User talk:Allstarecho/Archive 12

Contributions by Month User/Talk User Boxes Launch Pad Contact Contribs Subpages Awards Image Favs Statistics Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archiving options Thanks for your explanation at Talk:American Contract Bridge League. I had overlooked the distinction you drew. JamesMLane t c 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Fred Rogers (Feb 20th, 2009) Hi, Your message regarding the history of this IP address editing Fred Rogers (please see this IP's talk page) has only been received today. Unfortunately, I was not using this IP address at that time and your message has been received by the wrong person. I'm telling you thin purely as FYI. 86.41.33.30 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company If I had run across this article from a new editor, I would have immediately deleted it under WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio). I see that the source site does not appear to have a copyright notice on it, but I don't think that removes our responsibility to avoid copyrighted material. Can you please take care of this ASAP, including the DYK nomination? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  09:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Text from a web site is perfectly acceptable when one has permission to use said text. I guess I'll have to get some sort of submission to OTRS, which shouldn't be too hard since the company and myself are both in Mississippi. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 11:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC) And the DYK nomination? Are you going to remove it/put it on hold, pending the article being brought into copyright compliance, or shall I?  Frank  |  talk  12:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Put it on hold for a few days until I can get this sorted out. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Done. I had other issues with the hook; if you'd like to talk about them before re-opening on the DYK page, let me know.  Frank  |  talk  21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Well yes, I'd most certainly like to know what those issues are. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 10:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you don't need a template, but nevertheless I'm letting you know I have marked the page as a copyvio. I see you created a sandbox version of the page in your userspace, but I have seen no edits to either that page or the original since yesterday. Have you begun the process of asking permission to use the content from the site's owners?  Frank  |  talk  12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Just waiting on their reply... - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Followup.. I just called the brewery and spoke to the owner herself. She said "no problem, use what you need" but of course I told her I need that in writing as a reply to my email and she said she will get with her marketing director and have him take care of it since the email went to him. He's just on the road a lot and hasn't had time to reply. I also removed that big copyright template so that when they come to view the article to see what text is being used - because I directed them to the article in the email I sent asking for permission -, they will know what they are giving persmission for. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Can you put it in the right spot? I noticed my coordinates for File:Fletcher Chapel.jpg are incorrect. (three blocks north of the actual location) Since I'm boycotting Commons, can you fix it...purty please? (38.904903,-77.016335) Muchas grassy ass. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 14:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) There ya go. I'm always known for putting it in the right spot. ;] - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Whew. I was hoping you wouldn't miss that perfect setup. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Bluemarine The slow SPI bogged down the thread and I think things got archived without a clear resolution. Would like to work something out so he can edit without drama. Where do we stand? Best, DurovaCharge! 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account: Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. He is not to edit war If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator. If this is acceptable to him, then all is well. Otherwise, I can't support the lifting of his community ban. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Well, community topic bans don't normally come with instructions on enforcement. Can't remember any instance of that. Do you know of one? Otherwise looks fine. DurovaCharge! 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Well, it's practically the same thing you proposed at the now archived ANI thread. What gives? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC) WP:CNR Hi there - per WP:CNR, the two cross-namespace redirects (Wikipedia:APK and Wikipedia:ASE) you created for shortcuts to your name and that of Agnostic Preacher Kid are speedily deletable. Rather than simply tagging them as such, I wondered if there was any particular reason behind their creation which means that they shouldn't be deleted? Thanks. 62.56.86.53 (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Did you forget to log-in? As for the redirects, those are acceptable as Wikipedia namespace (Wikipedia:, WP:, WT:), is not in the article namespace. Same for Portal namespace. See User talk:JLaTondre where Admin JLaTondre and I just had this discussion. Also note that WP:CNR is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) List of nu metal bands/Editnotice Hi, You, apparently accidentally, created a mainspace article with above title. If you wanted to creat a template, you should move the article into the template mainspace, i.e. create and article names Template:XYZ Passportguy (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) It's created where Editnotices are supposed to be created. It was done intentionally. It's an edit notice that appears at the top of the page when someone clicks the edit tab. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I think you should take a careful look at Wikipedia:Editnotice !!! Passportguy (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC) categorypalooza 85 categories on Bob Wood (author). I think it's a record. APK will now attempt to remove some of them. Wish me luck. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Ridiculous. You'll need more than luck with that. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC) GFDL compliance Hi there. It's probably not an issue in this case, since, knowing BenjiBoi, he's unlikely to enforce his right to attribution, but in the future, it's important to note the source of copied Wikipedia content, since the GFDL requires attribution. In this edit, it would have been good to note where the content was copied from (Autofellatio/FAQ). Even better, since Autofellatio/FAQ is now going to be deleted, thereby hiding the edit history from public view, it would have been best to move the page, not copy-paste. Anyway, not a big deal (hypocritically, I myself have forgotten to specify where I get stuff from sometimes), but it's something to keep in mind. -kotra (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC) It couldn't be moved because the page already existed - or at least anytime I've ever tried to move a page to another page that was already created, the software told me "no! that page is already a page!". So that's why I just did a copy and paste move. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 00:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC) True, in this case it would have required the assistance of an administrator to move it. But at least saying "copied from (page name)" in the edit summary would prevent misattribution. Anyway, like I said, not a big deal in this case. -kotra (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC) DIY possibilities!!! File:Fellatio-auto.jpg There's just so much potential here for bad puns, no? -- Banjeboi 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Oh nevermind, the prude police have literally marked it as a bad image. (sigh) Wikipedia fun not! -- Banjeboi 01:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Uncle Steve? Is that you? APK lives in a very, very Mad World 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Isn't he Santa Bad Touch from the mall? -- Banjeboi 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Software article question I think you may know more than I do about software articles. I have concerns, which I've been discussing with the article creator on my talk page about notability, advertising, and COI issues with the article uddeIM. Would you take a look and see what you think? LadyofShalott 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not familiar with that software. It appears to be German. I can't find anything 3rd party reliable.. Google News, Google Books.. nothing. Google Web just brings back Joomla related blogs and download sites, which is what he's mostly got in the References section of the article. If it were me, I'd PROD it for WP:NN. You may want to ask at WikiProject Software though. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 13:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks. At this point, if I do anything, it will be AfD. I've discussed much with the article creator, and I don't believe he'd allow a prod to stand. I will go to WPSoftware though. LadyofShalott 13:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) DYK for Devin Britton On May 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Devin Britton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. Jamie☆S93 14:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Petri ANI Yes, thanks for fixing my bad typing. :) rootology/equality 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Dead links and climate It does not appear that a decision was made on the climate links, yet you are hard at work reverting the efforts of another editor. In the process, you have made a bunch of dead links. Wouldn't just removing them and placing Template:citation needed have made more sense? Better yet, waiting for a decision as to the reliability of the editor's new links? ZabMilenko 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) In general we try not to remove "dead" links as much as fix them in some way. If a link is used to cite a fact then removing if it it's "dead" suggests that there is no cite which isn't true. Just that the link itself isn't available presently. -- Banjeboi 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Moved to here from User talk:Mikevegas40: Looks like they prefer your old dead links over your new working links. This is a fiasco but I believe you were in the right. Hope the actions of the editors (who obviously did little research) don't discourage you from contributing to WikiPedia in the future. ZabMilenko 20:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I don't know how anyone would think adding a spam link to roughly 175 articles is "in the right". And to say editors did "little research" is way out of line. It took research to figure out the web site he was adding, was owned by him - a web site made to generate money for him via the Google pay-per-click advertising. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 22:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Research further and you see the OLD links were owned by him too. This is what I am talking about. He updates out of good faith and it is being reverted to his original good faith edits. Nothing has been accomplished here. ZabMilenko 23:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, I know the old dead link is his too. We went over that in the thread at WP:ANI. The difference is, we now have the dead links back instead of a link used for money generation for the spammer. Now people just need to decide which reliable source to use and replace the dead links, not with a spam link of course. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC) A discussion is started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Climate_Table_Links. No hard feelings please, and I'll see you around the wiki. ZabMilenko 00:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Climate weather Just wanted to reply to: "...That report only goes up to the year 2000. Weather.com seems to be more up to date. I guess it's just a matter of which one any given user prefers and chooses to use on any given article.. as long as it's not spam like what happened today. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 15:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)" The reason that the data stops in 2000 is that the NOAA/NWS follows the World Meteorological Organization standards, see Development of Climate Databases Project. Although weather.com, and others, may have current weather, any climate data used by them should be taken directly from the NWS, and while I imagine they do, there is a small possibility that some sites my attempt to update the normals by factoring in temperatures since 2000. As an encyclopedia we should make sure to use international standards and that would be by taking them from the source. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 04:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company (Link to previous discussion) Since there's no indication of copyright permission from the owners of the site, and it does not explicitly list that its content is in the public domain, I've tagged it again. I know you've made a good-faith effort to request permission, but it's been over a week and we've been in violation since the article was created. As we've been in discussion about this already, I'm leaving it to others to adjudicate.  Frank  |  talk  14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I removed the section in question and will make another call to their office sometime today. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, as I'm sure you already know, each of the products is a blatant WP:COPYVIO of its respective page on the web site. Shall I add the copyvio template back five more times, delete the article entirely, or what?  Frank  |  talk  15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC) With respect to your note at this article, "no need in this, if they don't provide the permission, then we can simply delete the article.. I directed them to here in the actual permission-seeking email so they would need to see the text being used in the first place and can't if it's hidden", we don't violate copyright in the hopes that external sources will be okay with it while waiting to find out if they are. Given how quickly Wikipedia is mirrored around the world, this is a quick route to causing irrevocable damage to the rights of content owners. You are quite wrong if you believe that descriptions of beer is not copyrightable. You will either need to provide permission for this text or to rewrite it completely in your own language. Altering "Jefferson Stout is brewed with sweet potatoes and lactose (milk sugar). The sweet potatoes provide the background to an impressive taste with added notes of roasted chocolate, coffee and caramel flavors." to read "This beer is brewed with sweet potatos and lactose (milk sugar). It also has added notes of roasted chocolate, coffee and caramel flavors." does not constitute completely rewriting. The right to produce derivative text, including abridgment, is owned by the original author. Please use the linked temporary space for your revision, as the infringing versions of this article are going to be deleted unless that permission is forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Take this to Talk:Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company where I've started a thread and let's stop cluttering up my talk page with it. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Regarding this edit summary, I did nothing more than I alerted you to above. It appears another admin has just gotten to the previous entry from May 27. Honestly, given your long history of excellent contributions, I'm quite surprised you delayed fully dealing with this for so long.  Frank  |  talk  16:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC) As you know, the delay is from waiting on the permission from the company. Additionally, I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. Couple those 2 together.. at any rate, it's just the right pisser to be in the middle of working on the article and have some trigger-happy admin come out of the blue to lock me out. As far as I'm concerned, the damn thing can be deleted. I work on my time, not be rushed. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia's copyright policy doesn't wait for your convenience. It is quite clear: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." Our copyright policy also clearly notes that "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." You should be aware that placing sentences on Wikipedia from other sources that are not licensed compatibly with GFDL is a serious violation of policy that can lead to your account being blocked. Restoring copyrighted text to publication while you wait to see if it's all right is incompatible with policy. The bottom of every edit screen says, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Copyright concerns, Ole Miss Rebels tennis This article duplicates in substantial part the copyrighted source [1]. That website asserts copyright here. If you are connected with the source, you will need to verify copyright permission through the procedures at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not, you may request permission as described at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. The article is being listed at the copyright problems board to allow you time to address these concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Grand Gulf Military State Park (Mississippi) also seems to be copied from a source that does not explicitly disclaim copyright and that archives to 2006: [2]. In order to use this text, we will either need permission or to verify that both Wikipedia and that source have duplicated text from a public domain document or one that is licensed compatibly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Rather than now stalking my edits, why not do some research and see where and how content came about. For the Ole Miss Tennis article, I simply moved the content from the main Ole Miss Rebels article, to its own stand alone article. The only actual content I contributed to the article was the 2009 section and its subsections. I didn't write or put in the content before that section, only moved it to a new page. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 16:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC) In that case, you may not be the original copyright infringer, but moving material from one article to another infringes on the copyright of our contributors, who do not release their copyright to text but license it liberally under GFDL. Attribution is required and is usually supplied by a direct link to the source article. Meanwhile, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks contains text copied from [3], which according to the site is copyright protected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The Wildlife article.. that's not copyrightable content. Pointing out how a commission's members are appointed, their duties and how they perform those duties, is not copyrightable by anyone. In fact, it's in the charter for the organization itself and all they did on their web site was copy it from that government document charter, to their web site. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ←Since you seem to be taking my scrutiny personally, I have requested additional input at WP:ANI. You will find the conversation here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC) We are not lawyers and it is not for us to determine what is or is not copyrightable. The source linked above most certainly asserts copyright over the original material at the bottom of the page. And, as has been pointed out here and/or elsewhere, unless material is specifically released in a public domain style license, we can't use it wholesale anyway. Not asserting copyright isn't enough (and this particular content does assert it anyway).  Frank  |  talk  17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Just because the department took content from the original founding government document that created them, pasted it on their web site, and claim copyright of it, does not make it theirs to copyright. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 17:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Again, it is not up to us to determine that.  Frank  |  talk  17:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Here's the original founding document, I think, and as state law, it shouldn't be under copyright.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Not all states release their official material into public domain. Can you verify that Mississippi is one that does? If not, I'll investigate further in a few minutes, when I finish today's batch at the copyright problems board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Just to let you know, I am looking into this now. I have not yet found any indication of whether this is PD. Mississippi.gov says, "You should assume that everything you see or read on the Site is copyright-protected unless otherwise noted, and may not be used except as provided in these Terms and Conditions." and "You may print or download material displayed on the Site for noncommercial, personal use only, provided you also retain all copyright and other proprietary notices contained on the materials. You may not, however, sell, reverse engineer, distribute, modify, transmit, reuse, repost, use, or create derivative works based on the content of the Site in whole or in part for any purpose, without written permission from Mississippi.gov, its authorized agents and contractors, or the owner of such content in each instance."[4]. I'm still looking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I can't find anything on the website to indicate PD, but will seek feedback at WT:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Legislative acts are okay, according to US interpretation, so copyright notice notwithstanding that material should be all right. I'll remove the cclean from the article talk with a note in edit summary and leave it up to you to restore the original text or use the revision. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC) ←This is a problem as well. Statistics are not copyrightable; "Kersh dominated the high school" and "Kersh finished a heartbreaking fourth" are. We can use limited runs of text from other sources in accordance with WP:NFC, which requires the use of quotation marks, but we cannot simply duplicate another source's summary of Kersh's record. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The plot section of The Journey of Jared Price seems to copy liberal portions directly from [5]. Even if this is taken from an official source, we can't use it unless it is verifiably pd or, again, licensed compatibly. Even many press releases are copyrighted, as companies that issue them may be quite happy to have them disseminated, but aren't always willing to allow them to be modified or commercially reproduced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I don't have any problem with your making such a note, however I did want to point out that we don't customarily with articles that have been deleted. As Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins notes, "If you deleted the article or image, it's not necessary to do anything else. The red link on that day's log page will indicate the page was deleted as the resolution of the issue." (The only difference in the way these are now handled from then is that we don't typically strikethrough anymore, but check.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC) It being presented as a copyright issue, I want it noted as to why the article is nolonger present. It's nolonger present because I requested it to be deleted, not because of the copyvio content. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC) That's not precisely true, so I suppose if you're just trying to get the record straight, I'd better clarify the record. As I noted in the now deleted comments, the article would have been replaced with a clean version had you written one. It would have been deleted anyway unless we receive permission by process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) No, it wouldn't have been deleted anyway. Only the copyvio content would have been removed. As such, it's deleted because I requested it to be, not because it contained copyvio content. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) It would have been deleted and replaced with your revision, had you written one. This is business as usual. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC) If that was the case, then Grand Gulf Military State Park (Mississippi) would have been deleted too, as well as the others. They are still here because the copyvio content has been removed. Lazy Magnolia would still be here too, if I had removed the copyvio content. Instead, I requested it be deleted, and it was. Business as usual indeed. Now, are you done here? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Deletion has to do with the extensiveness of the material copied. But, now that you mention it, I suppose I need to note that infringement has been removed from the articles that have already been cleaned. As far as whether or not I'm done here, that depends. Do you want me to notify you of any other duplicated text I find in your articles? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC) That would be nice, since apparently you have nothing better to do than stalk my edits. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC) There are many things I would rather be doing, but unfortunately copyright investigations do require some time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Lanier High School (Jackson, Mississippi), [6], © Copyright 2006. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Favorite TV show I just want to make a public declaration here.. Are You Being Served? is my fav-o-rite television show ever. And I admire John Inman for being out even back then in 1973 when the show first premiered. If you haven't seen this british comedy series from the 1970s, you must! - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 04:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC) That's a hilarious show. I didn't know that about the actual actor John Inman (as opposed to Mr. Humphries). I love the ever-changing (and never commented upon) colors of Mrs. Slocum's hair. LadyofShalott 05:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Her hair was indeed many different colors.. and I am unanimous in that! - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 09:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I watched it (plus Keeping Up Appearances and Waiting for God) every Saturday night during my high school years. Mr. Humphries' one-liners and Mrs. Slocombe's pussy always made me laugh. Thanks UNC-TV. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 06:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Haha. I think all public TV stations had the AYBS? telethons and ran the series. That's how I first came to love AYBS? On Mississippi Public Broadcasting. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 09:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC) omg. APK lives in a very, very Mad World 06:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC) (Psst, I fixed the link, but don't tell) — Becksguy (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC) haha APK, that's from Little Britain. I watched that Little Britain episode. Watched them all actually. I got one of those Roku boxes that let you watch your Netflix instant watch que on your TV via wireless internet connection. Another BritCom I found and really loved was Yes Minister. I had never heard of it until I found it on Netflix. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 09:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Also of note, sadly, is Wendy Richards passing away this past February from cancer. She was Miss Brahms on the show. Who would have "thunk" that Ms. Slocombe would outlive her and Inman. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 09:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Not sure if it's available on DVD but Posh Nosh is a bit of a scream as well but I think Queer Duck beats them all for sheer camptastic fun. -- Banjeboi 11:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Never heard of Posh Nosh. Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple in All the World beats out Queer Duck anyday! :P - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Forgot about them, there's also Gay Robot which is cute. -- Banjeboi 11:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) All of Ms. Slocombe's pussy (her cat) jokes. Genius stuff. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 12:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'm a little behind here. That's terrible news about Wendy Richards. :( LadyofShalott 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Formal Mediation for Sports Logos As a contributor to Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/RFC_on_use_of_sports_team_logos, you have been included in a request for formal mediation regarding the subject at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Use of Sports Logos. With your input and agreement to work through mediation, it is hoped we can achieve a lasting solution. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC) About the the page "Islamic view of anal sex" Hi, I don't think it is fair to block me. First, I have made changes on that article several times, and every times someone remove the changes for untrue reason. I wrote statements and make a references for each one of them. Second, about this issue in Islam, all Muslim scholar in the past and now, agree that "anal sex" is prohibited. So, it doesn't make sense that some are able to publish totally untrue information for some unknown reason or just because he consider it a fact! I don't know to make that happen, but there should be a discussion about the validity of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arabic muslim (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) You inserted content that is against our WP:NPOV policy. Saying "and considered among all Muslims as a grave sin" is not true as not all - every single muslim in the whole wide world - believes that anal sex is a grave sin. Additionally, much of the content you added is against out WP:OR policy. You also remove a lot of content that was properly sourced and valid. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 11:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) This issue here is about wither it is considered in Islam a sin. It not about whether Muslims don't practice it! This main point of this article is "what is the islamic view of anal sex?". This dosen't have to do anything with "what is the muslim think about anal sex?" So, I add a statement at the beginning of that article, and I give two references for it.129.74.162.158 (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Hello You removed my reply to Baseball Bugs on the E. O. talk page. Could you please fix that. Furthermore, please remove the comments made by Moni and Becksguy, as those comments are directly about me (which I find offensive) and have absolutely no business being plastered on that paticular talk page. Ned ac 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Feel free to restore your own comment but do not remove other people's comments as you did - this is against policy. They were discussing your topic ban from that article, so yes, they do have "business" being on that particular page. If you still feel differently, I'd suggest you take the matter to WP:ANI. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I can't restore my comment that you removed with no reason. If I do I will be blocked for 3RR and you very well know that. I'm asking you once again, please restore my reply to Bugs. I have asked you kindly to do so. Ned ac 18:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Restoring your comment is not a reversion so therefore no 3RR violation would be present. However, I have restored your comment as you requested. But now you may get in trouble for the incivility of that comment per WP:CIVIL so good luck. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks. And no my comment was not incivil. Bugs was putting words in my mouth by saying that I was justifying a murder when I never once said that. All I did was defend myself against what I saw as a serious allegation. Ned ac 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Hey I tried to fix this for you. Please, if you're going to add disparaging information about Mississippi, please cite something more substantial than a blog. It seems that the sale of sex toys must have been banned in some particular county in Mississippi, and the author of the blog must have gotten confused. See Fantasy Land in Columbus, MS. Dbb49 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC) State law bans sex toys, not "some particular county". You can read the state law here. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) reliable source reliable source reliable source for said disparaging information. That took me all of 30 seconds on Google. – iridescent 19:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Additionally, go to the Mississippi Secretary of State's web site here, click on the link that says Search the Search the Mississippi Code at Michie's Legal Resources powered by LexisNexis Publishing. When the page loads, click on the folder on the left labeled Mississippi Code of 1972. When it expands, then click on the folder labeled TITLE 97 CRIMES. When that folder expands, click on the folder labeled CHAPTER 29 CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS AND DECENCY. When that folder expands, click on the folder labeled OBSCENE MATERIALS, PERFORMANCES AND DEVICES. When that folder expands, click on the folder labeled § 97-29-105. Distribution or wholesale distribution of unlawful sexual devices; prosecutor's bond. and there you go. State law in your hands. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Look, they dedicate entire web pages to weird, outdated and unenforced state laws. It is also illegal to serve butter substitutes in Wisconsin state prisons[7], but that has no business being on the main Wisconsin Wikipedia page. You have to understand that you are promoting a negative stereotype of Mississippians by spotlighting a single arcane law which is, as far as I can tell, seldom enforced. I have personally witnessed the purchase of vibrators from Fantasy Land in Columbus, MS. That particular business has been running strong for years and pays state taxes on their profits. It took you 30 seconds to Google because it's the sort of thing that people like to spotlight about Mississippi. However, it would take me about thirty minutes to come up with physical proof that it is not enforced. If you would like to make a page for strange laws in Mississippi, feel free to do so. I admit that you were right that it is a state law. I had simply assumed that it is not based on the fact that you can, in fact, buy sex toys in Mississippi. However, you are deliberately conveying a false picture of Mississippi by adding that to Mississippi's main page and implying that the ban is enforced throughout Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbb49 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a tourism commercial, we're not here to present a good side versus bad side, only to present the facts and the fact is that the sale of sex toys in Mississippi is banned by law. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 19:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, but you are presenting facts in a way that imply something that is false. This information is incomplete and conveys an inaccurate picture of Mississippi. Inaccurate. That should be what we're all fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbb49 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Now wait just a minute, both of you. :-) You are both guilty of original research, which is frowned upon. Here's what's up: first, to say it is against the law by looking at state code is not necessarily accurate. What you could say is something akin to "Statute XYZ, enacted in XXXX, outlawed something." That is not the same as "it's illegal". Keep in mind that there are at least two reasons such would be the case: one: the legislature may have passed a new bill that is newer than the cited code, and two: a court may have invalidated the law. It appears that the second case applies here, but that's not the point; what is important to us here on Wikipedia is to only write what can be cited from a reliable source. Now, on to the next bit of original research. To say "yes, it's a law but it's not enforced" is also original research, until and unless that statement can be cited from a reliable source. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I'm not saying it's incorrect, what I'm saying is that you may be able to do something, and a law against it may not be enforced when you do it, but until we get a reliable source to say that it's the opinion of the state that it will not enforce such a law, we can't just say "I did it last week so therefore it's not enforced". My two cents...  Frank  |  talk  20:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC) This one caught my eye, since I was working just downstairs. I did a bit of research and added some sources to the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC) So, just to be clear here where you said we're both guilty of OR.. how am I guilty of OR with this section? The lone sentence said The sale of sex toys is banned in Mississippi. which can't in any way possible be considered OR when there's many sources and a state law that says it. You said "that is not the same thing as it's illegal". Outlaw/illegal isn't the same thing?? The law has yet to be overturned by any federal court or the state legislature and in fact the Mississippi Supreme Court has upheld the law. So yes, the sale of sex toys is outlawed/illegal in Mississippi. I'm fine with Moonriddengirl's rewrite of the section but I wanted to be clear, as a Mississippian, that the law is the law and nothing in the one-sentence version was OR. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) OK, don't get mad about my use of the word "guilty". This is a very subtle point, but it's nevertheless clear. See my note above: the cited statute may read that something is illegal, but that doesn't make it so. For example, note User:iridescent's second link, which says "A federal appeals court has overturned a Texas statute outlawing sex toy sales, essentially leaving Alabama as the only state with such a ban." I'm certain you're familiar with Lawrence v. Texas, which has a similar effect, only it was nationwide, of course. The states that had anti-sodomy laws on the books did not necessarily immediately repeal them, however, the Supreme Court ruling invalidated them just the same. So there may still be laws on the books that ban sodomy (or certain definitions of it), but that doesn't mean it (or certain definitions of it) is necessarily illegal. My weasel words are intentional; I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV; I am aware that different states have different statutes on that matter, and I am NOT certain that all of them are completely invalidated as a result of Lawrence. Nevertheless, the majority were, even if they weren't actually repealed. So, if you look at the state code of any number of Southern states, it may say sodomy is against the law, but SCOTUS says otherwise. This is merely a problem of relying solely on WP:PRIMARY sources, of which state statute is one.  Frank  |  talk  21:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC) As one who wrote an amicus brief for Lawrence v. Texassee here (yes, even the U.S. Supreme Court knew who I was at one time. ha!) I do understand now what you were saying but until the Supreme Court, rather than a lower court, rules such laws unconstitutional/invalid, they still stand and are enforceable. There's a "sex shop" just down the road from me that gets busted every month, and has for so long that the news just stopped reporting it. And FYI, I wasn't mad.. just asking. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 01:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC) You have to admit that the ban is nominal if a particular sex shop can get busted every month and remain in business. Dbb49 (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC) But does that still make a law, not a law? I mean, before you got all riled up over the one factual sentence that was present, it was still law and now that it's been expanded into several sentences, it's still law. Just because your local sex shop in Starkvegas doesn't get hounded by the local cops, doesn't mean the law is null and void. That's all I was saying. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 02:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC) You've got the idea, but it's not just the SCOTUS that this applies to; it's the entire jurisdiction that any appellate court covers. So, a state Supreme Court covers the entire state, even if the law in question was from a different jurisdiction within that state. Similarly, one of the US Circuit Courts (click me; I'm a map) covers an entire circuit. This is why it can be incredibly useful for the SCOTUS to even agree to hear a case; if they don't, the lower court rulings continue to apply, even if they are different from circuit to circuit. That's also why the article mentioned above said that the Texas ruling (toys, not Lawrence) applied to Mississippi (you're apparently OK now) but not Alabama, because Alabama is in a different circuit, while TX and MS are in the same circuit (11th). Now, keep this in mind: I'm not contesting whether or not your local shop gets busted; I'm merely saying that the article referenced above implies that such a law was invalidated by the appellate ruling. Sorta like whether or not they've heard the Civil War is over... Seriously, look into medical cannabis too. That issue is definitely fractured across the country; this is partially because the 9th circuit has its own way of doing things sometimes. Also, check out gay marriage, which is dividing our country as much as anything. Some states explicitly allow it; some have amendments banning it. But there is no federal ruling on it...yet.  Frank  |  talk  02:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)