User talk:Jnavas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my Talk page. To communicate with me, please use the + tab or click here to create a new section, then give it a descriptive subject/headline, and please sign all posts with --~~~~

Thanks! --John Navas 00:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

1 MfD Result Notice
2 Zamazaan (racing sailboat)
3 3RR warning on Compact Disc
4 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CDVlogo.svg
5 Just a Poor Misguided Twit Commenting on Your Talkpage
6 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDETlogo.svg)
7 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDGTlogo.svg)
8 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDHCR.svg)
9 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDMIlogo.svg)
10 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDMSRlogo.svg)
11 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRAlogo.svg)
12 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRRWAlogo.svg)
13 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRRWlogo.svg)
14 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRWAlogo.svg)
15 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDUSPRWlogo.svg)
16 Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDUSRWlogo.svg)
17 AN/I note opened on you
18 CD Video ! ?

[edit] MfD Result Notice

Hi,

The MfD discussion on your user subpage has closed as keep. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --John Navas 18:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zamazaan (racing sailboat)

No offense meant there, was clearing out the backlog at CAT:CSD after someone else nominated this page for speedy deletion as being empty. Pages speedily deleted under that context are without any prejudice for recreation. Unfortunately, we get tons of empty pages created by others (even well-meaning editors) that never get content added to them beyond a few words, a tag, or something like "coming soon" that deletion is just the best step. I've gone back and restored the history if you are interested in it. Thank you and happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just remembered, we have the {{inuse}} template that is even better then "coming soon" that you can use as well. See the template documentation for parameters. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --John Navas 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning on Compact Disc

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Compact Disc. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 09:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I could easily say the same about you (for your immediate deletions without prior discussion, the pot calling the kettle black), but ad hominen has no place here (and I don't take kindly to such threats). Do you have a substantive comment, any real disagreement with I've recently written, or are you just attacking me personally? --John Navas 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an attack. It is, in fact, a standard template used to inform people that there is both A) a limit to how many reverts they can perform on an article, and B) a possibility that they may have exceeded that limit. In your case, you have exceeded that limit. Given your relatively low edit count, I assumed a lack of experience on your part meant that you weren't fully apprised of this conduct policy. I would hope that you are now suitably informed. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the disparagement in your assumption speaks for itself. --John Navas 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you were already familiar with 3RR, why did you perform more than three reverts within a 24 hour period? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I could ask the same question of you, but since you don't have a substantive response to the real issue, I'm not going to respond further. --John Navas 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's simple enough: reverts which remove clear violations of copyright or non-free content policies don't count for 3RR. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

They aren't violations, as I've clearly explained, so that rationale doesn't apply, and thus the 3RR does apply. You really can't have it both ways (short of presuming absolute correctness on your own part). --John Navas 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't use logos for the purposes of identification when that which is to be identified is not in the article. It's that simple. It seems that everybody currently involved in this issue understands this except you. As for this special plea, can I just point out to you that none of this would have happened had you simply added whatever further content you thought was needed before adding the images. No one wants to stop you from the kind of rewrite you've outlined. We just want you to stop adding images that can't yet be used. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is in the article, as I've repeatedly explained. Please inform yourself before making simplistic judgments. This is boiling down to refusing to admit you might be wrong, and persisting in making a reasonable outcome more difficult. Again, I refer you to WP:DR. --John Navas 20:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CDVlogo.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:CDVlogo.svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved disputed fair use rationale by providing link to article. --John Navas 01:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a Poor Misguided Twit Commenting on Your Talkpage

Heh, bet you thought that was going to be an insult, right? Nah, self-description is more my bent. XD

Seriously, though, I didn't mean anything personal by:

Holy Christ, this is how I get to see Wikipedia after a loooooong hiatus? So, funny story, I walk into the Compact Disc article - where, incidentally, nobody can agree on the capitalisation - and find out other editors are no longer welcome there because somebody decided he'd throw WP:OWN out the bloody window! For the love of God, please John - get some distance from this article, and a little perspective can't hurt either - the notion that you're being persecuted for your valiant contributions gets beyond the point of ridicule after a while. Really, I know I'm stepping into the middle of a huge firestorm here, but I think how you reply to this comment will make your intent known. Speak carefully. Orethrius 15:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [Copied from Talk:Compact Disc#The logos need to go]

but I think what I said is - in some grossly exaggerated form - nonetheless valid. Perhaps, if you're feeling that others are "ganging up" on you, you should distance yourself from them and see whether your fears are confirmed or allayed? I realise that there's not much sense leaving vandalism to chance, but I don't think the edits taking place there are occurring strictly to spite you. Perhaps, by the very nature of your contributions, you are too close to the issue, and don't see the technical merit of what other editors are doing there? Just a thought, but I think it'd go a long way towards resolving that particular conflict. --Orethrius 16:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you take the time to check the long history of this issue, you'll see that I've responded to all of the actual points that have been made along the way, spending a great deal of time and effort revising my contributions, doing my best to resolve any and all conflict. All of that was summarily rejected by two individuals with a long history in this issue. No new technical points were raised. No substantive comments were made, much less anything constructive. I think that speaks for itself.

In the future, if you wish to give me advice, this (and only this) is the proper place. Your lecture and gratuitous advice on the Article Talk page was not only personal, but also inappropriate and unbalanced.

--John Navas (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's to my understanding that you're alone on this issue, not the subject of inordinate interest by just two individuals. I've hardly spent any significant time around the project recently, and this common attitude that one can do no wrong is precisely why! If a majority of editors revert your changes, whether you believe them to be correct or not, then perhaps you need to gain some perspective on the matter. Thus far, the only thing you have done is complain that things aren't being done your way. I'm not the least bit afraid to tell you to piss off if you're just going to cause more undue strife that - quite honestly - this project doesn't need. I don't mind the WP:CIVIL mud you'll be slinging my way, either. Orethrius (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You should do more thorough investigation before presuming to lecture me further. And you'll need to cut out the disrespect and discourtesy if you want me to take you seriously. (It was you that publicly jumped on me, not vice versa.) But it really doesn't matter, because I'm not going to waste any more time here.

I used to be something of a fan of Wikimedia in general and Wikipedia in particular, albeit somewhat skeptical, thinking criticism in The Register to be a bit over the top, but now I've come to the conclusion that The Register is actually pretty much right on -- there's way too much arrogance, parochialism and disrespect here -- so much for "community". I'm now done here, just as with Wikibooks before it -- the petty tyrants have succeeded in driving away yet another voice and contributor. I'll now invest my time and energy in more receptive and constructive forums, perhaps even KNOL. --John Navas (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What I do when is not any of your concern. Incidentally, I posited that first comment as an admittedly poor attempt at a semi-serious icebreaker - your reaction to it only proves that you're WAY too close to the subject at-hand. I sincerely doubt that Google will be any more receptive to your belligerence than anyone here, but if you're going to "hold that over our heads" then I can only wish you the best of luck.

Oh, then the petty lecture on how THE ENTIRE PROJECT is flawed, but YOU can do no wrong! It's too much! XD Do you know how arrogance is bred? Do you? It happens when the ignorance of a core group of individuals becomes too much to bear. As they say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Parochialism? You better believe it. Look up U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Subsections 106, 106A, and 107 some time. NFCC (#3 and #8 in particular) were developed strictly because of legal ambiguities in that code. Why the United States, you may ask? That's simple - Wikimedia servers are located in the U.S. - not Berlin, Vladivostok, or Timbuktu. As far as "respect" goes, you're ALSO correct: you'll find none for someone who continually and unilaterally violates consensus to push his own views on the legal system forward. In that regard and that regard only, you're not so much a contributor as you are an overdramatic parasite, and I - for one - won't miss you. Orethrius (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your childish ranting and name calling have earned you a coveted place in my twit filter. Congratuations. I was pretty sure you were part of the problem here from the beginning, and you've now confirmed it. --John Navas (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Name-calling? Ranting? Okay, you seem to think your - frankly sanctimonious - position is warranted, so I'll take my parting shot too! BYE NOW! Don't feel pressed to stick around on my account! Orethrius (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for again proving my point. --John Navas (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I got your point a looooong time ago. I must admit, however, that I find it disturbing that you'd commit to remaining somewhere that - you seem to be convinced - is dead-set against you. Bye now! Orethrius (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

How childish and hypocritical. But par for the course from all too many self-anointed uber-Wikipedians. Truly a shame. --John Navas (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to leave this alone, I really have - but ignorance of the law is no excuse. You took the time out of your busy schedule to continually insert content that's in blatant violation of the Non-Free Content Criteria. I understand - believe it or not - that you may have differing opinions to those of the Wikimedia Foundation on what, exactly, constitutes copyright and/or trademark violation. That doesn't really matter, though - the second you registered an account here, you agreed to whatever policies they set. Those self-same policies are rooted in a matter of U.S. domestic policy that - aside from being non-negotiable - is incredibly sensitive. The fact that "everyone is against you" - yet you seem to be the only one dead-set against me and what I'm saying - surely proves your point that *I'm a hypocritical child*. The simple issue at-hand here is that you agreed to legal standards that you have no intention of upholding, so you'll have to excuse me when I get pissed off at your sanctimony. Your claim of innocence throughout, with no intent of backing down, certainly proves your point that this project needs you. The fact that you'd explain away someone's notion that what you're doing basically amounts to thievery as "name-calling" (by the way, the legal term is "defamation of character", should you care to use that tired line), though, rather than attempting to legitimise your own stance speaks volumes about the depth of your character. Saying someone's a thief only qualifies as defamation when it's not true (would you like me to cite case law for that now, too, or are you going to abide by the legal system and/or leave me alone?). Orethrius (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My response:

This issue is closed, dead and buried.
Dredging it up again supports my assessment that this is personal.
I did not violate any law.
I did not violate any guidelines.
I'm guessing you don't speak for the Wikipedia Foundation.
Don't put words in my mouth -- I've never said "everyone is against me".
I see this as hypocritical name-calling.

You've got what you wanted, and you've now had your rant, so give it a rest. --John Navas (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Same to you, sweetheart. Have fun with the other "nutjobs" on this site - I'm probably one of the saner ones you'll come across (meaningful glance at the bottom of this page). Felt good to finally say that. :) Bye, and don't forget WP:SPIDER! Orethrius (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDETlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDETlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed 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 "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDGTlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDGTlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDHCR.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDHCR.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDMIlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDMIlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDMSRlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDMSRlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRAlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDRAlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRRWAlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDRRWAlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRRWlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDRRWlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDRWAlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDRWAlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDUSPRWlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDUSPRWlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:CDUSRWlogo.svg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CDUSRWlogo.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

[edit] AN/I note opened on you

Don't shoot the messenger, I just figured you might like to see this. It seems to me like they really ARE out to get you. Orethrius (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't making it up and I wasn't exaggerating. As I wrote, I invested a huge amount of time trying to respond to objections, only to finally come to the conclusion that minds were closed, that it didn't matter what I did. I predicted to myself what would happen if I responded further on the issue, and the subsequent response was even more swift and vehement than I had predicted.

[edit] CD Video ! ?

As will become blatantly apparent I am extremely "green" regarding computer/video/audio matters.

However, I have several "CD Video" discs and read the wikipedia reference in the hope I would find a way of playing the said discs sometime before the next century. Unfortunately there was no reference to how to play such discs.

Does anyone know if there is a way to play the discs on computers?

Regards,

(In hope)

Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.253.21 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To play Video CD (VCD):

VLC media player (free) will play almost anything.
If running Microsoft Windows, bundled Windows Media Player will work.

--John Navas (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)