User talk:Ianmacm

File:Fulla in box.jpg

This file is currently the subject of a deletion discussion at Wikimedia Commons, Please contact that project URGENTLY if you do not want the image deleted. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bear in mind that 2008 is over a year ago, before recent events prompted a review of

previous transfers.

Something you could do to help is dig out the original mail that you got about the image that you mention in the description. Also was an OTRS filed on it by them?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A photograph showing what Fulla looks like is fair use in Fulla (doll) and Barbie for identification and critical commentary. The photograph is not copyrighted, but the doll itself is. If the photo is considered unsuitable for Commons, fine, but it will be used in these articles with a fair use tag.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Buntstifte 01 KMJ vertical.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)

If needed I can try and track down a dewp admin to assist. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a vertical version of the German Commons image at [1]. It is GNU, and was going to be in Color, but is not currently used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll try and a dewp admin to help me with this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no real problem here, as the image is GNU and is not being used in the English language Wikipedia. It could be deleted, as the current lead picture in Color is File:Colouring pencils.jpg, which is a featured picture.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment censoring in YouTube

The objectionable-word hiding-unhiding option I talk about shows up on the video's page that everybody sees (htp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=###########) just above the comments list, not on the uploader's video-edit page (http://www.youtube.com/my_videos_edit?ns=1&video_id=###########). Jedi787plus (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, found it. I was getting confused here, because this option does not show up unless a drop down box is clicked.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Edits

Once again, there are MANY videos on YouTube that are 3D. I have told you this as well as at least one other editor, yet you ignore it. 3D is definitely an old technology however that has nothing to do with the argument, so I don't know why you bring it up. Before you correct somebody's edits, you should know what you're doing and what you're talking about (especially when citing policies).

Since I have added the section back into the article while abiding by Wikipedia policy and with the support of other, more experienced editors, this argument is now over. As a means to avoid going around in circles I am going to not tell you to not contact me again. RyanGFilm (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS if you are new here. All edits are subject to review by other users, and should be discussed if differences of opinion arise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If you revert my edit one more time I will file a 3RR report against you. I have added the information and kept it Wikipedia compliant. Other, more experienced editors have shown you your errors in judgment and interpretation of the policies. You are editing based on opinion and not policy (of which you're trying to twist in your favor). I have gotten a moderator involved and he ruled in my favor. If I file a 3RR report against you, the chances of them ruling in my favor are great since I, as well as other users have discussed this issue with you and pointed out that you are wrong in your revert edits. You have been warned and will not receive another one. RyanGFilm (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please let's have a sense of perspective here. I have deliberately avoided a WP:3RR situation because I wanted so see what other users said about this issue on the YouTube talk page. Let's also look at what User:Bignole actually said. He did not breach WP:CIVIL by describing me as an "inexperienced editor", but pointed out that the information about the 3D videos was worth a mention in the article and I agree. What I do not agree with is a long explanation of the technique that is best explored through an external link. Putting back exactly the same material each time looks like WP:OWN. As the guidelines say, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Steorn

Mr. MacDonald, the Irish Times [2] reports that you are a associated with the University of Alberta Canada as a emeritus professor of electrical engineering I have been unable to find an such person associated with the engineering department. Would you be so kind and provide a link to U of A demonstrating your association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.61.224 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

A case of mistaken identity here. I am not Ian MacDonald at [3] and live in the UK, not Canada. I am also not a professor of electrical engineering or anything else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your quick reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 18:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube GA on hold

Looks like we have work to do. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting the article back to GA status has been one of my wishes for some time. There is nothing badly wrong at the moment, and reviews sometimes cause relatively minor problems to be turned into a big issue. I'll have a look at the issues raised.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson (WP:NPOV)

I don't know where you get that what I said is in blatant WP:NPOV violation... I was just elaborating on what someone else added and then just summarizing what is ALREADY posted in the article! If you say that what I said is NPOV, then check out the section about the abuse cases, especially the first one... 1993. It basically says the same thing I said! Someone else had added... the singer cited monetary interest of some of parents and persecution out of vengeance. This did not sound grammatically correct... however it is a statement he did say at one time. Again, if you think what I said, was an NPOV violation, then what is said in the 1993 Child Abuse case should also be considered to be NPOV too! What I said, is TRUE and was just a summary of what is said in the other section below. There's more redunancy in the article too! Someone really should take a real good look at the whole article and consider revising to where it's NOT as repetitive and it's more grammatically correct... there's ALOT of inconsistency in the article that needs to be looked at and scrutinized with a fine tooth comb to be sure it follows ALL of your rules/guidelines and is set a better style than it is currently in! Again, I was just summarizing what was already posted and what I know is true and have seen in the news in the past about the investigation, etc. Maybe it wasn't appropriate for the lead? But is the rest of it really appropriate for the lead, especially since it's mentioned in more detail later? What is supposed to be in a lead? I don't understand how things can be posted by some users and it stays, but, yet, when I post something, it's considered inappropriate, etc. I give up!!! What's the use? I guess I am not Wikipedian material! NiteHacker (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, Michael Jackson is a Featured Article, and one of the requirements is article stability. There have been too many changes to the lead recently, many of them poorly thought out and in violation of WP:LEAD. Although the wording is firm, I stand by the claim that this edit has blatant WP:NPOV issues. It is essentially a pro-Jackson commentary, and is unencyclopedic in tone.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back

Ping. — Please comment R² 00:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Barbie doll modern.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Barbie doll modern.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Black Kite 01:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I hardly think that changing a completely incorrect cc-by-sa tag to the correct fair-use one is picky, but I'd just point out that not having a correctly formatted rationale will just mean that one of the NF bots will come back, tag the image again, and nag you again. But because I had a spare 15 seconds, I did it for you :) Black Kite 09:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually I write image tags and rationales in plain text rather than using templates. Thanks for the edit. While editing Barbie, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that the images do not fail WP:NFCC.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I think most of the images are fine - as far as I am aware the images of pre-1977 Barbies are not non-free anyway (though I stand to be corrected on that). I find it's easier to use {{Non-free use rationale}} for non-free images just from an easy-to-read standpoint (and of course WP:NFCC#10c). Black Kite 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your an expert

You've done a consistent great job on the Michael Jackson page. I was wondering if you could give your insightful opinion on List of Honorific titles in popular music page, and on to this page .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_honorific_titles_in_popular_music_(2nd_nomination). Thank You very much. ITalkTheTruth (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Big Country

Hi, I appreciate your good intentions when you recently reverted my edit on The Big Country, and thanks for the link to WP:YOUTUBE. I looked at that reference and noted the following excerpt,

Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis.

The subject video of the opening credits of The Big Country, with that great music, has been on YouTube for two years. So it seems that YouTube and the copyright owner don't object to it being there, since otherwise it would have been deleted in the last two years. Perhaps this is a case where a link to a Youtube video should be allowed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright fusspot, and simply pointed out that links to clips from films and tv shows on YouTube are often copyright violations. The reason why this video has been on YouTube for two years is that the copyright holder probably does not know that it exists, which is unsurprising with millions of videos to check. On a broader note, there is a WP:EL issue here, because Wikipedia articles about films do not normally give links to trailers etc. These are best approached through a separate Google search.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Re "The reason why this video has been on YouTube for two years is that the copyright holder probably does not know that it exists, which is unsurprising with millions of videos to check." - Oh I wish that were true (LOL) , but unfortunately I've seen too many of my favorite videos deleted in much shorter time than two years. The Big Country is a major picture by a major company, United Artists, and I expect they would be on top of copyright infringement if they wanted to.

BTW, you may already know this, but YouTube has a tool for copyright holders.

The Content Identification tool is the latest device from YouTube, allowing copyright holders to identify and manage their content easily on YouTube. The tool creates ID files which are then run against user uploads and, if a match occurs, the copyright holder's policy preferences are then applied to that video. Rights owners can choose to block, track or monetise their content.[4]

The beta version of the Content Identification Tool came out in 2007.[5]

2) Re "On a broader note, there is a WP:EL issue here, because Wikipedia articles about films do not normally give links to trailers etc." - Thanks for that info but could you help me out by directing me to the part of that reference that discusses that?

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, my belief is that YouTube's Video ID tool concentrates mainly on pop videos, recent tv shows and films. Personally I don't have any objection to this link, but other users may remove it if they see that it is an unauthorized clip from the film. Since the music from The Big Country is important part of the film, there is an audio clip in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Re "Thanks, my belief is that YouTube's Video ID tool concentrates mainly on pop videos, recent tv shows and films." - This seems to support keeping the link in, since it is part of a film.

2) Re "Personally I don't have any objection to this link" - Thanks.

3) Re "but other users may remove it if they see that it is an unauthorized clip from the film." - That is a possibility, and I would feel they would do it with the same good intentions that you had.

4) Re "Since the music from The Big Country is important part of the film, there is an audio clip in the article." - The editor who put it in did good work, and apparently was able to get the copyrighted material into Wikipedia. The external link to the opening credits with the music, would be a nice complement to the audio clip for those who want to hear and see more, and it would take up little space in the wiki, since it would be only a link in the external links section.

With the advent of the Content Identification tool, it may now be acceptable to modify the guideline WP:YOUTUBE to make it easier to get links, just links, to more copyrighted YouTube videos into Wikipedia. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some editors are very strict about YouTube and see it as a dumping ground for all manner of copyright violations. Since Wikipedia is a non-profit organization, any copyrighted material quoted in an article needs a properly written fair use rationale. This is difficult with YouTube videos, since they are hosted off site. Suggestions for changes to WP:YOUTUBE would require a consensus, and could be raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion, info, and advice. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

elvis being treated diffently to the beatles and michael jackson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson michael jackson wikipedia page it says he has estimated sales between 350 million and 750 million records worldwide i agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles The Beatles sold between 600 million and one billion records internationally I agree with this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis it say He is one of the best-selling solo artists in the history of music, selling over one billion records worldwide

that is wrong so change it since both michael jackson and the beatles pages have been changed like we said we will give each of these artist the same treatment

Im just saying that relible sources such as emi (beatles 1 billion) and sony (michael jackson 750 million) that are saying that they have sold this much

but elvis sales remian at over 1 billion even though their are much more reliable soruces for both the beatles and michael jackson which claim they have sold that amount—Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See the talk page comments. Nobody knows exactly how many records Michael Jackson sold, let alone how many he sold compared to Elvis Presley and the Beatles. All that we have learned at Wikipedia in the last few weeks is what an inexact area this is. Many of the figures quoted in the media contain a large amount of speculation and guesswork. The current wording in Michael Jackson on record sales represents WP:CONSENSUS, and is unlikely to be changed for fear of setting off a fresh round of edit wars.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Im just saying we should change elvis presley wikipedia page from over 1 billion to claimed sales of 1 billion or estimated sales between 300 million and 1 billion http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/1760014.stm http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=30-years-after-his-death-why-elvis-aaron-presley-is-still-the-king-uh-huh-huh&method=full&objectid=19639018&siteid=66633-name_page.html

like we done for both michael jackson and the beatles

Michael Jackson (Article Size)

Ok im not happy with the progress of this issue. When i tagged the article several weeks ago yourself and several other users engaged in discussion and removed the tags for splitting/reducing size having agreed that would be a good move forward. However progress is excrutiatingly slow and if anything the article appears to be growing in size. It was against my better judgement to remove the tags as they would have encouraged people to debate the size of the article and maybe something would have got done. I am turning to urself as a large contributor to the main article to help me take a lead on the issue and help reach a consensus about what is the best way forward. Debates like this are much more important than say the debate over the number of record sales because if the situation continues there users might find that it takes so long to load the article that they never get to read the number of sales anyway. I don't think people have ever gone through the article before and remove fan cruft and other duplicated information. now certainly seems the time. aslo see the active dicussion on Michael Jackson's talk page, i have left further comments/suggestions there...(Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Personally I don't like leaving tags in the lead section of articles for any length of time; they are best used as a temporary measure. What has happened is that since Michael Jackson's death there has been a surge of interest, and far more people than usual have read and edited the article. This has led to some fancruft and the article is now too long. Until things quieten down in the media (which has taken longer than expected) it may be difficult to reduce the article length substantially without setting off edit wars.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Zimmer buggles.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Zimmer buggles.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Zimmer buggles.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zimmer buggles.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

Hi, I saw u made this edit, strictly speaking China include two countries: People's Republic of China and Republic of China. Although in daily speech, when people say China they may be likely referring to People's Republic of China; much like if someone says "I am watching Korean TV drama", he/she is likely referring to South Korea tv drama (since North Korea does not export any TV drama). But we all know that, strictly speaking, Korea does not means South Korea. The similar concept applies to China. I know the reference didn't specific which China blocked Youtube, but we all know that Republic of China didn't, People's Republic of China did, and the reference is referring to PRC. That's why there is need to clarify the link. Da Vynci (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Referencing YouTube

I've seen youtube videos linked and I believe I have seen them refenced in cases where they were very pertinant such as number of views of the Evolution of Dance video. So, what is the scoop on referencing youtube, or perhaps, some other, more strict video hosting sites, such as how to sites with pro submitted material; what is hte name of that one...192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, eHow.com was the pro submitted one I was thinking of. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the question is, but the charts are in Social impact of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I refence a YouTube video. Say an article was on a product and there was a video strictly dedcicated to that product in a technical, non advertising way. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, Wikipedia is not keen on YouTube videos as links or citations, see WP:YOUTUBE. It is best to stick to text based material from reliable sources as far as possible. Also, other users may remove links if they think that any advertising spin is involved.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

lol love the personification of Wikipedia; it is not keen; of course any content that is

• A advertising/spam
• B in violation of any copyright such as with the uploader or just the video
• C not entirely pertainant

would not be appropriate, but I said objectionable as in technical and non-biased. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure what you have in mind here, as you may know already, YouTube links are often removed on sight by some editors. Is there a specific link that you had in mind?

Yeah, a video I plan on making about a specific thing to use as a reference for that thing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Archimedes greece 1983.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Archimedes greece 1983.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As your stamp image was tagged as being unacceptable, you might like to offer an opinion about changing their guidelines for stamps such as yours which would be considered commemorative stamps. Any opinions on this issue could be very helpful: It's discussed here.]--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

JANET!

The article is on the main page today. Would you mind keeping an eye out for vandalism? The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 09:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that, thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

CARTOONS

YOU SHOULD BE ASKING TO REMOVE THE BLASPHEMOUS CARTOONS INSTEAD OF SUGGESTING A NAME CHANGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me umar 91 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

See the reply at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A'ight

Youtube just made some significant changes-the details: Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

omg how'd you get the picture of you to pop in on your page? Daniel Christensen (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The peek is created by adding the code {User:Krimpet/peek} to the edit field of the page. To make this work, add the same brackets at the start and finish so that there are four brackets in all.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Search suggestion

What does it take for your name to become a search suggestion when you start to type it in? Because ever since the other day when I brought up the loading bar thing and the @ comment thing; my user name has been a suggestion. Start typing in 1danielchristensen; when you get to the 1dan it's there and by 1dani it's the only one. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC) User:Daniel Christensen

This is refering to youtube. but google too. User:Daniel Christensen

I have to admit to a certain amount of ignorance here. Usually search suggestions are coming from within the browser software, and it may be possible to clear the cache by deleting private information such as the history. It is also possible to turn off search suggestions in Google, see [6] for a page about this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No; it is not that; it's not a "history search", I know all about that;go type in 1dan and you will see it, too. Daniel Christensen (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I managed to get 1danielchristensen in YouTube but not Google. Possibly try this on other computers (eg library, Internet cafe). If Google or YouTube are suggesting these searches themselves, there may not be a lot that you can do about it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude it's not suggested anymore; how could that be? Did you do something? Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Walter Sedlmayr

Two things:

1. Sourcing is not the problem, relevance is. I could probably find a reliable source to support the statement that Bichon Frise hair bears a closer resemblence to sheep's wool than other dog furs. I might struggle to justify including this in the article on PeTA.
2. You do not get to make edits like this when you've left a message like this. It's hypocritical.

81.111.114.131 (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See [7].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please respect WP:CONSENSUS on this issue. The English language Wikipedia is not going to play straight into Wolfgang Werlé's hands by removing reliably sourced information about him. Wikipedia content is hosted under State of Florida law, and is not subject to German law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing the two issues of the mention of his name and the subsequent lawsuit. I am not removing his name, or the brief mention of the lawsuit from the article. There is no consensus to support your hanging the lawsuit story on Sedlmayr's biography. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have gone to great lengths to listen to your concerns on this issue. Like Virgin Killer, it cannot be swept under the carpet because it has received reliable coverage in secondary sources. I've agreed that Wolfgang Werlé is not worth a separate article, but this affair cannot be removed entirely from the English language Wikpedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dumb suggestion

When you type in 1dan this user http://www.youtube.com/user/1DanielaCarla#p/u is suggeted and they have extrememly little recognition. Much less than even I have. She has 2 subscribers, 24 videos and less than 100 channel views. Somethings messed up. Daniel Christensen (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

GPG

It seems like you should just point to a key server for your key. Y'know, just look for an ID, like BCCB1E27317262D2 (or in your case CE554D0858E75134). It's shorter than a URL even.  :-) FWIW, I exported yours, if it wasn't already there. It's kinda pathetic that my keychain has all of 22 keys in it (including yours)... all my correspondents should just generate and use them (I don't know that no one else I write to has one, but those are everyone who has indicated it specifically. LotLE×talk 09:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lulu, I know it's a bit weird not to have the public key on a keyserver. There are a couple of reasons for this: a) I hardly ever send or receive PGP mail, and the public key is given mainly to secure my identity on Wikipedia. b) since the file is on box.net, it notifies me by e-mail when someone downloads it. This is fun, because it shows if anyone is interested in the key. It does get downloaded occasionally, but not very often.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

LAST WARNING

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at youtube, you will be blocked from editing.