contributions just like Brazil4Linux has done all stand to mind.

Once the Checkuser comes back and shows that Rick does indeed hail from Brazil, I have no doubt that he will once again vanish and wait another few weeks, then create yet ANOTHER sockpuppet to attack me.

Listen, Jacoplane, I understand that you are attempting to be fair in this dispute. However, this user has been doing this (create sockpuppet, attack, disappear) for the better part of half a year now, and I quite frankly am sick of it. The fact that he was able to somehow discover the name of my wife (a fact that is nowhere on wikipedia and is not public) and then made derogatory harassment-oriented sockpuppets with her name in the title should be enough. I lost over an hours worth of work because this individual discovered my instant messenger account and "bombed" it while I was doing some VB work, crashing my PC.

The truth always comes out in the end, sir. Sincerely, Daniel Davis 06:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jacoplane...

Further revelations have been forthcoming- even as I was compiling the list of B4L IPs for the Rick Browser checkuser, he placed a personal attack on the "Request for Admin" page of user Jedi6, someone whom with the Rick Browser username has had NO prior contact with- in fact, the only person who has ever to my knowledge bore a grudge against Jedi6 was in fact Brazil4Linux. You can take a look at it [here].

He's disrupting what should be a very serious and solemn vote on Wikipedia, and I'm requesting your help in resolving it... What is normally done when someone leaps into an RFA with personal attacks? Daniel Davis 06:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's him. Daniel Davis 07:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jacoplane. Chances are that he'll just create another sock sometime in the future, but for the moment... there is peace. -bows- Good night. Daniel Davis 07:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]