User talk:Sansvoix

File:Gandhiindia1.jpg respect.

I will only save specific comments (archive them) if the author asks me too. Otherwise into the history! Thanks -Sansvoix. Savedcomments1

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)
Heroes
I don't recall doing anything heroic but thanks for the nice message! James James 06:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Right-To-Work Law Discussion
First, I would like to thank you for not reverting my edit and let me say that I respect your opinion and would like to continue this discussion so that neither of us feels they have "lost". I also agree that the article (and my submission) would be improved if supporting facts were added. I intend to do so in the future.
Where it appears you and I disagree is whether an argument (on either side) should not even be mentioned in a wiki article unless its can be supported by facts and statistics. I simply think that is too high a requirement, especially in the case where its mention is in the section of an article specifically set aside to list pro and con arguments.
I would also like to appeal to your stated concern to better inform readers. I'd make the case that mentioning an argument even without supporting evidence makes a reader better informed than leaving it out entirely. If an argument was either original research (your first objection), or from a "crackpot" source, or obviously false/insincere, I would probably agree -- the argument should not be mentioned. The argument I describe however, is none of those.
As a final appeal, I believe there are many articles in wiki that list pro/con arguments surrounding heated issues where supported evidence is not listed. I think this is a good guideline. Please let me know if you disagree with what I've said. Lawyer2b 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Portuguese Communist Party
Thanks for your stance on the article. I've added the reference you asked for, with a link to the english version of the Party's program. If you think it needs other important references just tell me, I'll be glad to fix it. I agree that the FA statuts may welcome attacks on the article, as the Hugo Chávez article, and others, received, but Wikipedia is also that, it would be a good experience, I think. If you have any other suggestion to make, tell me. Thanks! Afonso Silva 12:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Re: opposed to recycling?
Thank you for your question. I am opposed to recycling only where the cost of recycling is more expensive than the cost of original production, and where it serves no beneficial purpose. For instance, there are an enormous number of warehouses full of crushed, recycled glass, as it is not economically efficient to recycle. What I am in support of is efficiency. If product X can be reclaimed through recycling for a lower cost than original production, and can be sold, then I am in support of that, as more resources would be available for growing the economy and increasing the standard of living. What I am opposed to is the religion of recycling, in which recycling is considered to be an end in and of itself, and items that have no need or demand for being recycled are expensively placed through the recycling process, which generates a lower outcome than would otherwise occur. Just because something is labeled "recycled" does not automatically turn it into a holy object of veneration
MSTCrow 09:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Economics of fascism
LOL!! I'm laughing at the thought of James James going "off the wall". RJII is the kind of editor who is singularly successful at driving people insane. I don't have time tonight, but I'll try to look in tomorrow. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I thought I stayed reasonably close to the wall ;-) James James 00:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial images
Did you make this because people are trying to delete it from my page? LOL!! Well, you made me laugh, so thank you, because I was feeling a bit down about it. They're now trying to delete the user page itself. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request for your input
I saw that you support the wikipedia policy against information suppression. Currently there is a VfD and RfC on an article of a scientific researcher that has made large and verifiable contributions to science and society, at Edward Smith (psychologist). I have verified the findings myself via observation and experimentation, so the findings are clearly real. However, Edward Smith has not been published in any major scientific journal, it is uncertain if he has gone through the official educational system, and even his identity is uncertain. Some people believe that any such subtle-but-important people that lack those social prerequisites can not make major contributions to society, and especially scientific advancement, and that any of their contributions are non-verifiable, period, despite methods of verification being outlined by the discoverer. I am curious what your stance on this matter is. IrreversibleKnowledge 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:The_Little_Prince.jpg on your userpage
... I suppose I would have eventually found the fair use image on your use page at some point in the future, since one of my primary points of involvement is cleaning up fair use abuse on wikipedia (resulting in over 10,000 deleted images). ... But because of the fates it seems, I've found it tonight. On your user page you have a picture of the little prince. This work is copyrighted. It is against US law for the you to have it there. The conditions for permitting fair use (a limited 'break' of copyright law) is discussed in WP:FU, in no case is fair use permitted in a Wikipedia user page (for many reasons, but most importantly because it subjects the Foundation to increased liability without improving the encyclopedia). .... I'm going to remove it now, and I really hope you will leave it out. If you restore it, someone else will remove it. I'm terribly sorry, and I'd be willing to help you find a free image for your page (If I could draw I'd draw you something! Have you any affinity for photographs of locations in Washington DC, USA?). I know you are going to think that my action is retaliation for your comments on my user page, but that is not the case. If you knew me you'd know I am not like that. I'd leave it alone, but now that I've seen it I feel obligated to remove it. Again, I am truly sorry. --Gmaxwell 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am only showing the drawing for non-profit educational purposes, as many are not fimilair with the delightfull book. I am not violating any U.S. copyright law anymore than the encyclopedia page is!--sansvoix 08:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page isn't an encyclopedia article. It's a user page. You're using it as a decoration (and a quite fine one at that), not to educate. Even if it were legal, it's against our policy. --Gmaxwell 08:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm using it to educate, I wouldn't of chosen the picture if I didn't like the book. What policy?--sansvoix 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC says that fair use photos are not allowed to be used on userpages. The image you have on the userpage is licensed under fair use, and because it is, we cannot have it anywhere outside of the article space. Outside of the article space includes userpages, so the image will have to go. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sansvoix. Zach and Gmaxwell are correct here. It's a great picture, but I'm sorry, we don't allow fair use images outside articles. I've deleted it from your userpage. FreplySpang (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you and I'm sorry you lost your image for defending me. I've removed mine from my page in sympathy. No fun allowed, it seems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, no loss. Too bad that we got WP:FUC'd over, the "don't sue us we're trying" approach to copyright infringment here is.. cute. I still think Wikipedia should just register in Vanuatu and froget the issue.--sansvoix 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
For finding another image. I'm sorry this happened under difficult circumstances. --Gmaxwell 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! The "fair use" image is still located many times in my history. If I was breaking U.S. copyright law, wouldn't it have to be removed from there as well? I am sure from a letigious perspective, there would be no difference between my current userpage, to the archived ones easily accessible in the history.--sansvoix 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RFM
Do you still request mediation? Redwolf24 (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Economics of fascism
As I've said on the talk page, I basically want to Assume good faith. Fascist staes did have a political economy, and some libertarian types do pretend fascism is socialism is communism; that needs to be in the article, but I agree it needs a lot of work, and I'll try to keep an eye on it! The Land 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ping
I've posted a reply to you on my talk page. I would really like it if you could reply promptly. Feel free to remove this notice once you've seen it. --Gmaxwell 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) -responded on your talk page--sansvoix 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) again.--Gmaxwell 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"fair use" little prince/businessman
Sorry, I assumed that the earlier discussion was about the businessman picture. Both pictures, the Little Prince and the Businessman, are copyrighted, and we don't have permission to redistribute them on the Web. It's okay (according to "fair use") to use them to illustrate an article about The Little Prince, but not for any other purpose. In order to avoid a long drawn-out process of evaluating the educational qualities of every user page, Wikipedia has a blanket policy forbidding the use of copyrighted images like these on user pages. FreplySpang (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever, but a clear violation of a copyright policy that wikipedia takes very seriously. You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:FU #Fair User Policy. Don't do it again. --Doc ^ask? 02:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That image isn't copyrighted per canadian copyright law. I wouldn't of uploaded it if it was! Why are you banning me? Is this retaliation for something I did? "According to section 6 of the Act the copyright of a work lasts the life of the author plus 50 years from the end of the calendar year of death." The author died in 1944.
I must protest this, I know I don't have any rights at wikipedia, but I feel this is really excessive!--sansvoix 02:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:FU #fair use policy. I'm going to bed now, but if you post here saying that you have read it, and (whether you agree with it or not) you are willing to comply fully with it (and not try to circumvent it in any way) I may unblock you before the 24 hours are up. Or another admin may do so if they read this. --Doc ^ask? 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat it again: The image is NOT copyrighted per canadian copyright law. "According to section 6 of the Act the copyright of a work lasts the life of the author plus 50 years from the end of the calendar year of death." The author died in 1944. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry I uploaded the image, put it in the little prince article and on my userpage because I want people to read that book. Next thing I know, someone puts a fair use banner on it, and then bans me from editing wikipedia. I have made an effort to always edit in a positive and cooperative manner, and in return I get chastised and talked to as if I were a child. --sansvoix 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) P.S. You reverted my userpage to one with an actual "free use" image, Bluebonnetfield.jpg, which of course, was from before I was polietly informed about the WP:FUC.[reply]
Canadian Law is irrelevant, indeed all law is irrelevant here now. Wikipedia has a FU policy, whith which all editors must comply if they wish to use this site - whatever their individual interpretation of the law. Since you are indicating you do not accept this wikipedia policy, I am considering blocking you indefinately. Please indicate that you will follow policy. --Doc ^ask? 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the image is wrongly tagged (I take no view) - but you cannot use images tagged as FU. If you indicate that you will not use images so tagged - I will unblock you and you can then discuss the tag with those concerned. --Doc ^ask? 10:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that this user has gone from arguing law [2] to professing complete ignorance [3] and back again [4]. At the same time, the position that the work isn't copyrighted is very interesting (since it might be correct, unlike other such claims) and I wish it were brought up before the user insisted on putting it on the user page. If indeed the books are now public domain, we shouldn't be arguing about if we can put them on a user page or not, we should be scanning them and putting them into Wikisource! I suspect, however, that we'll probably find out that the copyright was sold to some US corp and is thus still binding. --Gmaxwell 14:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the translated text still appears to be copyrighted in any case, so that kills my idea of scanning it and putting it into Wikisource. --Gmaxwell 14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So long
I have unfortunatly decided that wikipedia is taking up too much of my time, and too much of my time on wikipedia results in a negative experience, although I have tried my best to remain as positive and cooperative as possible. I hope that my (half a) proposal on Talk:World War II is looked into, and someone figures out what to do with the sourced propaganda article Economics of fascism.--sansvoix 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would urge you not to give up - too many good users have been bullied into leaving by relentless POV-pushers and propagandists. A wikibreak might help, but the trick to stamping out propaganda is to be persistent and keep coming back... And, by the way, after you've been trying to reason with a user for a long time and got nowhere, you shouldn't assume good faith any more. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sansvoix, I've unblocked you and I hope no one will restore it. It would be best not to re-add any fair-use images to your page in the meantime, although you can try to dispute that status if you feel it's inappropriate. Doc Glasgow has told me that his involvement is not connected to Gmaxwell (who doesn't appear to be an admin, by the way). Doc Glasgow is a very good admin who is generally very fair and whose judgment I trust. I think if you cooperate with him, things will turn out well for you. I hope you won't leave over this, though I know exactly how you feel. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No no, this isn't why I left, if anything it was just a nail in the coffin. I am sure Doc Glasgow is a great admin, and I can appreciate his conviction to bring Wikipedia up to certain standards. What my concern here was with other (ie: some not admin) editors. It is unfortunate for me, but my areas of interest here were largly dealing with socio-economic topics, and for some reason the majority of the editors I have had to deal with are adamant "anarcho-capitalists" or have some other fundementalist black-or-white belief, and editied and reverted with an eye to ideology and rhetoric, rather than reality (historical relationships, precedents, statistics, etc). Thank you for your understanding, and keep up your positive effort here!--sansvoix 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]